This is What Einstein Actually Did.
Henri Wilson
result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
'contractions were observational rather than physical.
The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
what Einstein believed in himself.
For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as being
'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become real
physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute reference
frame".
There are no other answers.
Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET concepts.
Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either novel
or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
dda1
Henri Wilson The Envious Imbecile wrote:
<snipped>
And you are a stinking cunt. Dismissed.
Bill Hobba
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:bp5u929ssf9npss2i...@4ax.com...
> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX
> null
> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still
> taken
> as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official
> verdict.
Sure plus tons of other stuff you don't bother to mention as explained by
Tom in:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838A838.81CE8090%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
As usual your logic is attorciaious.
> Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become
> real
> physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute
> reference
> frame".
>
> There are no other answers.
> Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET
> concepts.
>
> Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser
Yea right - the verdict on you however is far more certain - and it is not
flattering.
Bill
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
This will be amusing, I gurantee it.
Henri has no understanding of relativity or the history of physics, so
anything he says on the matter will always be wrong and will probably
be funny as hell.
> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
> as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
Notice Henri still doesn't understand that LET and SR are
mathematically equivalent.
>
> It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
> it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
> MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
Here we go. Henri now starts to babble about one-way light speed even
though one way light speed is the same as two way light speed in LET
and SR.
>
> Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
> with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
> didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
> outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
> correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
Now Henri starts to mangle the development of relativity because he
doesn't understand how or why it was developed.
Einstein didn't develop SR based on "constant measured OWLS", no matter
how many times Henri asserts that he did. Henri also foolishly believes
his Galilean method of synchornization (as best as I can tell, Henri
never actually says anything concrete about his theory) is the same as
the SR/LET version. Which is asinine because his "Ballistic" theory is
Galileian with absolute time which is manifestly different from special
relativity.
>
> Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
> mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
> 'contractions were observational rather than physical.
Of course Henri can't actually support this wild supposition about how
Einstein developed SR. Henri also seems to not understand exactly what
the contractions in SR mean, which is par for the course.
>
> The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
> real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
> of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
> what Einstein believed in himself.
Fascinating!
Time and again folks on this newsgroup have shown how SR accurately
represents reality, and Henri's only argument is that the experiments
were faked. When I have asked Henri to do some experiments himself, he
refuses.
I am also extremely amused that Henri asserts Einstein believed in an
aether, even though it is documented that Einstein did NOT believe in
the aether. Then again, facts never really did mean much to Henri.
>
> For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as being
> 'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
> APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
> through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
> AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
The cognitive dissonance required to maintiain this viewpoint must be
staggering. One one hand, Henri completely dismisses any predictive
value of relativity while saying his Galilean theory accurately
predicts what relativity predicts.
> Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become real
> physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute reference
> frame".
Of course Henri fails to take into account nobody has actually found
this absolute reference frame, even though there has been more than a
century of physicists who have been looking.
>
> There are no other answers.
> Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET concepts.
Henri, as usual, doesn't understand that SR and LET have the same
mathematics even though they are philosophically different.
>
> Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
> deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either novel
> or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.
Of course Henri's obcession with not understanding relativity blinds
him to Einstein's contributions to quantum theory, namely the actual
development of quantum mechanics plus his contributions via
understanding the photoelectic effect. Plus Einstein's work in
statistical mechanics.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>This will be amusing, I gurantee it.
>
Now that the SRian baboon brigade has made its usual unintelligible
contribution, can we have some sensible discussion?
Einstein's theory was nothing more than LET in disguise.
dda1
Henri Wilson the Cretin Imbecile wrote:
<idiotic tribulation of a cretin amateur snipped>
Cunt, the physics has long progressed past special relativity, learn
how to deny GR, you are "passee" (and fully irrelevant)
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:bp5u929ssf9npss2i...@4ax.com...
null
| result via his LTs.
The Lorentz-Fitgerald contraction was far from satisfactory, a quick rush
job
like your worbits. You are so fucked up its incredible.
Harry
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151281867....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> This will be amusing, I gurantee it.
>
> Henri has no understanding of relativity or the history of physics, so
> anything he says on the matter will always be wrong and will probably
> be funny as hell.
>
> > Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the
MMX null
> > result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still
taken
> > as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official
verdict.
>
> Notice Henri still doesn't understand that LET and SR are
> mathematically equivalent.
Your reading differs from mine; apparently Henri correctly points out that
many textbooks ("official") don't understand that either.
Probably you are too biased against Henry's writings to notice the
statements that aren't wrong. But regretfully your bias is not without
reason, see further.
> > It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
'contractions',
> > it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will
always
> > MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
>
> Here we go. Henri now starts to babble about one-way light speed even
> though one way light speed is the same as two way light speed in LET
> and SR.
Is there any essential difference in what you state and what he states? I
don't think so. However, I see the shadow of a grave misunderstanding in the
above statement by Henri. Let's read on...
> > Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He
BEGAN
> > with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it
seemingly
> > didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he
concocted his
> > outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to
be
> > correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
>
> Now Henri starts to mangle the development of relativity because he
> doesn't understand how or why it was developed.
Here I can't but agree with Eric: without the "Einstein" clock
synchronization one won't obtain a measured "OW speed of light as being c"!
> Einstein didn't develop SR based on "constant measured OWLS", no matter
> how many times Henri asserts that he did.
Regretfully some textbooks suggest so. Indeed there is no need for it as
some modern derivations demonstrate.
On that point both of you are sloppy, as if you don't know that "Einstein
believed in an aether" and "Einstein did NOT believe in the aether" are
both roughly correct.
> > For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as
being
> > 'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
> > APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up
travelling
> > through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN
ABSOLUTE
> > AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
>
> The cognitive dissonance required to maintiain this viewpoint must be
> staggering. One one hand, Henri completely dismisses any predictive
> value of relativity while saying his Galilean theory accurately
> predicts what relativity predicts.
That is very much off-topic... but at the same time, staggering indeed!
> > Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become
real
> > physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute
reference
> > frame".
>
> Of course Henri fails to take into account nobody has actually found
> this absolute reference frame, even though there has been more than a
> century of physicists who have been looking.
You confuse logic with measurements. In the mainstream literature that logic
has been presented several times by different scientists and in none of
those instances have I seen it challenged in follow-up articles (using Web
of Science). I may have overlooked it of course, and would appreciate a
reference to such an article.
> > There are no other answers.
> > Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET
concepts.
>
> Henri, as usual, doesn't understand that SR and LET have the same
> mathematics even though they are philosophically different.
Henri apparently doesn't understand SR and his statement is a matter of
opinion. However, it's exactly the difference in interpretation that he put
forward, if I read it correctly.
> > Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
> > deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either
novel
> > or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.
>
> Of course Henri's obcession with not understanding relativity blinds
> him to Einstein's contributions to quantum theory, namely the actual
> development of quantum mechanics plus his contributions via
> understanding the photoelectic effect. Plus Einstein's work in
> statistical mechanics.
Plus he overlooked Einstein's contributions to SRT itself.
Harald
Dead Paul
> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX
> null result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was
> still taken as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the
> official verdict.
>
> It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
> 'contractions', it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through
> the aether will always MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
>
> Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He
> BEGAN with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it
> seemingly didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he
> concocted his outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just
> happens to be correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
>
> Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the
> same mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although
> his 'contractions were observational rather than physical.
>
> The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with
> the real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the
> claims of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which
> of course is what Einstein believed in himself.
And of course persuing einsteins little trick leads to increasingly insane
notions about the universe.
Dead Paul
>
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> This will be amusing, I gurantee it.
>
> Henri has no understanding of relativity or the history of physics, so
> anything he says on the matter will always be wrong and will probably be
> funny as hell.
>
>> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the
>> MMX null result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result
>> was still taken as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still
>> the official verdict.
>
> Notice Henri still doesn't understand that LET and SR are mathematically
> equivalent.
There is nothing equivalent about the two.
SR is a trick that produces some numbers that agree with the reality. As a
model SR is completely useless.
LET on the otherhand is a step in the right direction towards formulating
an understanding about the universe.
Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
>
> There is nothing equivalent about the two.
>
> SR is a trick that produces some numbers that agree with the reality. As a
> model SR is completely useless.
> LET on the otherhand is a step in the right direction towards formulating
> an understanding about the universe.
Of course it does. SR and GR work, thats what agreeing with reality
means
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
tomgee
> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
> as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
>
that.
There may be some denial about that being the "official" verdict today,
but here in these ngs, that does seem to be true. However, it is
foolish
to take the posts here as being representative of what is "official" in
physics today. That apparent "verdict" is propounded by those who
post here, alright, but they are only a tiny tiny number of scientists
out
of all those who could post here but don't. Thus, we can say that is
the
official verdict of those who are apparently in the majority of those
who
post here, and that can be supported by archival evidence.
>
> It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
> it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
> MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
>
> Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
> with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
> didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
> outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
> correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
>
I see your point, and I can agree that is one way to describe what AE
actually did with the luminous ether theory. If by "outlandish
definition"
you refer to "moving clocks run slow", I must again agree that is an
apt
description of what he meant, but it was outlandish even more so in
that
it appears to be true.
>
> Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
> mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
> 'contractions were observational rather than physical.
>
Both works are in Theoretical Physics, which disdains empirical
research
and embraces math and logic, so both works seem to me to have been
as non-physical as anything can be.
>
> The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
> real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
> of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
> what Einstein believed in himself.
>
Only if you are working with the reality of the universe does one have
to
accept an ether. If you are adding 2x2, no ether is required, since
math
is an imaginary tool we use to compare imaginary or real objects.
There
is no such thing as a "2" in existence in the universe, other than as
it exits
in our heads. There are, however, two apples and two oranges, which
can be both real and imaginary, depending on which is our choice.
On that basis, I cannot agree that it is correct to say there is no
physical
connection between SR and reality. SR is not representative of
reality,
true, but it is an excellent tool for us. By necessity, all our tools
have a
connection to reality - that cannot be avoided if they are to be valid
tools
for us to use. To say 2x2=4 is almost meaningless in itself until and
unless it is ultimately in reference to something real. As a tool for
the
teaching of math, we could say it is not meaningless because ultimately
it
will be used to count real objects.
After all that, I must say, however, that I agree we cannot refer to
the real
universe without including an ether. My model suggests one that does
not
conflict with any known observed effects but instead explains reality
in a
better way than some in place as "official verdicts" by sci.ngs
posters.
For anyone interested, I have reduced my essay model to about 4 MB for
emailing free to those here willing to provide me feedback about it
here in
these same science ngs. It is in MS Word 6.0. To get it, just email
me
your email address to: typro...@yahoo.com. It's a work in progress
still, but all the ideas are there fully supported and explained. If
you are
willing to discuss my ideas anywhere with anyone you know, or even just
in public here in these ngs, I will be glad to send them to you. You
can
post passages from it for discussion, but it is a copyrighted work and
so
whole chapters or the entire work may not be reproduced unless you
first
pay me five dollars US per chapter or ten dollars US per each entire
work.
>
> For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as being
> 'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
> APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
> through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
> AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
>
Yes, I agree with that.
>
> Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become real
> physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute reference
> frame".
>
Yes, again I agree with that.
>
> There are no other answers.
>
It is not the scientific way - nor the common-sense way (since some
here
believe there is a difference between those terms) - to ever say never,
because, as soon as you say it, sure enough, someone comes up with
another one. However, I agree that until that happens, your above is a
true representation of the reality we must face when we decide to
embark
on making theories that explain our world.
>
> Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET concepts.
>
> Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
> deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either novel
> or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.
>
AE was a survivor in a world that conspired against his genius, and
while
you may be right in saying all that you say above about him, we are the
better for his perseverence against the outstanding odds he and many
others throughout Man's history who have had to argue against status
quo powers-that-be. By yours and my statements here, we're doing all
we
can to get ourselves heard here in this cacophonous din of conformity.
Eric Gisse
Harry wrote:
[...]
>
> Your reading differs from mine; apparently Henri correctly points out that
> many textbooks ("official") don't understand that either.
> Probably you are too biased against Henry's writings to notice the
> statements that aren't wrong. But regretfully your bias is not without
> reason, see further.
My bias has a historical anchor in reality. Henri occasionally makes a
statement that isn't wrong, but he usually says it for the wrong reason
or in a way that is simply annoying as all hell.
>
> > > It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
> 'contractions',
> > > it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will
> always
> > > MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
> >
> > Here we go. Henri now starts to babble about one-way light speed even
> > though one way light speed is the same as two way light speed in LET
> > and SR.
>
> Is there any essential difference in what you state and what he states? I
> don't think so. However, I see the shadow of a grave misunderstanding in the
> above statement by Henri. Let's read on...
Henri focuses on one-way light speed for no particular reason. My
understanding of LET may be shaky, but I'm certain what I said is true
in SR.
[...]
> >
> > I am also extremely amused that Henri asserts Einstein believed in an
> > aether, even though it is documented that Einstein did NOT believe in
> > the aether. Then again, facts never really did mean much to Henri.
>
> On that point both of you are sloppy, as if you don't know that "Einstein
> believed in an aether" and "Einstein did NOT believe in the aether" are
> both roughly correct.
I'm aware of Einstein's beliefs on the matter. I had to think for a few
minutes as to how to write the paragraph above. I wanted to say
Einstein did not believe in the 19th century version of the aether as
Henri envisions, but he would simply distort it to say "ah-HA! Einstein
does believe in the aether!". It is my understanding that the aether
[aether or ether? I could never tell.] Einstein believed in was so
wildly different than from what is classically known as the aether that
it was doing a disservice by confusing hte issue.
[...]
> > Of course Henri fails to take into account nobody has actually found
> > this absolute reference frame, even though there has been more than a
> > century of physicists who have been looking.
>
> You confuse logic with measurements. In the mainstream literature that logic
> has been presented several times by different scientists and in none of
> those instances have I seen it challenged in follow-up articles (using Web
> of Science). I may have overlooked it of course, and would appreciate a
> reference to such an article.
I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you saying you want an example of
folks looking for the aether? If so, I have something in mind. I did
make that statement secure in the knowledge that people have been
looking *really really hard*, and are much more qualified than Henri
and his ilk [and myself, for that matter].
>
> > > There are no other answers.
> > > Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET
> concepts.
> >
> > Henri, as usual, doesn't understand that SR and LET have the same
> > mathematics even though they are philosophically different.
>
> Henri apparently doesn't understand SR and his statement is a matter of
> opinion. However, it's exactly the difference in interpretation that he put
> forward, if I read it correctly.
Remember what I said about cognitive dissonance?
Henri seems to view LET as "acceptable" and SR as "unacceptable". They
have wildly different philosophical bases, but make the same
predictions. Then again, my understanding of LET is on shaky ground. I
would love a decent reference that explains LET without being burdened
by the babbling of cranks.
>
> > > Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
> > > deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either
> novel
> > > or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.
> >
> > Of course Henri's obcession with not understanding relativity blinds
> > him to Einstein's contributions to quantum theory, namely the actual
> > development of quantum mechanics plus his contributions via
> > understanding the photoelectic effect. Plus Einstein's work in
> > statistical mechanics.
>
> Plus he overlooked Einstein's contributions to SRT itself.
Of course he did!
I can't tell if Henri hates Einstein and thus hates SR, or hates SR and
thus hates Einstein.
>
> Harald
Eric Gisse
The phrase for today is definitely "cognitive dissonance".
Henry Haapalainen
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> kirjoitti viestissä
news:bp5u929ssf9npss2i...@4ax.com...
a significant discovery. Falling objects are in free fall because of the
curvature of space. Then he made mistakes in trying to explain that.
Henry Haapalainen
dda1
Henry Haapalainen The Cretin Finn wrote:
> Einstein discovered that an attraction between masses is a wrong idea. It is
> a significant discovery. Falling objects are in free fall because of the
> curvature of space. Then he made mistakes in trying to explain that.
>
> Henry Haapalainen
...and you spend every hour of your miserable life munching on a fresh
piece of shit.
Eric Gisse
Yet for all your idiotic posting, you have not once proven that general
relativity is not an accurate model of reality.
I asked this of you months ago and you simply refused.
>
> Henry Haapalainen
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Well he certainly made the mistakes but I don't agree with the rest....although
I accept that 'free fall' is probably the normal state of matter.
Two round balls falling down a column of liquid are definitely attracted BY
FORCES. Maybe gravity is analogous in some way.
>
>Henry Haapalainen
Harry
You certainly misunderstood another statement by Henry (inside [...]) .
> > > > There are no other answers.
> > > > Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET
> > concepts.
> > >
> > > Henri, as usual, doesn't understand that SR and LET have the same
> > > mathematics even though they are philosophically different.
> >
> > Henri apparently doesn't understand SR and his statement is a matter of
> > opinion. However, it's exactly the difference in interpretation that he
put
> > forward, if I read it correctly.
>
> Remember what I said about cognitive dissonance?
>
> Henri seems to view LET as "acceptable" and SR as "unacceptable". They
> have wildly different philosophical bases, but make the same
> predictions. Then again, my understanding of LET is on shaky ground. I
> would love a decent reference that explains LET without being burdened
> by the babbling of cranks.
Lorentz wasn't much interested in those issues but there are a few others.
Some papers by Ives and Builder explain that opinion rather well I think.
But what do you mean with a "decent" reference? JOSA, Austr.J.P., Phys.Rev.,
Nature, or what?
[..]
Harald
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
> as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
The reason for that decision is the later experimental confirmation of
SR predictions that Lorentz's ether theory does NOT predict.
>
> It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
> it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
> MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
>
> Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
> with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
> didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
> outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
> correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
Then it isn't outlandish, is it?
>
> Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
> mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
> 'contractions were observational rather than physical.
I'm not sure I follow what you think the distinction is. Lorentz
posited a physical process which affected the inherent physical
properties of objects. Einstein asserted that these properties are what
we *measure*, and that there is no deeper (inherent)
observer-independent quality that these are expressions of.
>
> The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
> real world.
I don't know why you would say that.
> If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
> of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
> what Einstein believed in himself.
>
> For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as being
> 'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
> APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
> through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
> AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
Those are certainly possible answers, though not the only ones.
Moreover, these answers appear to be the wrong ones.
> Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become real
> physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute reference
> frame".
And why would you need them to become real "physical" effects, whatever
that means?
>
> There are no other answers.
That would be a position of ignorance.
> Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET concepts.
>
> Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
> deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either novel
> or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.
>
>
PD
dwhi...@aol.com
Henri Wilson wrote:
, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
> APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
> through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
> AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
> Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become real
> physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute reference
> frame".
Hi Henri: You've almost got it right. But the aether itself requires a
refrence frame to which it is absolutely stationary. That is the
absolute reference frame and has to be the center of the universe.
Regards, Dwain W. Higginbotham
http://hometown.aol.com/dwhig265/myhomepage/index.html
Phineas T Puddleduck
<dwhi...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://hometown.aol.com/dwhig265/myhomepage/index.html
Whats this - physics comedy? Stick to your day job - washing dishes?
tomgee
PD wrote:
> Henri Wilson wrote:
> > Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
> > result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
> > as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
>
> The reason for that decision is the later experimental confirmation of
> SR predictions that Lorentz's ether theory does NOT predict.
>
then
and still is wrong. Fortunately for the world, that is not the
official verdict to
physicists, only to those pseudophysicists who frequent these ngs, like
you.
For some psychological reason, you wish to believe that verdict is
true. It
isn't, and that makes you the laughing stock of the physics community.
> >
> > It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
> > it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
> > MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
> >
> > Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
> > with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
> > didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
> > outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
> > correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
>
> Then it isn't outlandish, is it?
>
Wrong again. It isn't that now that you've gotten indoctrinated with
it, but at
the time it came out it was indeed extremely unusual and bizarre.
Sorcerer
"tomgee" <tyro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151431530.1...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Phuckwit Duck:
" I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]"
-- Phuckwit Duck.
PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing "*exactly*
what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no matter
how
you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
shithead
and arsehole.
Androcles
Spoonfed
Henri Wilson wrote:
> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
> as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
>
If LT = Lorentz Transformation, then the theory you are describing is
not an aether theory. It is a coordinate transform mapping events from
one coordinate system to another. If you've got access to a good
library, read the last couple of chapters of "Fields of Force." It is
a nice historic account of the problem you are discussing.
Sorcerer
"Spoonfed" <good4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151437293.7...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Henri is taking the piss, you dumb cluck! Fuckin' hell, are you ever
wet behind the ears, spookfood!
Androcles
PD
Sorcerer wrote:
> "tomgee" <tyro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1151431530.1...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no matter
> how
> you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
> shithead
> and arsehole.
> Androcles
In your case, Androcles, it's pretty plain what's wrong with your
thinking. It's a pretty short trip following your thinking before you
run into something that's patently wrong.
Like how muons that are superluminal will leave the same amount of
energy in a scintillator regardless of their initial speed, and still
come out to be just under c by the time they leave the scintillator.
You say, "I don't know HOW it does that, but it's sure more believable
than time dilation." Apparently, to spit out something you thing is
hogwash, you'd be happy to swallow something from further down the
colon.
PD
Eric Gisse
Harry wrote:
[...]
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you saying you want an example of
> > folks looking for the aether? If so, I have something in mind. I did
> > make that statement secure in the knowledge that people have been
> > looking *really really hard*, and are much more qualified than Henri
> > and his ilk [and myself, for that matter].
>
> You certainly misunderstood another statement by Henry (inside [...]) .
I'm used to how Henri argues and how he sets up future arguments.
Then again I might have misunderstood, it has been known to happen. But
since the probability of actually learning something releated to
physics from Henri is nil, I'm not too worried about it.
>
> > > > > There are no other answers.
> > > > > Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET
> > > concepts.
> > > >
> > > > Henri, as usual, doesn't understand that SR and LET have the same
> > > > mathematics even though they are philosophically different.
> > >
> > > Henri apparently doesn't understand SR and his statement is a matter of
> > > opinion. However, it's exactly the difference in interpretation that he
> put
> > > forward, if I read it correctly.
> >
> > Remember what I said about cognitive dissonance?
> >
> > Henri seems to view LET as "acceptable" and SR as "unacceptable". They
> > have wildly different philosophical bases, but make the same
> > predictions. Then again, my understanding of LET is on shaky ground. I
> > would love a decent reference that explains LET without being burdened
> > by the babbling of cranks.
>
> Lorentz wasn't much interested in those issues but there are a few others.
> Some papers by Ives and Builder explain that opinion rather well I think.
> But what do you mean with a "decent" reference? JOSA, Austr.J.P., Phys.Rev.,
> Nature, or what?
Any of the above.
It is just nice to have a whole lot more wheat and a whole lot less
chaffe, you know?
A decent article about the hunt for the aether was in a 2004 Physics
Today. Specifically, aether and breaking Lorentz invariance. Things
like the MMX and its' many descendants are mentioned.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
>
> [..]
>
> Harald
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
>> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
>> as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
>>
>I heard your call today for some sensible response, and I will try
>that.
>There may be some denial about that being the "official" verdict today,
>
>but here in these ngs, that does seem to be true. However, it is
>foolish
>to take the posts here as being representative of what is "official" in
>
>physics today. That apparent "verdict" is propounded by those who
>post here, alright, but they are only a tiny tiny number of scientists
>out
>of all those who could post here but don't. Thus, we can say that is
>the
>official verdict of those who are apparently in the majority of those
>who
>post here, and that can be supported by archival evidence.
Well it is pretty bloody obvious to me that the MMX certainly did NOT prove
that there could not be at least a local EM reference frame...particularly when
Einstein used the same contraction idea that Lorentz invented.
If SR is correct then so must be LET. SR actually relies on an absolute
refernce frame
>> It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
>> it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
>> MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
>>
>> Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
>> with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
>> didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
>> outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
>> correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
>>
>I see your point, and I can agree that is one way to describe what AE
>actually did with the luminous ether theory. If by "outlandish
>definition"
>you refer to "moving clocks run slow", I must again agree that is an
>apt
>description of what he meant, but it was outlandish even more so in
>that
>it appears to be true.
Since when?
There is no believable proof of that Tom.
>> Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
>> mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
>> 'contractions were observational rather than physical.
>>
>Both works are in Theoretical Physics, which disdains empirical
>research
>and embraces math and logic, so both works seem to me to have been
>as non-physical as anything can be.
Yes but at least the aether theories have some kind of physical connection.
Contractions are actually REAL.
>> The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
>> real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
>> of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
>> what Einstein believed in himself.
>>
>Only if you are working with the reality of the universe does one have
>to
>accept an ether. If you are adding 2x2, no ether is required, since
>math
>is an imaginary tool we use to compare imaginary or real objects.
>There
>is no such thing as a "2" in existence in the universe, other than as
>it exits
>in our heads. There are, however, two apples and two oranges, which
>can be both real and imaginary, depending on which is our choice.
>
>On that basis, I cannot agree that it is correct to say there is no
>physical
>connection between SR and reality. SR is not representative of
>reality,
>true, but it is an excellent tool for us.
Is it?
Where? In charged particle accelerators? There are alternative explanations for
those effects.
There is no evidence that SR applies to neutral objects.
>By necessity, all our tools
>have a
>connection to reality - that cannot be avoided if they are to be valid
>tools
>for us to use. To say 2x2=4 is almost meaningless in itself until and
>unless it is ultimately in reference to something real. As a tool for
>the
>teaching of math, we could say it is not meaningless because ultimately
>it
>will be used to count real objects.
Well, I have often wondered if the laws of maths would exist in the absence of
everything alse.
I believe they would.
>After all that, I must say, however, that I agree we cannot refer to
>the real
>universe without including an ether.
I don't accept that an absolute universal aether exists. Maybe local aetherlike
frames exist but that is all.
>My model suggests one that does
>not
>conflict with any known observed effects but instead explains reality
>in a
>better way than some in place as "official verdicts" by sci.ngs
>posters.
If you want an aether, you have to cope with the concept of a 'physical'
infinity.
Yes, OK.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]
It is like watching two retards trying to solve the secrets of the
universe because they read a book once. Actually, that is exactly what
is going on.
Henry Haapalainen
> Einstein discovered that an attraction between masses is a wrong idea. It
is
> a significant discovery. Falling objects are in free fall because of the
> curvature of space. Then he made mistakes in trying to explain that.
> Henry Haapalainen
Yet for all your idiotic posting, you have not once proven that general
relativity is not an accurate model of reality.
I asked this of you months ago and you simply refused. (EG)
Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:
http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2006 06:02:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
> >> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
> >> as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
> >>
> >I heard your call today for some sensible response, and I will try
> >that.
> >There may be some denial about that being the "official" verdict today,
> >
> >but here in these ngs, that does seem to be true. However, it is
> >foolish
> >to take the posts here as being representative of what is "official" in
> >
> >physics today. That apparent "verdict" is propounded by those who
> >post here, alright, but they are only a tiny tiny number of scientists
> >out
> >of all those who could post here but don't. Thus, we can say that is
> >the
> >official verdict of those who are apparently in the majority of those
> >who
> >post here, and that can be supported by archival evidence.
>
> Well it is pretty bloody obvious to me that the MMX certainly did NOT prove
> that there could not be at least a local EM reference frame...particularly when
> Einstein used the same contraction idea that Lorentz invented.
>
> If SR is correct then so must be LET.
Why would you say that? The two have completely different conceptual
underpinnings and different experimental predictions.
You mean it is real in the sense that something happens to the rod.
That is what you're calling REAL, and nothing else seems to work as
"real" for you.
>
> >> The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
> >> real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
> >> of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
> >> what Einstein believed in himself.
> >>
> >Only if you are working with the reality of the universe does one have
> >to
> >accept an ether. If you are adding 2x2, no ether is required, since
> >math
> >is an imaginary tool we use to compare imaginary or real objects.
> >There
> >is no such thing as a "2" in existence in the universe, other than as
> >it exits
> >in our heads. There are, however, two apples and two oranges, which
> >can be both real and imaginary, depending on which is our choice.
> >
> >On that basis, I cannot agree that it is correct to say there is no
> >physical
> >connection between SR and reality. SR is not representative of
> >reality,
> >true, but it is an excellent tool for us.
>
> Is it?
> Where? In charged particle accelerators? There are alternative explanations for
> those effects.
Quantitatively correct ones? No, there're not.
> There is no evidence that SR applies to neutral objects.
Sure there is. Neutral kaons exhibit the very same effects as charged
particles. Where the hell have you been?
Why?
PD
Posting *your* theory is not the same as proving that GR is not an
accurate model of reality.
Asserting that "But mine makes more sense to me," is not a
demonstration that another model has failed to accurately represent
reality. Do you understand that?
PD
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
>> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
>> as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
>
>The reason for that decision is the later experimental confirmation of
>SR predictions that Lorentz's ether theory does NOT predict.
>
>>
>> It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
>> it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
>> MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
>>
>> Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
>> with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
>> didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
>> outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
>> correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
>
>Then it isn't outlandish, is it?
Einstein actually got it right...but for entirely the wrong reason....and he
became famous partly for this erroneous 'proclamation'.
Henri Wilson got it right for the RIGHT reasons yet his fame is so far
recognized by few outside this NG's intelligencia.
>> Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
>> mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
>> 'contractions were observational rather than physical.
>
>I'm not sure I follow what you think the distinction is. Lorentz
>posited a physical process which affected the inherent physical
>properties of objects. Einstein asserted that these properties are what
>we *measure*, and that there is no deeper (inherent)
>observer-independent quality that these are expressions of.
According to SR, objects can become longer and shorter simultaneously. Try
making physical sense of that.
>> The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
>> real world.
>
>I don't know why you would say that.
According to SR, objects can become longer and shorter simultaneously. Try
making physical sense of that.
>> If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
>> of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
>> what Einstein believed in himself.
>>
>> For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as being
>> 'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
>> APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
>> through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
>> AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
>
>Those are certainly possible answers, though not the only ones.
>Moreover, these answers appear to be the wrong ones.
Give me another then...
>> Another is, "how can contractions that are merely observational, become real
>> physical effects?". Again, the answer is "there has to be an absolute reference
>> frame".
>
>And why would you need them to become real "physical" effects, whatever
>that means?
A physical effect is like that which supposedly makes a GPS clock run slow
because it is moving wrt the GO. (of course, in actual fact it doesn't run
slow)
>> There are no other answers.
>
>That would be a position of ignorance.
That is the only way light from differently moving sources could find a common
travel speed.
>> Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of LET concepts.
>>
>> Einstein was a huckster and a plagiariser and achieved fame through his
>> deviousness. In reality, he produced absolutely nothing that was either novel
>> or was to ultimately advance the cause of physics.
>>
>>
>
>PD
Henry Haapalainen
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1151449198.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
No, I don't understand that. HH
Phineas T Puddleduck
Haapalainen <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
Yep, GR is an accurate model. Just your interpretation of it is
bollocks.
You're actually PROUD of that website? I'd ony recommend it to people
under the auspices of *100* *things* *idiots* *think* *physics*
*involves*
Henri Wilson
wrote:
...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.
>Androcles
Phineas T Puddleduck
Haapalainen <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > Posting *your* theory is not the same as proving that GR is not an
> > accurate model of reality.
> >
> > Asserting that "But mine makes more sense to me," is not a
> > demonstration that another model has failed to accurately represent
> > reality. Do you understand that?
> >
> > PD
>
> No, I don't understand that. HH
Figures.
Henri Wilson
If the was a big bang, there would be a natural centre about which all vector
momentun would sum to zero. But there wasn't a big bang.
Henri Wilson
<phineasp...@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
>In article <1151423209....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
><dwhi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> http://hometown.aol.com/dwhig265/myhomepage/index.html
>
>Whats this - physics comedy? Stick to your day job - washing dishes?
Stick with you job as secretary of the SRian baboon brigade, piddlephuck.
Henry Haapalainen
> >
> > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
> >
> > Henry Haapalainen
(deleted)
Eric Gisse alias Phineas T Puddleduck, just shut up. HH
Phineas T Puddleduck
Haapalainen <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
If you had the intelligence to check our headers, you'd see we're
different people. Believe it or not, more then one person thinks you're
nuts.
Henri Wilson
SR says that if a clock or rod is sent into orbit, nothing actually happens to
the clock or rod. It then claims that the clocks and rods DO are observed to
change when measured by the original observer in the original frame and using
the original length and time standards.
So do they change Draper ...or do they not change?
If nothing is currently happening to something, can that ever imply that the
'something' is in a state if change?
I certainly haven't been filling my head with SRian propaganda put out by
relativists FOR relativists..
Try using your own fucking head Draper.
>> >For anyone interested, I have reduced my essay model to about 4 MB for
>> >emailing free to those here willing to provide me feedback about it
>> >here in
>> >these same science ngs. It is in MS Word 6.0. To get it, just email
>> >me
>> >your email address to: typro...@yahoo.com. It's a work in progress
>> >still, but all the ideas are there fully supported and explained. If
>> >you are
>> >willing to discuss my ideas anywhere with anyone you know, or even just
>> >
>> >in public here in these ngs, I will be glad to send them to you. You
>> >can
>> >post passages from it for discussion, but it is a copyrighted work and
>> >so
>> >whole chapters or the entire work may not be reproduced unless you
>> >first
>> >pay me five dollars US per chapter or ten dollars US per each entire
>> >work.
>> >>
>> >> For instance if one asks, "why is OWLS always SUPPOSEDLY measuresd as being
>> >> 'c'?, the answer is, "BECAUSE AN ABSOLUTE AETHER EXISTS AND THE LTs
>> >> APPLY".....OR, "how can light from differently moving sources end up travelling
>> >> through space at the same speed?", the answer is, "BECAUSE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
>> >> AETHER THAT DETERMINES LIGHT SPEED".
>> >>
>> >Yes, I agree with that.
>> >>
HW.
PD
Then perhaps you need a primer on the scientific method in general.
PD
PD
And who appointed me leader? You? No one else has.
And how do you judge scientific ability, Henri? By whether they are
original or by whether they are right?
PD
PD
Really? What makes you say that?
Say you have a ruler that is expanding, with marks at regular
intervals, and observers parked at each of the marks.
An observer sitting at the mark "3" looks at the mark "4" and notices
that it is receding from him at 0.1 marks/day. The same observer looks
at the mark "6" and notices that it's receding from him at 0.3
marks/day. The same observer looks at the mark "12" and notices that
it's receding from him at 0.9 marks/day. This observer concludes that
the marks at 4, 6, and 12 were all at the very spot where he is sitting
10 days ago.
The observer sitting at the mark "4" looks at the mark "3" and notices
that it is receding from him at 0.1 marks/day. The same observer looks
at the mark "16" and notices that it is receding from him at 1.2
marks/day. The same observer looks at the mark "-3" and notices that it
is receding from him at 0.7 marks/day. This observer concludes that the
marks at 3, 16, and -3 were all at the very spot where he is sitting 10
days ago.
Likewise the observer sitting at the mark "12" looks at the mark "3"
and notices that it is receding from him at 0.9 marks/day. The same
observer looks at the mark at "4" and notices that it is receding at
0.8 marks/day. This observer concludes that the marks at 3 and 4 were
all at the very spot where he is sitting 10 days ago.
All of these observers agree completely on what happened 10 days ago.
They also all agree on the measured rate of expansion, 0.1
marks/day/mark. Now where is the "natural center" of that expansion
about which all the vector momenta of the observers add to zero?
(Henri hasn't read a whole lot, and as a result he hasn't thought a
whole lot, and as a result he is mistaken about a whole lot -- despite
having been born with a "scientific mind" with which to do a whole lot
more than he's actually done.)
PD
Eric Gisse
You neither understood the question nor understand the concept of
properly quoting who says what.
I asked you to prove that general realtivity is not an accurate model
of reality. Nowhere in that request was anything about your asinine
"model" of reality that is backed up by a wager of 1000 burger bucks or
whatever the fuck it is that isn't backed by the United States
treasury.
>
> http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
>
> Henry Haapalainen
Eric Gisse
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <v%iog.10442$5_4....@reader1.news.jippii.net>, Henry
> Haapalainen <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> > > > Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
> > > >
> > > > Henry Haapalainen
> >
> > (deleted)
> >
> > Eric Gisse alias Phineas T Puddleduck, just shut up. HH
> >
> >
>
> If you had the intelligence to check our headers, you'd see we're
> different people. Believe it or not, more then one person thinks you're
> nuts.
This is the type of entertainment you can't buy with money.
Sorcerer
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151443331.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
I was talking about you, not to you.
You say a muon slows down in a scintillator and you don't know how
it does that, so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
out at c = 1/0. <shrug>
Androcles
Sorcerer
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
| > wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing
"*exactly*
| > >what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no
matter
| > >how
| > >you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the
typical
| > >shithead
| > >and arsehole.
| >
| > ...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
| > self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.
| >
|
| And who appointed me leader? You? No one else has.
Observation, shithead. You write the most. Therefore you are the leading
baboon.
| And how do you judge scientific ability, Henri?
By applicability to technology and reality.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
| By whether they are
| original or by whether they are right?
You can't be right, Sagnac proves it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
This is where you start muttering "inertial" and "domain of applicability".
You are shitheads.
Androcles
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:l8e3a2dg48lfg1l2f...@4ax.com...
He is certainly the most vociferous at the moment. I guarantee he'll
snip when cornered by logic he cannot respond to in any other way.
A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
they are up against a heavyweight. Let them collaborate and form a
joint opinion, I'll take them ALL on, from Baez to Roberts to all the way
down to the lightweights Spookfood and Gisse.
Androcles.
Sorcerer
"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:v%iog.10442$5_4....@reader1.news.jippii.net...
You've fucked up again, Happy Henry. Goose can't be Phuddlephuck,
Goose is even MORE stupid than that.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:5wrog.229880$8W1.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> news:l8e3a2dg48lfg1l2f...@4ax.com...
> | On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer"
[snip]
> | >
> | >PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing "*exactly*
> | >what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no matter
> | >how
> | >you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the typical
> | >shithead
> | >and arsehole.
> |
> | ...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
> | self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.
> |
>
> He is certainly the most vociferous at the moment. I guarantee he'll
> snip when cornered by logic he cannot respond to in any other way.
Androcles, cornering the world by logic:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORPersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
>
> A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
> he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
> Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
> they are up against a heavyweight.
Androcles, the heavyweight:
http://www.retardism.com/fatman.jpg
Dirk Vdm
PD
I did? Where did I say that?
Liar.
>and you don't know how
> it does that,
I don't? Where did I say that?
Liar.
>so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
> out at c = 1/0. <shrug>
c = 299,792,458 m/s (or 1, depending on your system of units).
Are you a bonehead, Androcles? Why yes, yes, I believe you are.
PD
PD
Sorcerer wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151450763....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Henri Wilson wrote:
> | > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:29:18 GMT, "Sorcerer"
> <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
> | > wrote:
> | >
> | > >
> | > >PD believes anyone that doesn't follow his religion is showing
> "*exactly*
> | > >what is wrong with their thinking. I call that bigotry, because no
> matter
> | > >how
> | > >you argue with him, he'll always be right in his eyes. He is the
> typical
> | > >shithead
> | > >and arsehole.
> | >
> | > ...and leader of the SRian baboon brigade, a pathetic collection of
> | > self-opiniated would-be's who just don't have any scientifric ability.
> | >
> |
> | And who appointed me leader? You? No one else has.
>
> Observation, shithead. You write the most. Therefore you are the leading
> baboon.
Hell, that's not even true. I write a lot, but certainly not the most.
>
>
> | And how do you judge scientific ability, Henri?
>
> By applicability to technology and reality.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
Hello, Henri. Have you changed pseudonyms again?
PD
Why, Androcles, I'm shocked! I haven't snipped a thing you said here.
>
> A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
> he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
> Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
> they are up against a heavyweight.
Ah yes, a fierce opponent who no one wants to take on anymore:
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/roadkill.jpg
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1151497271.0...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sorcerer wrote:
[snip]
>> He is certainly the most vociferous at the moment. I guarantee he'll
>> snip when cornered by logic he cannot respond to in any other way.
>
> Why, Androcles, I'm shocked! I haven't snipped a thing you said here.
>
>>
>> A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
>> he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
>> Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
>> they are up against a heavyweight.
>
> Ah yes, a fierce opponent who no one wants to take on anymore:
> http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/roadkill.jpg
:-)
Dirk Vdm
Phineas T Puddleduck
<TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorcerer wrote:
> >
> > A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
> > he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of all.
> > Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
> > they are up against a heavyweight.
>
> Ah yes, a fierce opponent who no one wants to take on anymore:
> http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/roadkill.jpg
>
> > Let them collaborate and form a
> > joint opinion, I'll take them ALL on, from Baez to Roberts to all the way
> > down to the lightweights Spookfood and Gisse.
> > Androcles.
>
Unfortuantely Androcles is fighting a rigged battle. He knows full well
that is idiocy has an advantage. He doesn't have to do experiments, be
logical, prove things are right or back up his ideas. He just needs to
continues beating his chest.
The only think heavyweight about him is the stone in his skull.
dwhi...@aol.com
positioned rulers. (three dimensions). Dwain W. Higginbotham
tomgee
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2006 06:02:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
> >> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
> >> as sound evidence that no aether exists. That is still the official verdict.
> >>
> >that.
> >There may be some denial about that being the "official" verdict today,
> >
> >but here in these ngs, that does seem to be true. However, it is
> >foolish
> >to take the posts here as being representative of what is "official" in
> >
> >physics today. That apparent "verdict" is propounded by those who
> >post here, alright, but they are only a tiny tiny number of scientists
> >out
> >of all those who could post here but don't. Thus, we can say that is
> >the
> >official verdict of those who are apparently in the majority of those
> >who
> >post here, and that can be supported by archival evidence.
>
> Well it is pretty bloody obvious to me that the MMX certainly did NOT prove
> that there could not be at least a local EM reference frame...particularly when
> Einstein used the same contraction idea that Lorentz invented.
>
> refernce frame
>
> >> It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed 'contractions',
> >> it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will always
> >> MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
> >>
> >> Einstein's master stroke was to turn the whole theory back to front. He BEGAN
> >> with the idea of CONSTANT MEASURED OWLS as a postulate. Thus, it seemingly
> >> didn't matter if an aether existed or not, particulalry after he concocted his
> >> outlandish definition of clock synchronisation, (which just happens to be
> >> correct according to the Ballistic theory of light).
> >>
> >actually did with the luminous ether theory. If by "outlandish
> >definition"
> >you refer to "moving clocks run slow", I must again agree that is an
> >apt
> >description of what he meant, but it was outlandish even more so in
> >that
> >it appears to be true.
>
> Since when?
> There is no believable proof of that Tom.
>
better than logic in representing reality, it does sometimes make
predictions that are later confirmed. The Twin Paradox is only one
of two thought experiments that support the math of SR, and the
two are different such that one supports the other. The other is
often known as the moving train experiment, where time dilation is
shown to depend on POV of the observer. I have posted that one
here before and asked for anyone to deny its intuitive conclusion,
but no one was able to do that.
AE's conclusion that "moving clocks run slow" is the basis for my
model that carries forward that concept to my claim that time is a
property of matter and passes dependent of an object's motion.
>
> >> Einstein plodded his way backwards and ended up formulating exactly the same
> >> mathematical theory that Lorentz had previously produced. ..although his
> >> 'contractions were observational rather than physical.
> >>
> >Both works are in Theoretical Physics, which disdains empirical
> >research
> >and embraces math and logic, so both works seem to me to have been
> >as non-physical as anything can be.
>
> Yes but at least the aether theories have some kind of physical connection.
> Contractions are actually REAL.
>
That is too counterintuitive for me to agree with at this point. It is
too hard
for me to believe that physical objects will contract in different
frames. I
think that it is time that varies, creating that effect, but that it is
only an illusion
based on the time dilation effect. I have yet to figure out how that
occurs, but
I hope to do just that sooner or later.
>
> >> The problem was, in Einstein's case, there was NO physical connection with the
> >> real world. If one actually wants to delve more deeply into any of the claims
> >> of relativity one must resort to the existence of an aether, which of course is
> >> what Einstein believed in himself.
> >>
> >Only if you are working with the reality of the universe does one have
> >to
> >accept an ether. If you are adding 2x2, no ether is required, since
> >math
> >is an imaginary tool we use to compare imaginary or real objects.
> >There
> >is no such thing as a "2" in existence in the universe, other than as
> >it exits
> >in our heads. There are, however, two apples and two oranges, which
> >can be both real and imaginary, depending on which is our choice.
> >
> >On that basis, I cannot agree that it is correct to say there is no
> >physical
> >connection between SR and reality. SR is not representative of
> >reality,
> >true, but it is an excellent tool for us.
>
> Is it?
> Where? In charged particle accelerators? There are alternative explanations for
> those effects.
> There is no evidence that SR applies to neutral objects.
>
Well, the principle of relativity is one, which is holding up still.
But I
agree there are alternative explanations for much of what has been
explained from the conclusions of SR. The tenet about relative
motion, which is IMO the basis of SR, is another great tool tool for
us, even though some have gotten carried away with what they have
concluded from that.
>
> >By necessity, all our tools
> >have a
> >connection to reality - that cannot be avoided if they are to be valid
> >tools
> >for us to use. To say 2x2=4 is almost meaningless in itself until and
> >unless it is ultimately in reference to something real. As a tool for
> >the
> >teaching of math, we could say it is not meaningless because ultimately
> >it
> >will be used to count real objects.
>
> Well, I have often wondered if the laws of maths would exist in the absence of
> everything alse.
> I believe they would.
>
I don't see something that is based and depend on the existence of
other
things can exist without any of those other things, so I must disagree.
>
> >After all that, I must say, however, that I agree we cannot refer to
> >the real
> >universe without including an ether.
>
> I don't accept that an absolute universal aether exists. Maybe local aetherlike
> frames exist but that is all.
>
Why not? And at what point do the frames begin, and why?
>
> >My model suggests one that does
> >not
> >conflict with any known observed effects but instead explains reality
> >in a
> >better way than some in place as "official verdicts" by sci.ngs
> >posters.
>
> If you want an aether, you have to cope with the concept of a 'physical'
> infinity.
>
I must disagree, as I don't agree there is such a thing, whatever
it means.
>
> >For anyone interested, I have reduced my essay model to about 4 MB for
> >emailing free to those here willing to provide me feedback about it
> >here in
> >these same science ngs. It is in MS Word 6.0. To get it, just email
> >me
> >your email address to: typro...@yahoo.com. It's a work in progress
> >still, but all the ideas are there fully supported and explained. If
> >you are
> >willing to discuss my ideas anywhere with anyone you know, or even just
> >
> >in public here in these ngs, I will be glad to send them to you. You
> >can
> >post passages from it for discussion, but it is a copyrighted work and
> >so
> >whole chapters or the entire work may not be reproduced unless you
> >first
> >pay me five dollars US per chapter or ten dollars US per each entire
> >work.
> >>
NOTE
Something has gone wrong with my Yahoo mail software, or their
server goes down often. Please email me at: lvl...@peoplepc.com
instead for your copy.
Sorcerer
CUNT.
|
| >and you don't know how
| > it does that,
|
| I don't? Where did I say that?
| Liar.
Oh, you do know how they lose energy without slowing down.... do tell us
all, cunt.
|
| >so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
| > out at c = 1/0. <shrug>
|
| c = 299,792,458 m/s (or 1, depending on your system of units).
| Are you a bonehead, Androcles? Why yes, yes, I believe you are.
See what I mean? No matter how you argue with him, he'll always be right in
his eyes.
He is the typical shithead and arsehole.
The speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) = 299,792,458 m/s
whereas c from A to A is 0/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 m/s.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Everybody knows a constant velocity reverses direction, don't you, Phuckwit
Cunt?
Us boneheads will continue with speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) =
299,792,458 m/s
leaving you phuckwits in the dust.
Androcles.
Sorcerer
I was talking about you, not to you.
You'll snip when cornered by mathematics.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| >
| > A non-partisan lurker would instantly see that, so I have no idea what
| > he hopes to gain by snipping, that is the least persuasive argument of
all.
| > Few of the shitheads will respond to me anymore, they know when
| > they are up against a heavyweight.
|
| Ah yes, a fierce opponent who no one wants to take on anymore:
| http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/roadkill.jpg
Is that a physics argument or a demoralised argument, phuckwit cunt?
When a Brit wants to flatten the opposition, he does it right:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/06/jcbhousecrush270606_600x357.jpg
"He not only took out the couple's entire house and contents, he wrote off
two brand-new luxury cars and a police car as well. He even began to swing
the vehicle's lethal front bucket at the Ł250,000 two-storey house and tore
a hole in the wall before Miss Gledhill had time to make a hasty exit from
the upstairs bedroom. A police car which tried to block his path was
squashed by the bucket as if it were a fly being swatted. " - Daily Mail
:-)
Androcles
Sorcerer
Yawn...
| >
| >
| > | By whether they are
| > | original or by whether they are right?
| >
| > You can't be right, Sagnac proves it.
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
| >
| > This is where you start muttering "inertial" and "domain of
applicability".
| >
| > You are shitheads.
No answer to that, is there, shithead?
| > Androcles
|
AllYou!
>> >I see your point, and I can agree that is one way to describe what
>> >AE
>> >actually did with the luminous ether theory. If by "outlandish
>> >definition"
>> >you refer to "moving clocks run slow", I must again agree that is
>> >an
>> >apt
>> >description of what he meant, but it was outlandish even more so
>> >in
>> >that
>> >it appears to be true.
>>
>> Since when?
>> There is no believable proof of that Tom.
>>
> The math evidence is very strong,
"I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006
> however, and while math is no
> better than logic in representing reality, it does sometimes make
> predictions that are later confirmed. The Twin Paradox is only one
> of two thought experiments that support the math of SR,
The TP doesn't support anything. It's a story used to ILLUSTRATE a
theory. A guy comes back from a space trip younger than another guy
who was his age when the trip began. That's the TP. How does that
story support anything?
>> Yes but at least the aether theories have some kind of physical
>> connection.
>> Contractions are actually REAL.
>>
> That is too counterintuitive for me to agree with at this point. It
> is
> too hard
> for me to believe that physical objects will contract in different
> frames.
That's why science is different than faith. Science is not about
believing it, and it's not about being consistent with prejudice.
It's about the truth.
> I
> think that it is time that varies, creating that effect, but that it
> is
> only an illusion
> based on the time dilation effect. I have yet to figure out how
> that
> occurs, but
> I hope to do just that sooner or later.
LOL!
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006
> I must disagree, as I don't agree there is such a thing, whatever
> it means.
You don't agree that something you have no clue as to its meaning
exists? How can you disagree that it exists if you don't know what
he's talking about?
What a nut job. Does it still say that time is inversely proportional
to an object's state of motion?
"In fact, I have had to revise much of it to keep up with what I have
learned from responses to my ideas here"
*tomgee* changed *his* essay which describes *his* ideas because of
what *he* has learned from *his* responses to *his* ideas. LOL!
Phineas T Puddleduck
<dwhi...@aol.com> wrote:
> Excellent post! Now please describe the above with orthogonally
> positioned rulers. (three dimensions). Dwain W. Higginbotham
>
Please point to the centre of the surface area of the Earth.
Extrapolate up one dimenstion.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:CYxog.490336$tc.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151497271.0...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Sorcerer wrote:
[snip]
> | > He is certainly the most vociferous at the moment. I guarantee he'll
> | > snip when cornered by logic he cannot respond to in any other way.
> |
> | Why, Androcles, I'm shocked! I haven't snipped a thing you said here.
>
> I was talking about you, not to you.
> You'll snip when cornered by mathematics.
Androcles, cornering us with his integrals:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Integral.html
Androcles, cornering us with his geometry:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FullyAware.html
Androcles, cornering us with his transformations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroTransform.html
Androcles, cornering us with his calculations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FALSE.html
Androcles, cornering us with his groups:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroGroups.html
Androcles, cornering us with his logs:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
Androcles, cornering us with his vectors:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
Androcles, cornering us with his limits:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Limit.html
Androcles, cornering us with his equations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Androcles, cornering us with his square roots:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodTeachers.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TwoTurds.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Humour.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
Androcles, cornering us with his Boolean algebra:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORPersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
Androcles, cornering us with his partial differential equations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff4.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotFxy.html
Dirk Vdm
PD
I was referring to YOUR thinking, not mine, Androcles. Pay attention.
Wipe the foam off your mouth, too, it's gotten on your glasses and
impaired your reading.
>
>
>
>
> |
> | >and you don't know how
> | > it does that,
> |
> | I don't? Where did I say that?
> | Liar.
>
> Oh, you do know how they lose energy without slowing down.... do tell us
> all, cunt.
I know how they lose energy when they slow down. I didn't say that I
don't know how it does that. You did. Would you like a reference to
where you said that?
>
>
> |
> | >so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
> | > out at c = 1/0. <shrug>
> |
> | c = 299,792,458 m/s (or 1, depending on your system of units).
> | Are you a bonehead, Androcles? Why yes, yes, I believe you are.
>
> See what I mean? No matter how you argue with him, he'll always be right in
> his eyes.
> He is the typical shithead and arsehole.
> The speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) = 299,792,458 m/s
Yes indeed.
> whereas c from A to A is 0/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 m/s.
No, that's not a speed during a round-trip, that's the magnitude of the
velocity on a round-trip. Do you not know the difference?
You're a math major. You know the difference between an average of
magnitudes and a magnitude of an average?
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
> Everybody knows a constant velocity reverses direction, don't you, Phuckwit
> Cunt?
> Us boneheads will continue with speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) =
> 299,792,458 m/s
That's fine.
PD
Answer to what? The place where I didn't mutter anything about ... what
were those two things you said I'd mutter?
Or do you mean that vast waste of energy you call a web page? Have you
stopped neglecting your grandchildren yet, Androcles?
>
> | > Androcles
> |
PD
Sorcerer wrote:
[snip]
No mathematics there.
PD
Sorcerer
I know, arsehole, and I'm referring to yours. You say a muon slows down
(i.e. loses energy) in a scintillator, slowing to subluminal < c.
| Pay attention.
| Wipe the foam off your mouth, too, it's gotten on your glasses and
| impaired your reading.
Wipe your mouth out with soap, jackass. Your glasses need cleaning
and that impairs your writing.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >and you don't know how
| > | > it does that,
| > |
| > | I don't? Where did I say that?
| > | Liar.
| >
| > Oh, you do know how they lose energy without slowing down.... do tell us
| > all, cunt.
|
| I know how they lose energy when they slow down.
See, you say muons slow down, and when I say you say it, you say I'm a
liar, you cunt. It's a pretty short trip following your thinking
before anyone runs into something that's patently wrong.
(Not that you've ever measured the speed of a muon before it's going
into a scintillator.) Anyway, the aurora are Cherenkov radiation, so clearly
particles entering atmosphere are superluminal.
| I didn't say that I
| don't know how it does that. You did. Would you like a reference to
| where you said that?
I know what you said, shithead. of course I said you don't know.
You didn't know how the aurorae glow, either, until I told you.
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
| > | > out at c = 1/0. <shrug>
| > |
| > | c = 299,792,458 m/s (or 1, depending on your system of units).
| > | Are you a bonehead, Androcles? Why yes, yes, I believe you are.
| >
| > See what I mean? No matter how you argue with him, he'll always be
right in
| > his eyes.
| > He is the typical shithead and arsehole.
| > The speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) = 299,792,458 m/s
|
| Yes indeed.
Yes indeed.
|
| > whereas c from A to A is 0/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 m/s.
|
| No, that's not a speed during a round-trip, that's the magnitude of the
| velocity on a round-trip. Do you not know the difference?
There is no velocity for a round trip, arsehole. Velocity is a vector,
it has both direction and magnitude, not two directions.
|
| You're a math major. You know the difference between an average of
| magnitudes and a magnitude of an average?
|
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| > Everybody knows a constant velocity reverses direction, don't you,
Phuckwit
| > Cunt?
| > Us boneheads will continue with speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA)
=
| > 299,792,458 m/s
|
| That's fine.
Of course it is. Everybody knows a constant velocity reverses direction,
don't you, Phuckwit Cunt?
The speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s, the symbol c = 0/0 because
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity."- IFC Einstein
Phuckwit Duck plays the part, physically, of a Phuckwit Cunt.
Androcles.
Sorcerer
Correct, I upstaged your non-mathematical argument.
I was talking to Henri about you, not to you, cunt.
I can outflame you anytime, you even lose a flame war.
Have a nice flame:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/flame.gif
unsnip
the vehicle's lethal front bucket at the £250,000 two-storey house and tore
Sorcerer
You have no answer to Sagnac, shithead.
|
| Or do you mean that vast waste of energy you call a web page? Have you
| stopped neglecting your grandchildren yet, Androcles?
I'd snip since you produced no mathematics, but I like driving
the point home. That vast waste of energy has convinced a few youngsters
that Einstein was a shithead almost before they've heard of him.
Quite smart, some kids, especially my buddy's grandson aged 13.
They get free copies of my book, too, as well as a new piano.
Do you buy your grandkids 76-key Casio pianos, Phuckwit Duck?
http://www.apsbuyonline.co.uk/catalog/product.php?productid=16351
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 2006 06:02:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
>> >> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
Tom I don't agree with any of this.
You are a dreamer.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Piddlephuck and PD are definitely slightly less dumb than geese...but dda
clearly has an IQ approaching zero. Maybe he is Varney's ghost.
dda1
Patented Cretin Henri Wilson wrote:
<he,he,he , snipped, he can only spew idiocies>
You are eating too much shit, Henri. You may chocke on it. Actually,
you will choke on it.
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 27 Jun 2006 08:46:49 -0700, dwhi...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> If the was a big bang, there would be a natural centre about which all vector
>> momentun would sum to zero. But there wasn't a big bang.
>>
>
>Really? What makes you say that?
I'm a physicist...and phsycists know about these things.
Idiot... do a course in physics will you... then come back here.
>
>(Henri hasn't read a whole lot, and as a result he hasn't thought a
>whole lot, and as a result he is mistaken about a whole lot -- despite
>having been born with a "scientific mind" with which to do a whole lot
>more than he's actually done.)
fool..
>
>PD
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>| > The speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) = 299,792,458 m/s
>|
>| Yes indeed.
>Yes indeed.
>|
>| > whereas c from A to A is 0/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 m/s.
>|
>| No, that's not a speed during a round-trip, that's the magnitude of the
>| velocity on a round-trip. Do you not know the difference?
>
>There is no velocity for a round trip, arsehole. Velocity is a vector,
> it has both direction and magnitude, not two directions.
Look A, I wish you would throw away this argument. It is becoming a liability.
I appreciate that radio engineers never studied basic optics and don't
understand the difference between a real and a virtual image...but that's no
excuse.
According to the BaTh, tAB = tBA and OWLS = TWLS = tA'-tA/2AB = c
>| > Us boneheads will continue with speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA)
>=
>| > 299,792,458 m/s
>|
>| That's fine.
>
>Of course it is. Everybody knows a constant velocity reverses direction,
>don't you, Phuckwit Cunt?
>The speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s, the symbol c = 0/0 because
> "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
> infinitely great velocity."- IFC Einstein
>
>Phuckwit Duck plays the part, physically, of a Phuckwit Cunt.
You are correct on that one.
Henry Haapalainen
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1151450601....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
> news:1151449198.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Henry Haapalainen wrote:
> > > > Einstein discovered that an attraction between masses is a wrong
idea.
> It
> > > is
> > > > a significant discovery. Falling objects are in free fall because of
> the
> > > > curvature of space. Then he made mistakes in trying to explain that.
> > >
> > > > Henry Haapalainen
> > >
> > > Yet for all your idiotic posting, you have not once proven that
general
> > > relativity is not an accurate model of reality.
> > >
> > > I asked this of you months ago and you simply refused. (EG)
> > >
> > > Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:
> > >
> > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
> >
> > Posting *your* theory is not the same as proving that GR is not an
> > accurate model of reality.
> >
> > Asserting that "But mine makes more sense to me," is not a
> > demonstration that another model has failed to accurately represent
> > reality. Do you understand that?
> >
> > PD
>
> No, I don't understand that. HH
Then perhaps you need a primer on the scientific method in general.
PD
Scientific objections are what is needed. (HH)
Henry Haapalainen
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> kirjoitti viestissä
news:tFrog.229927$8W1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:v%iog.10442$5_4....@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> | > >
> | > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
> | > >
> |
> | (deleted)
> |
> | Eric Gisse alias Phineas T Puddleduck, just shut up. HH
> |
>
> You've fucked up again, Happy Henry. Goose can't be Phuddlephuck,
> Goose is even MORE stupid than that.
>
Eric Gisse
...and we are still waiting for them from you.
I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that general relativity is
not a valid model of gravitation. No, posting your "competing" model
does not count.
Henry Haapalainen
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1151538986....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Obviously you can't read. The text below (a part of falling space theory)
contains only proofs, not anything about "my model".
A4
Albert Einstein's relativity theory brought many new ideas to gravity.
Einstein rejected Newton's view that gravity was a force. Einstein concluded
that space is not absolute (the ether), nor is time absolute, the same
everywhere. Einstein attempted to explain gravity as the curving of the
time-space by stating that time is the fourth dimension. According to the
theory, time passes at a different pace on the surface of the Earth than,
for example, at the distance of the Moon's orbit from the Earth, and as the
Moon orbits the Earth it actually moves forwards in a straight line.
A5
But what is the source of the pessimism that gravity can never be explained
by theory? In Newton's theory, objects attract each other, in Einstein's
theory, an object changes the space surrounding it so that the objects
appear to attract each other. But if there are no rubber bands between the
objects, and if we accept that gravity is, after all, not a force, a
contradiction arises. If the deviating motion of objects in a gravity field
is caused by a transmission mechanism that has so far remained unobserved -
the movement of particles or a wave motion - it could never explain the
special characteristic of gravity, that it is not a force. Objects should
move straight ahead in space and not revolve around each other. An external
force is needed to change this. But even if such a force existed, it could
not explain the true nature of gravity. However, the transmission mechanism
of gravity is continually being sought - almost certainly in vain. In
Einstein's theory, space curves, but why? This remains an abstraction.
A6
The only way out of the impasse and forwards is to demonstrate that, in
certain respects, relativity theory is incorrect. We must go back to the
beginning, the Michelson-Morley experiment at the start of the 20th century.
Prior to the experiment, it was generally believed that the Earth and other
celestial bodies move in the ether of space, and that the "ether wind"
caused by the movement could be measured from the surface of the Earth.
Though such a wind would have no effect on particles, it should be visible
as changes in the speed of light. Light should travel faster with the wind
than against or across it. The experiment was carried out using a local
source of light and an arrangement of mirrors, the light being diverted from
its direction of travel and its speed being measured in two directions at
right angles to each other. The result of the experiment was surprising - no
change in the speed of the light was observed. Therefore the ether does not
exist!
A7
If there is no ether, it means that the MM experiment could be carried out
on any celestial body and would always produce the same result. A body's own
motion in space with no ether is relative and is irrelevant in itself. But
Einstein made the further assumption that the speed of light is also in
general independent of the state of motion of the observer.
A8
Observations have shown that the universe appears to be expanding at nearly
the speed of light, i.e. that celestial bodies move relative to each other
at great speeds. But conditions on different celestial bodies are
independent of speed. Conclusions concerning the motion of one's own or
other celestial bodies can only be made on the basis of the red or blue
shift in the light emitted by other celestial bodies. But the examples in
relativity theory deal with travel in space as if one observer could move
while the other remains stationary. Generally, one moves at nearly the speed
of light while the other remains stationary. In practice, Einstein did not
fully understand the significance of the non-existence of ether.
A9
In relativity theory, the terms railway station and the surface of the Earth
are used to depict the stationary observer, while the one leaving the
station or the surface of the Earth is considered to be in motion. But in
ether-free space all movements are relative, and relativity theory does not
speak the truth. Using these examples, relativity theory attempts to
demonstrate that time would pass at different rates for a moving and a
stationary observer. But in ether-free space the observers only move apart
or towards each other. The situation is always symmetrical, and this fact
can only be denied through a mathematical lie.
A10
Relativity theory assumes the speed of light to be independent of the state
of motion of an object. This is impossible, for it is precisely from changes
in the speed of light that velocities and directions of movement can be
measured. Changes in velocity appear as red or blue shifts. Consider, for
example, airport radar measuring aeroplanes' movements, directions, and
speeds. Can anyone really believe that the radar signal always hits each
aircraft at the same speed, irrespective of the aircraft's own speed?
A11
In relativity theory, time has been made a varying quantity like weight and
distance. This assumption is still unsupported by any research result.
Relativity theory's most enthusiastic supporters believe that there should
be a mass of evidence - but there is none. There are only misunderstandings
of how an atomic clock operates (the effect of acceleration), and
misunderstandings of what objective research demands. In many cases,
attempts have been made to use the theory to prove itself.
A12
Despite the defects and errors of relativity theory it must be said that
there will never be another genius like Albert Einstein. The curvature of
space and the relation of mass to energy are magnificent discoveries,
besides many others. Perhaps relativity theory's greatest fault lies in
being too good. It has successfully stopped the development of theoretical
physics for decades.
Falling Space Theory: http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
Henry Haapalainen.
Eric Gisse
Henry Haapalainen wrote:
[...]
I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR THEORY,
I will repeat, because you haven't gotten it yet:
I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR THEORY.
I was asking for *evidence* against general relativity, not competing
theories. Do you know what evidence is?
PD
Yes indeed. It was subluminal before hitting the scintillator and
subluminal after hitting the scintillator. It slows an itty bit in the
scintillator, about 2 MeV/cm.
>
>
> | Pay attention.
> | Wipe the foam off your mouth, too, it's gotten on your glasses and
> | impaired your reading.
>
> Wipe your mouth out with soap, jackass. Your glasses need cleaning
> and that impairs your writing.
>
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >and you don't know how
> | > | > it does that,
> | > |
> | > | I don't? Where did I say that?
> | > | Liar.
> | >
> | > Oh, you do know how they lose energy without slowing down.... do tell us
> | > all, cunt.
> |
> | I know how they lose energy when they slow down.
>
> See, you say muons slow down, and when I say you say it, you say I'm a
> liar, you cunt.
Note the difference, you say it slows from superluminal to subluminal
speeds.
> It's a pretty short trip following your thinking
> before anyone runs into something that's patently wrong.
> (Not that you've ever measured the speed of a muon before it's going
> into a scintillator.)
Sure I have. Ever heard of a muon beamline?
> Anyway, the aurora are Cherenkov radiation, so clearly
> particles entering atmosphere are superluminal.
They don't travel faster that c. They travel faster than c/n, at least
for a while.
>
> | I didn't say that I
> | don't know how it does that. You did. Would you like a reference to
> | where you said that?
>
> I know what you said, shithead. of course I said you don't know.
> You didn't know how the aurorae glow, either, until I told you.
>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
> | > | > out at c = 1/0. <shrug>
> | > |
> | > | c = 299,792,458 m/s (or 1, depending on your system of units).
> | > | Are you a bonehead, Androcles? Why yes, yes, I believe you are.
> | >
> | > See what I mean? No matter how you argue with him, he'll always be
> right in
> | > his eyes.
> | > He is the typical shithead and arsehole.
> | > The speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) = 299,792,458 m/s
> |
> | Yes indeed.
> Yes indeed.
> |
> | > whereas c from A to A is 0/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 m/s.
> |
> | No, that's not a speed during a round-trip, that's the magnitude of the
> | velocity on a round-trip. Do you not know the difference?
>
> There is no velocity for a round trip, arsehole. Velocity is a vector,
> it has both direction and magnitude, not two directions.
Really? This seems like a pretty common problem in basic physics
textbooks. Billy runs around a closed track and crosses the finish line
at the same point he started the race. What is his average *velocity*
during this race? Would you like a textbook reference for a problem
just like this one? I bet it even has an answer in the back of the
book.
Or do you want to dispute the Newtonian mechanics that is taught in
freshman physics books?
Wait, you're an ex-engineer aren't you? Didn't you have to pass this
class at some point?
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2006 16:38:05 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 27 Jun 2006 08:46:49 -0700, dwhi...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> If the was a big bang, there would be a natural centre about which all vector
> >> momentun would sum to zero. But there wasn't a big bang.
> >>
> >
> >Really? What makes you say that?
>
> I'm a physicist...and phsycists know about these things.
You are a *self-proclaimed* physicist. This does not guarantee that you
can place yourself in the category of other physicists who do know
about these things.
I taught this course in physics, Henri. I see you are unable to answer
the question.
>
> >
> >(Henri hasn't read a whole lot, and as a result he hasn't thought a
> >whole lot, and as a result he is mistaken about a whole lot -- despite
> >having been born with a "scientific mind" with which to do a whole lot
> >more than he's actually done.)
>
> fool..
I see you do not contest any of those statements.
PD
PD
Random objections or scientific objections? And how do you discern the
difference?
Or are you the kind that believes:
"Better to be original than to be right."
"Better to buck the status quo than to be right."
"Better to object with no basis than to not object at all."
PD
PD
You apparently do not understand what curved space is. An object under
the influence of gravity *does* move straight ahead in space -- in
*curved* space -- and a path in curved space can complete a closed
circuit, which we describe as revolution.
>An external
> force is needed to change this. But even if such a force existed, it could
> not explain the true nature of gravity. However, the transmission mechanism
> of gravity is continually being sought - almost certainly in vain. In
> Einstein's theory, space curves, but why? This remains an abstraction.
>
> A6
> The only way out of the impasse and forwards is to demonstrate that, in
> certain respects, relativity theory is incorrect.
Not at all. All you've demonstrated is that you don't have the foggiest
idea what curved space is and what a straight line in curved space
looks like.
Failure to understand something is no reason to conclude that it is
incorrect.
The fact that you don't understand electron orbitals doesn't mean that
it's incorrect. The fact that you don't understand how an accelerator
works doesn't mean that it's incorrect.
It just means you're being lazy in trying to figure it out.
[rest of stuff based on incorrect presumptions ignored]
PD
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >All of these observers agree completely on what happened 10 days ago.
>> >They also all agree on the measured rate of expansion, 0.1
>> >marks/day/mark. Now where is the "natural center" of that expansion
>> >about which all the vector momenta of the observers add to zero?
>>
>> Idiot... do a course in physics will you... then come back here.
>
>I taught this course in physics, Henri. I see you are unable to answer
>the question.
Do you know all about the weaknesses caused by 'inbreeding'?
>
>>
>> >
>> >(Henri hasn't read a whole lot, and as a result he hasn't thought a
>> >whole lot, and as a result he is mistaken about a whole lot -- despite
>> >having been born with a "scientific mind" with which to do a whole lot
>> >more than he's actually done.)
>>
>> fool..
>
>I see you do not contest any of those statements.
>
>PD
PD
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2006 19:17:40 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> >> >All of these observers agree completely on what happened 10 days ago.
> >> >They also all agree on the measured rate of expansion, 0.1
> >> >marks/day/mark. Now where is the "natural center" of that expansion
> >> >about which all the vector momenta of the observers add to zero?
> >>
> >> Idiot... do a course in physics will you... then come back here.
> >
> >I taught this course in physics, Henri. I see you are unable to answer
> >the question.
>
> Do you know all about the weaknesses caused by 'inbreeding'?
Henri, I've asked you some specific questions about physics, and all
you have to offer is potshots (and awfully weak ones at that).
Now, are you going to *demonstrate* that you have a scientific mind, or
are you going to continue with this nonsense and demonstrate that you
have nothing of the kind? Put up or shut up.
PD
Harry
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151444650.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Harry wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you saying you want an example
of
> > > folks looking for the aether? If so, I have something in mind. I did
> > > make that statement secure in the knowledge that people have been
> > > looking *really really hard*, and are much more qualified than Henri
> > > and his ilk [and myself, for that matter].
> >
> > You certainly misunderstood another statement by Henry (inside [...]) .
>
> I'm used to how Henri argues and how he sets up future arguments.
>
> Then again I might have misunderstood, it has been known to happen. But
> since the probability of actually learning something releated to
> physics from Henri is nil, I'm not too worried about it.
>
> >
> > > > > > There are no other answers.
> > > > > > Even his velocity addition equation is a direct consequence of
LET
> > > > concepts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Henri, as usual, doesn't understand that SR and LET have the same
> > > > > mathematics even though they are philosophically different.
> > > >
> > > > Henri apparently doesn't understand SR and his statement is a matter
of
> > > > opinion. However, it's exactly the difference in interpretation that
he
> > put
> > > > forward, if I read it correctly.
> > >
> > > Remember what I said about cognitive dissonance?
> > >
> > > Henri seems to view LET as "acceptable" and SR as "unacceptable". They
> > > have wildly different philosophical bases, but make the same
> > > predictions. Then again, my understanding of LET is on shaky ground. I
> > > would love a decent reference that explains LET without being burdened
> > > by the babbling of cranks.
> >
> > Lorentz wasn't much interested in those issues but there are a few
others.
> > Some papers by Ives and Builder explain that opinion rather well I
think.
> > But what do you mean with a "decent" reference? JOSA, Austr.J.P.,
Phys.Rev.,
> > Nature, or what?
>
> Any of the above.
>
> It is just nice to have a whole lot more wheat and a whole lot less
> chaffe, you know?
>
> A decent article about the hunt for the aether was in a 2004 Physics
> Today. Specifically, aether and breaking Lorentz invariance. Things
> like the MMX and its' many descendants are mentioned.
>
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
That such an "aether hunt" is probably misdirected can be understood from
the article by Ives called " Genesis of the query "Is there an ether" ",
JOSA 43, no. 3, p.217, 1953), as well as from Builder's article "Ether and
Relativity", Australian J. Physics 11 (1958), p.279. Perhaps that Langevin's
1911 article "L'évolution de l'espace et du temps" (Scientia, X, p.31)
provides better general "pro-ether" arguments, but it's in French.
For a thorough explanation of what is here called "LET", you may find Ives'
article called "Derivation of the Lorentz transformations (Phil. Mag. 7,
vol.39, 1945 p.392) more useful. It shows how SRT naturally follows from
classical physics (Newton+ Maxwell) by relying on the conservation laws.
Cheers,
Harald
tomgee
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2006 09:06:26 -0700, "tomgee" <tyro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 26 Jun 2006 06:02:25 -0700, "tomgee" <tyro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> >> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX null
> >> >> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still taken
>
> Tom I don't agree with any of this.
> You are a dreamer.
>
of the above. Isn't that something you said?
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:37:40 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
|
| >| > The speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) = 299,792,458 m/s
| >|
| >| Yes indeed.
| >Yes indeed.
| >|
| >| > whereas c from A to A is 0/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 m/s.
| >|
| >| No, that's not a speed during a round-trip, that's the magnitude of the
| >| velocity on a round-trip. Do you not know the difference?
| >
| >There is no velocity for a round trip, arsehole. Velocity is a vector,
| > it has both direction and magnitude, not two directions.
|
| Look A, I wish you would throw away this argument. It is becoming a
liability.
Fuck you! Velocities do not have a round trip, so wish away all you want to.
Cassini has a clock, not a mirror.
|
| I appreciate that radio engineers never studied basic optics and don't
| understand the difference between a real and a virtual image...but that's
no
| excuse.
|
| According to the BaTh, tAB = tBA and OWLS = TWLS = tA'-tA/2AB = c
Hey bonehead! You mean tA'-tA/2AB = 1/c
You are senile, mistaking hpm for mph.
TWLS = 0AB/(t'A-tA) = 0/0.
BaTh is shit, drunken wabo.
BTW, I used to find mirror centre with a real image of a theodolite upside
down superimposed on a real theodolite, you moron.
http://www.faa.gov/safety/programs_initiatives/aircraft_aviation/nsp/flight_training/bulletins/media/03-01.pdf|| >| > Us boneheads will continue with speed of light from A to B isAB/(tB-tA)| >=| >| > 299,792,458 m/s| >|| >| That's fine.| >| >Of course it is. Everybody knows a constant velocity reverses direction,| >don't you, Phuckwit Cunt?| >The speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s, the symbol c = 0/0 because| > "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an| > infinitely great velocity."- IFC Einstein| >| >Phuckwit Duck plays the part, physically, of a Phuckwit Cunt.|| You are correct on that one.Then for fuck's sake what are you whining about, you ignorant old cunt?It isn't 2AB, it is 0AB because 1-1 = 0, not 2, the light returns to theorigin A,it doesn't continue on to 2AB.A-----------------B--------------2ABIf it reverses at B then it isn't a constant velocity, you thick bastard!Androcles.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Haapalainen <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
We bow to the master.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sorcerer
So apologise, I'm not a liar, you thick cunt.
In your case, Phuckwit Duck, it's pretty plain what's wrong with your
thinking. It's a pretty short trip following your thinking before you
run into something that's patently wrong.
MEASURING the speed of the cosmic muon BEFORE it hits the
scintillator, we find 62 miles (height of atmosphere) in less than
2.2 usec > 299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per
second
IN OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE. The FoR of the muon
is irrelevant. Pay attention. Wipe the drool off your mouth, too, it's
gotten on your glasses and impaired your calculator.
| >
| >
| > | Pay attention.
| > | Wipe the foam off your mouth, too, it's gotten on your glasses and
| > | impaired your reading.
| >
| > Wipe your mouth out with soap, jackass. Your glasses need cleaning
| > and that impairs your writing.
| >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >and you don't know how
| > | > | > it does that,
| > | > |
| > | > | I don't? Where did I say that?
| > | > | Liar.
| > | >
| > | > Oh, you do know how they lose energy without slowing down.... do
tell us
| > | > all, cunt.
| > |
| > | I know how they lose energy when they slow down.
| >
| > See, you say muons slow down, and when I say you say it, you say I'm a
| > liar, you cunt.
|
| Note the difference, you say it slows from superluminal to subluminal
| speeds.
Perhaps you call 62 miles per 2.2 usec subluminal...<shrug>
|
| > It's a pretty short trip following your thinking
| > before anyone runs into something that's patently wrong.
| > (Not that you've ever measured the speed of a muon before it's going
| > into a scintillator.)
|
| Sure I have. Ever heard of a muon beamline?
Not one that is 62 miles long, no. You refer to domesticated muons,
I'm referring to wild, feral muons. Cheetahs run much faster than moggies.
|
| > Anyway, the aurora are Cherenkov radiation, so clearly
| > particles entering atmosphere are superluminal.
|
| They don't travel faster that c. They travel faster than c/n, at least
| for a while.
62 miles in 2.2 usec is faster than 299,792.4562 kilometers per second,
but I agree, nothing is faster than c = 0/0.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity."- IFC Einstein
You are confusing physics with mathematical games, shithead.
Perhaps you don't know how to use a calculator.
|
| >
| > | I didn't say that I
| > | don't know how it does that. You did. Would you like a reference to
| > | where you said that?
| >
| > I know what you said, shithead. of course I said you don't know.
| > You didn't know how the aurorae glow, either, until I told you.
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >so it must have gone in at just under c = 0/0 and come
| > | > | > out at c = 1/0. <shrug>
| > | > |
| > | > | c = 299,792,458 m/s (or 1, depending on your system of units).
| > | > | Are you a bonehead, Androcles? Why yes, yes, I believe you are.
| > | >
| > | > See what I mean? No matter how you argue with him, he'll always be
| > right in
| > | > his eyes.
| > | > He is the typical shithead and arsehole.
| > | > The speed of light from A to B is AB/(tB-tA) = 299,792,458 m/s
| > |
| > | Yes indeed.
| > Yes indeed.
| > |
| > | > whereas c from A to A is 0/(t'A-tA) = 0/0 m/s.
| > |
| > | No, that's not a speed during a round-trip, that's the magnitude of
the
| > | velocity on a round-trip. Do you not know the difference?
| >
| > There is no velocity for a round trip, arsehole. Velocity is a vector,
| > it has both direction and magnitude, not two directions.
|
| Really?
Yes really.
| This seems like a pretty common problem in basic physics
| textbooks.
So a lot of shitheads babble shit they don't understand. <shrug>
What do you want me to do about it? Educate the arseholes? I'm trying.
| Billy runs around a closed track and crosses the finish line
| at the same point he started the race. What is his average *velocity*
| during this race?
Zero.
| Would you like a textbook reference for a problem
| just like this one? I bet it even has an answer in the back of the
| book.
Produce it, then. Cite the shithead author that doesn't know what
velocity is, unless he says the answer is zero, in which case you lose
again, Phuckwit Duck.
|
| Or do you want to dispute the Newtonian mechanics that is taught in
| freshman physics books?
Not at all, unless they are wrong like you.
Try this one, although it may be too advanced for you:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/vectors/u3l1a.html
|
| Wait, you're an ex-engineer aren't you? Didn't you have to pass this
| class at some point?
Yes. I did. And I've put it into practice.
Androcles
Sorcerer
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:07:37 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henry Haapalainen" <kir...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
| >news:v%iog.10442$5_4....@reader1.news.jippii.net...
| >|> > Obviously you can't understand it, but here it is once again:
| >| > >
| >| > > http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/
| >| > >
| >| > > Henry Haapalainen
| >|
| >| (deleted)
| >|
| >| Eric Gisse alias Phineas T Puddleduck, just shut up. HH
| >|
| >
| >You've fucked up again, Happy Henry. Goose can't be Phuddlephuck,
| >Goose is even MORE stupid than that.
|
| Piddlephuck and PD are definitely slightly less dumb than geese...but dda
| clearly has an IQ approaching zero. Maybe he is Varney's ghost.
I didn't bother reading dda after his first post. Shithead Happy Henry
confuses acceleration with push, so he claims acceleration isn't real
in free fall. I've tried to tell the cunt acceleration is dv/dt, but the
moron
is so fucked up he ignores it.
Androcles
Sorcerer
Fuck off.
PD
Certainly you are. It's been documented.
> In your case, Phuckwit Duck, it's pretty plain what's wrong with your
> thinking. It's a pretty short trip following your thinking before you
> run into something that's patently wrong.
>
> MEASURING the speed of the cosmic muon BEFORE it hits the
> scintillator, we find 62 miles (height of atmosphere) in less than
> 2.2 usec > 299,792.4562 kilometers per second, plus or minus 1.1 meters per
> second
> IN OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE.
That's incorrect. It doesn't cover that ground in less than 2.2 usec in
our frame of reference, at least not that we measure. And in
ground-based muon beamlines, the muons definitely do not decay with a
lifetime less than 2.2 usec or even equal to 2.2 usec in our frame of
reference.
> The FoR of the muon
> is irrelevant. Pay attention. Wipe the drool off your mouth, too, it's
> gotten on your glasses and impaired your calculator.
>
>
> | >
> | >
> | > | Pay attention.
> | > | Wipe the foam off your mouth, too, it's gotten on your glasses and
> | > | impaired your reading.
> | >
> | > Wipe your mouth out with soap, jackass. Your glasses need cleaning
> | > and that impairs your writing.
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | >and you don't know how
> | > | > | > it does that,
> | > | > |
> | > | > | I don't? Where did I say that?
> | > | > | Liar.
> | > | >
> | > | > Oh, you do know how they lose energy without slowing down.... do
> tell us
> | > | > all, cunt.
> | > |
> | > | I know how they lose energy when they slow down.
> | >
> | > See, you say muons slow down, and when I say you say it, you say I'm a
> | > liar, you cunt.
> |
> | Note the difference, you say it slows from superluminal to subluminal
> | speeds.
>
> Perhaps you call 62 miles per 2.2 usec subluminal...<shrug>
I don't know where you get the idea it covers that distance in 2.2
usec. <shrug>
>
> |
> | > It's a pretty short trip following your thinking
> | > before anyone runs into something that's patently wrong.
> | > (Not that you've ever measured the speed of a muon before it's going
> | > into a scintillator.)
> |
> | Sure I have. Ever heard of a muon beamline?
>
> Not one that is 62 miles long, no.
And that matters... why?
>You refer to domesticated muons,
> I'm referring to wild, feral muons.
And that matters...why?
> Cheetahs run much faster than moggies.
And that matters...why?
>
>
> |
> | > Anyway, the aurora are Cherenkov radiation, so clearly
> | > particles entering atmosphere are superluminal.
> |
> | They don't travel faster that c. They travel faster than c/n, at least
> | for a while.
>
> 62 miles in 2.2 usec is faster than 299,792.4562 kilometers per second,
Yes, indeed it is, but nothing goes 62 miles in 2.2 usec.
And so you have the same problem as Seto. You use terms differently
than the way that they are taught to freshmen. And you suppose that is
a problem with everyone else?
>
>
>
> | Billy runs around a closed track and crosses the finish line
> | at the same point he started the race. What is his average *velocity*
> | during this race?
>
> Zero.
Yes, exactly. And yet you just told me there is "no velocity for a
round trip, asshole". But you just found one, asshole.
Now Billy runs around the same closed track at a speed of 8 m/s and
crosses the finish line at the same point he started the race. What is
his average *velocity* during this race, asshole?
It's been a pretty short trip to find out exactly where you are wrong,
asshole.
>
>
> | Would you like a textbook reference for a problem
> | just like this one? I bet it even has an answer in the back of the
> | book.
>
> Produce it, then. Cite the shithead author that doesn't know what
> velocity is, unless he says the answer is zero, in which case you lose
> again, Phuckwit Duck.
Giancoli, 3rd edition. Look it up. Do you need a page reference, or can
you find it?
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> Before Einstein, Lorentz's aether theory satisfactorily explained the MMX
null
> result via his LTs. However, in spite of this, the null result was still
taken
verdict.
>
> It is a fact, that because of Lorentz's (Fitzgerald's) supposed
'contractions',
> it is a feature of LET that any observer moving through the aether will
always
> MEASURE the OW speed of light as being c.
>
This is wrong. OWLS never been measured.
PD
Of course it's been measured.
Now, you may object that it's not been measured using a distance
measured with sticks and two clocks at either end, but that's not the
only way to measure OWLS.
Deciding to measure it some way other than the way you want it to be
measured is probably a good decision.
PD
dda1
Harry, still peddling LET?
Still reading Ives? It will render you dumb . Wait.....you are already
dumb.
AllYou!
Virtually every measurement requires a theory in order to bridge the
gap which would otherwise exist between observations with conclusions,
and every theory is subject to validation. What's the theory for the
way in which OWLS is measured, and how has it been validated?