Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tom Roberts Does not Appear to Understand Relativity at All.
138 views
Skip to first unread message
Henry Wilson
Oct 5, 2012, 9:30:16 PM10/5/12
to
In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
"A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an inertial frame, not by multiple clocks.....
As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a spatial component to the
interval, and the issue of how you synchronize the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
....end of quote.
Having expressed that opinion, it is surprising then that he persistently supports a theory that relies crucially on the validity of Einstein's
RoS derivation, in which Einstein deliberately de-synched two moving clocks in order to make two time intervals
appear the same. He did this in spite of the fact that the readings of both those clocks, were KNOWN to advance by DIFFERENT amounts
during those same intervals. In other words, his attempt to support his second postulate resulted in a conflict with his own calculations.
The intervals had already been firmly established as being different....and by a 'single clock at rest in its inertial frame' as Tom demanded.
Note, neither clock was required to perform an actual measurement of the intervals. A comparison of those times was mathematically derivable and sufficient to prove the fact.
Tom might like to comment on the following experiment:
An observer with a clock attaches another clock to the end of a long rod before setting that rod in motion.
C1______L_______>v
S---------------------O-C------------------------S
(Assume both clocks are stable and let the rate of moving clock C1 be R times that of C.)
Using light sources at rest in his frame, the observer sends signals in both directions across the moving rod, as per Einstein's RoS derivation.
He correctly calculates that those signals take time intervals of L/c+v) and L/(c-v) to transit the rod in opposite directions, in terms of his clock C calibration. It follows that those intervals are RL/c+v) and RL/(c-v) according to moving clock C1. Thus, the ratio of those time intervals is firmly established as (c+v)/(c-v), according to the readings of both C and C1, ie., by single clocks in BOTH frames of reference.
In light of his quoted remarks, can Tom please explain how Einstein's little trick of adding a second, 'de-synched' clock to the moving rod could possibly alter that known ratio.
"A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an inertial frame, not by multiple clocks.....
As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a spatial component to the
interval, and the issue of how you synchronize the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
....end of quote.
Having expressed that opinion, it is surprising then that he persistently supports a theory that relies crucially on the validity of Einstein's
RoS derivation, in which Einstein deliberately de-synched two moving clocks in order to make two time intervals
appear the same. He did this in spite of the fact that the readings of both those clocks, were KNOWN to advance by DIFFERENT amounts
during those same intervals. In other words, his attempt to support his second postulate resulted in a conflict with his own calculations.
The intervals had already been firmly established as being different....and by a 'single clock at rest in its inertial frame' as Tom demanded.
Note, neither clock was required to perform an actual measurement of the intervals. A comparison of those times was mathematically derivable and sufficient to prove the fact.
Tom might like to comment on the following experiment:
An observer with a clock attaches another clock to the end of a long rod before setting that rod in motion.
C1______L_______>v
S---------------------O-C------------------------S
(Assume both clocks are stable and let the rate of moving clock C1 be R times that of C.)
Using light sources at rest in his frame, the observer sends signals in both directions across the moving rod, as per Einstein's RoS derivation.
He correctly calculates that those signals take time intervals of L/c+v) and L/(c-v) to transit the rod in opposite directions, in terms of his clock C calibration. It follows that those intervals are RL/c+v) and RL/(c-v) according to moving clock C1. Thus, the ratio of those time intervals is firmly established as (c+v)/(c-v), according to the readings of both C and C1, ie., by single clocks in BOTH frames of reference.
In light of his quoted remarks, can Tom please explain how Einstein's little trick of adding a second, 'de-synched' clock to the moving rod could possibly alter that known ratio.
Koobee Wublee
Oct 6, 2012, 1:27:54 AM10/6/12
to
On Oct 5, 6:30 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
>
> "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock...”
> In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
>
The issue here is not whether Tom Roberts and other self-styled
physicists understand relativity or not. It is about why they BELIEVE
IN relativity. <shrug>
We are constantly reminded that relativity has not been falsified by
any experiments. Over time, that concept even if false will sink in.
That is how lies can become truths through repeated same lies.
<shrug>
In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
antitheses to relativity to be false.
What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
principle of relativity only holds for low speeds. Since these
antitheses cannot co-exist where one invalidates the other and vice
versa, these experiments that Tom Roberts have compiled actually do
nothing to validate relativity in any way. <shrug>
Any scholars at this point would go back and re-examine how relativity
was derived in the first place. Koobee Wublee did just that and found
that relativity was fudged into place without any mathematical
consistencies. Relativity is a set of man-made laws of physics that
manifest paradoxes. It is a big embarrassment to science.
The most famous paradox is the twins’ paradox, and the most common
mathemaGical trick to show non-existence of this paradox can be found
in the little professor andersen’s java applet where he mathemaGically
switch a quantity around. Realizing there is no hope to dissolve the
paradox in mathematics. The gun-ho ones are championing the mythical
substance called the proper time where everything ages in proper time
instead of real time. Since the proper time is so mythical, no
experiment can touch it, and the myth to relativity is able to
proliferate among the idiot bunch also known as Einstein
Dingleberries.
From the experimental blunders, the self-styled physicists do not
understand scientific method in which that disqualifies them to be
scientists. From analytical blunders, the self-styled physicists fail
in logical reasoning. They are a bunch of clowns who do not know what
they are doing. When anyone can come up with a good excuse for their
stupidities and gross blunders, Koobee Wublee would gladly retract all
the criticisms about the self-styled physicists. <shrug>
In the meantime, let’s see how the self-styled physicists dig
themselves out of this hole. Koobee Wublee predicts they will just
sit there with their thumbs plugged in the asses doing nothing and
allow Koobee Wublee to slap their faces all day long. A bunch of very
fvcked up group who call themselves scientists. <shrug>
Henry Wilson
Oct 6, 2012, 8:05:32 AM10/6/12
to
The problem, koobee, is that no single aether exists...and both SR and LET are completely wrong...with the former being far more 'completely wrong' than the latter.
I want to see what Roberts has to say in response to my revelation..
Big Dog
Oct 6, 2012, 10:17:13 AM10/6/12
to
On 10/6/2012 12:27 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 5, 6:30 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
>>
>> "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock...”
>
> The issue here is not whether Tom Roberts and other self-styled
> physicists understand relativity or not. It is about why they BELIEVE
> IN relativity. <shrug>
>
> We are constantly reminded that relativity has not been falsified by
> any experiments. Over time, that concept even if false will sink in.
> That is how lies can become truths through repeated same lies.
> <shrug>
>
> In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
> that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false.
You are right up to here.
> On Oct 5, 6:30 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
>>
>> "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock...”
>
> The issue here is not whether Tom Roberts and other self-styled
> physicists understand relativity or not. It is about why they BELIEVE
> IN relativity. <shrug>
>
> We are constantly reminded that relativity has not been falsified by
> any experiments. Over time, that concept even if false will sink in.
> That is how lies can become truths through repeated same lies.
> <shrug>
>
> In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
> that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false.
> However,
> these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
> relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
> antitheses to relativity to be false.
Pete Weber
Oct 6, 2012, 1:30:51 PM10/6/12
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:30:16 -0700, Henry Wilson wrote:
> In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
>
> "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an
> inertial frame, not by multiple clocks.....
> As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a
> spatial component to the interval, and the issue of how you synchronize
> the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
>
> ....end of quote.
this is funny, because relativity was invented in order
> In a recent message Tom Roberts wrote, quote:
>
> "A TIME interval must be measured by a single clock at rest in an
> inertial frame, not by multiple clocks.....
> As soon as you use multiple clocks at different locations, there is a
> spatial component to the interval, and the issue of how you synchronize
> the clocks becomes important -- that is frame dependent."
>
> ....end of quote.
to do exactly that, synchronize
at any instant of time you may apply a formulae and get
the time reading for the other guy !!!
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 6, 2012, 2:05:10 PM10/6/12
to
On 06.10.2012 14:05, Henry Wilson wrote:
> SR is nothing but a cleverly disguised version of LET...
> which is why the two theories produce exactly the same results.
So you have finally realized that your claims quoted
> SR is nothing but a cleverly disguised version of LET...
> which is why the two theories produce exactly the same results.
in these papers were wrong.
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET3.pdf
But knowing that it is impossible for you to admit
being wrong, I look forward to your explanation of
why you were right when claiming that LET an SR could
produce different results.
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson
Oct 6, 2012, 4:03:41 PM10/6/12
to
Now, are you prepared to discuss what is in THIS thread or simply divert attention and waste time like you usually do?
>
>
> --
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson
Oct 6, 2012, 4:08:33 PM10/6/12
to
Pete Weber
Oct 6, 2012, 4:40:08 PM10/6/12
to
then he can do it for any amount of guys
thus yes, although i dont really know what an absolute time is
Peter Webb
Oct 7, 2012, 12:02:22 AM10/7/12
to
In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
antitheses to relativity to be false.
What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
principle of relativity only holds for low speeds.
Ohhh dearie me. You made a basic mistake of logic. In the first paragraph,
you talk generically about experiments that test relativity. In the second
paragraph, you talk only about the MMX. For paragraph 2 to logically follow
from the first paragraph, it needs to consider all tests of relativity. Tell
us how the Larmor and Voigt transformations correctly predict the decay
rates of closely coupled neutron star binaries, as GR does to many decimal
places. Can't do it? Gee, I guess that is an experiment that is consistent
with Relativity (specifically GR) but not the alternate theories. Which
makes you wrong.
The MMX is only one experimental test of Relativity. For these alternate
theories to be valid, they will need to pass all experimental tests, as does
Relativity. Unfortunately they don't; there are dozens or hundreds of
experiments which SR passes but these other theories don't.
You should learn about the many, many other experimental tests of SR other
than the MMX. Just because this is the only experiment you have heard of
doesn't mean its the only experiment that has been done. Learn some of the
others, and if you can come up with a theory which is consistent with all
experiments but mathematically distinguishable from SR then publish it
here - if it is correct then you can publish it in a proper journal and
immediately become famous. But first you have to LEARN SOME PHYSICS.
Koobee Wublee
Oct 7, 2012, 3:48:12 AM10/7/12
to
On Oct 6, 9:02 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> In the first paragraph,
> you talk generically about experiments that test relativity. In the second
> paragraph, you talk only about the MMX. For paragraph 2 to logically follow
> from the first paragraph, it needs to consider all tests of relativity.
The best explanation is that peter webb is mentally retarded. <shrug>
> Tell
> us how the Larmor and Voigt transformations correctly predict the decay
> rates of closely coupled neutron star binaries, as GR does to many decimal
> places.
Does it look like Koobee Wublee is your teacher? Go study Larmor’s
and the Voigt transform by yourself. If you insist to be spoon-fed by
Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
lost. <shrug>
> [rest of mental retarded comments snipped]
wrote:
> In experimental verifications of relativity, there is some truth to
> that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
> these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
> relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
> antitheses to relativity to be false.
>
> What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
> transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
> satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
> the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
> principle of relativity only holds for low speeds.
>
> _________________________________________________
> Ohhh dearie me. You made a basic mistake of logic.
No, the joke is on peter webb. <shrug>
> that since no experiments have shown relativity to be false. However,
> these same experimental verifications have shown the antitheses to
> relativity to be also valid, and no experiments have shown the
> antitheses to relativity to be false.
>
> What are antitheses to relativity? They are all the other infinite
> transforms that Lorentz, Larmor, and Voigt had discovered that also
> satisfy the null results of the MMX. In these transforms (other than
> the Lorentz transform), they say the Aether must exist, and the
> principle of relativity only holds for low speeds.
>
> _________________________________________________
> Ohhh dearie me. You made a basic mistake of logic.
> In the first paragraph,
> you talk generically about experiments that test relativity. In the second
> paragraph, you talk only about the MMX. For paragraph 2 to logically follow
> from the first paragraph, it needs to consider all tests of relativity.
> Tell
> us how the Larmor and Voigt transformations correctly predict the decay
> rates of closely coupled neutron star binaries, as GR does to many decimal
> places.
and the Voigt transform by yourself. If you insist to be spoon-fed by
Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
lost. <shrug>
> [rest of mental retarded comments snipped]
Koobee Wublee
Oct 7, 2012, 4:26:12 AM10/7/12
to
mystified in science regardless Einstein Dingleberries or not. Koobee
Wublee would also disagree with crackpots who still believe in
Michell’s ballistic theory of light, but Einstein Dingleberries are
doing a fine job of demystifying the bunch including Andro and
yourself. <shrug>
> Your problem is that you are an aetherist...
> and so was Einstein.
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was merely a nitwit,
a plagiarist, and a liar. The nitwit was nobody. <shrug>
> SR is nothing but a cleverly disguised version of LET...
transform, then SR = LET where both SR and LET satisfy the principle
of relativity. If your LET utilizes Larmor’s transform, then SR is
not LET where LET says the Aether must exist. See a difference?
<shrug>
> which is why the two theories produce exactly the same results.
<shrug>
> However, At least LET would work if an aether existed whereas
> SR has no physical foundation at all. LET provides a plausible
> mechanism for the source independence of light speed as well as
> contractions that make the measurement of absolute speed
> impossible. SR merely lays down those two essentials in a postulate
> and produces the same equations by working backwards.
can tell them apart. <shrug>
> The problem, koobee, is that no single aether exists...and both
> SR and LET are completely wrong...with the former being far more
> 'completely wrong' than the latter.
manifest some sorts of time paradox, and they are all wrong, but that
does not mean the Aether does not exist. No experiments have shown
the Aether not to exist. <shrug>
> I want to see what Roberts has to say in response to my revelation..
little professor from Norway to put his foot in his mouth again. He
hates to deal with Koobee Wublee. He seems to have no problems of
walking over guys who still believe in Michell’s ballistic theory of
light. <shrug>
Good luck, Henry. <shrug>
Henry Wilson
Oct 7, 2012, 4:19:51 PM10/7/12
to
NOW plus one second, here, is NOW plus one second everywhere.
Vilas Tamhane
Oct 8, 2012, 8:44:25 AM10/8/12
to
Time interval of what can be measured by a single clock? It can be
used only for local events, such as heart beats, number of rotations,
number of local oscillations etc. When we wish to measure velocity of
a particle, there is no option but to place two synch clocks at some
measured distance. When we wish to measure velocity of a rod of some
measurable length then we can measure it by a single clock.
In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
there is no option but to use two clocks.
When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
are), then there is no need to proceed further. However if you want to
attack SR for its contradictions (for contradictions will be present
if basic postulates are wrong) then, we must assume these postulates
to be correct and then proceed to find contradictions in applications.
In your present example, you are pointing out basic contradiction in
the use of constant velocity in the moving frame to decide time
duration, the way Einstein used it. Therefore, it is necessary to
assume constancy of light velocity. Once we assume that velocity of
light is constant in any frame then it is clear that by sending light
signals to clocks separated spatially, from mid point, we can
synchronize them or in other words, when we assume constant velocity
of light, we assume that clocks will be synchronized. So where is the
problem in synchronization?
His other point that time coordinate involves spatial distance is not
valid in the present case, as it has no bearing on the present set
up.
In the rod’s frame, there are two synch clocks at ends of the rod and
they measure time for light pulses to travel across it in both the
directions as t’=L/c.
In the stationary frame, we have to keep large number of clocks at
every point. When a light pulse enters the rod end A, then this event
is noted on corresponding clock of the stationary frame. When this
pulse leaves end B of the rod, this event is noted by another
corresponding clock of the stationary frame. Time durations will be L/
(c+v) and L/(c-v). It is to be noted that L will now be contracted
length but it is not accounted as it simply changes value of R in your
equations. Thus it can be shown that unless we take average of the
time durations, we arrive at two different time durations. In short,
what we get is t1=R1 t’ and t2=R2 t’; and so comparison of time
duration is not possible.
Your deductions in your previous post were excellent. Don’t change
those simply because somebody tries to find a fault in vain.
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 9:00:47 AM10/8/12
to
On 10/6/2012 3:03 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Paul, my time is valuable. It is easier for me to provoke YOU into doing the work than doing it myself.
Aaaaaand Rabbidge confesses openly his MO.
> Paul, my time is valuable. It is easier for me to provoke YOU into doing the work than doing it myself.
paparios
Oct 8, 2012, 9:27:17 AM10/8/12
to
El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2012 08:44:25 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane escribió:
>
>
> Tom Roberts is confused.
Several people in this forum are showing everyday a great amount of ignorance and confusion about what SR, GR and QM say. You and Wilson are two of the typical members with such characteristic.
>
> Time interval of what can be measured by a single clock? It can be
>
> used only for local events, such as heart beats, number of rotations,
>
> number of local oscillations etc.
A single clock, in SR like in the rest of physics, is used to measure the time of occurrence of events (like at 10:58 we detected a nuclear blast light coming from the -x direction and at 11:37 we detected a second nuclear blast light coming from the +x direction). It is also used, as the previous example shows, to determine the simultaneity of events (in that example, for the given observer's clock, the two events were not simultaneous).
The at rest observer installs a row of clocks that are synchronized. Now, the object is moved along the clock row and every clock stores the exact time when the left or the right end of the object passes by. After that, the observer only has to look after the position of a clock A that stored the time when the left end of the object was passing by, and a clock B at which the right end of the object was passing by at the same time. It's clear that distance AB is equal to length L of the moving object.
> When we wish to measure velocity of
>
> a particle, there is no option but to place two synch clocks at some
>
> measured distance. When we wish to measure velocity of a rod of some
>
> measurable length then we can measure it by a single clock.
Clearly this is nonsense. To measure a length of a moving rod (from the frame of reference of the at rest observer) you have to ensure that the location of the front end and of the back end are measured at the same time, which obviously requires the use of two synchronized clocks.
>
> In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
>
> pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
>
> there is no option but to use two clocks.
>
> When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
>
> contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
>
> are), then there is no need to proceed further.
This is clearly utterly nonsense. By definition, postulates can't be contradictory. What is it that you consider contradictory in SR postulates "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion." and "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."?
>
>
> Tom Roberts is confused.
Several people in this forum are showing everyday a great amount of ignorance and confusion about what SR, GR and QM say. You and Wilson are two of the typical members with such characteristic.
>
> Time interval of what can be measured by a single clock? It can be
>
> used only for local events, such as heart beats, number of rotations,
>
> number of local oscillations etc.
The at rest observer installs a row of clocks that are synchronized. Now, the object is moved along the clock row and every clock stores the exact time when the left or the right end of the object passes by. After that, the observer only has to look after the position of a clock A that stored the time when the left end of the object was passing by, and a clock B at which the right end of the object was passing by at the same time. It's clear that distance AB is equal to length L of the moving object.
> When we wish to measure velocity of
>
> a particle, there is no option but to place two synch clocks at some
>
> measured distance. When we wish to measure velocity of a rod of some
>
> measurable length then we can measure it by a single clock.
>
> In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
>
> pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
>
> there is no option but to use two clocks.
>
> When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
>
> contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
>
> are), then there is no need to proceed further.
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 11:12:49 AM10/8/12
to
On 10/7/2012 2:48 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:02 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au>
>
> On Oct 6, 9:02 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au>
>
>> Tell
>> us how the Larmor and Voigt transformations correctly predict the decay
>> rates of closely coupled neutron star binaries, as GR does to many decimal
>> places.
>
> Does it look like Koobee Wublee is your teacher? Go study Larmor�s
>> us how the Larmor and Voigt transformations correctly predict the decay
>> rates of closely coupled neutron star binaries, as GR does to many decimal
>> places.
>
> and the Voigt transform by yourself. If you insist to be spoon-fed by
> Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
> lost. <shrug>
In other words, you feel free to make grand, sweeping statements, but
> Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
> lost. <shrug>
are not inclined to back them up, nor to point to any references where
the backup can be found.
Koobee, you're a fucking liar, and a shameless one.
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 11:25:31 AM10/8/12
to
On 10/7/2012 3:19 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> NOW here, is NOW everywhere.'
>
> NOW plus one second, here, is NOW plus one second everywhere.
>
And 2+3=7 and 2+3=7 everywhere.
>
> NOW here, is NOW everywhere.'
>
> NOW plus one second, here, is NOW plus one second everywhere.
>
And 2+4=8 and 2+4=8 everywhere.
Because Rabbidge says so, you see.
Vilas Tamhane
Oct 8, 2012, 11:56:32 AM10/8/12
to
“Idiot, god is a question of faith.”
“You mean to say, we should believe in god without applying reason?”
“When we can feel presence of god, where is the need for reason?”
“Why, this is the characteristic that separates us from non thinking
animals.”
“Idiot! Animals can’t do mathematics and mathematicians can’t think
and so we don’t need any reason to prove god.”
“I don’t agree. I need proof for everything.”
“Very existence of this universe is a sufficient proof for god.”
“If it is the creation of god then we must find proof for his direct
interference.”
“Can you tell how universe came into existence? If not our present
theory that god created this universe holds and this is how faith
works. It is not dependent on reason or philosophy.”
“That is wrong.”
“Who cares for your opinion? 99 percent of us believe in god.”
Thereafter god never died.
Big Dog
Oct 8, 2012, 12:11:53 PM10/8/12
to
On 10/8/2012 10:56 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> �But where is the proof for god?�
> �Idiot, god is a question of faith.�
> �You mean to say, we should believe in god without applying reason?�
> �When we can feel presence of god, where is the need for reason?�
> �Why, this is the characteristic that separates us from non thinking
> animals.�
> �Idiot! Animals can�t do mathematics and mathematicians can�t think
> and so we don�t need any reason to prove god.�
> �I don�t agree. I need proof for everything.�
> �Very existence of this universe is a sufficient proof for god.�
> �If it is the creation of god then we must find proof for his direct
> interference.�
> �Can you tell how universe came into existence? If not our present
> �That is wrong.�
> �Who cares for your opinion? 99 percent of us believe in god.�
> Thereafter god never died.
>
This dialog has nothing to do with science. The propositions of science
are not tested with the application of reason. They are tested by making
predictions of unanticipated phenomena, and then checking those
unanticipated predictions with experimental measurement.
Now then, if you wanted to talk about the distinction between science
and religion, it would go like this:
"But where is there proof for god?"
"God is a question of faith."
logical arguments for god, but it proves nothing."
"How else, then, would we go about investigating god?"
"Humans distinguish themselves from animals by doing scientific
investigation."
"What do you mean by scientific investigation, other than the
application of reason?"
"Reason is not sufficient. What is necessary is the development of the
hypothesis of god into a testable prediction of an observation or
observations that would be true if god existed that could not be true by
other hypotheses. And then the actual making of those observations to
see if the predictions are correct."
"But there are no predictions that come from the hypothesis of god that
follow that description."
"That's why god is not a matter of scientific interest."
"But lots of people believe in god."
"Lots of people believe in lots of things without scientific thinking
behind it."
"But does there not have to be a logical, sensible proof of god first?"
"Not in science. There only has to be a hypothesis of god, which is then
developed into those discriminating predictions."
"That is not my idea of what science should be."
"As I said, lots of people believe lots of things without scientific
thinking behind it."
>
> �But where is the proof for god?�
> �Idiot, god is a question of faith.�
> �You mean to say, we should believe in god without applying reason?�
> �When we can feel presence of god, where is the need for reason?�
> �Why, this is the characteristic that separates us from non thinking
> animals.�
> �Idiot! Animals can�t do mathematics and mathematicians can�t think
> and so we don�t need any reason to prove god.�
> �I don�t agree. I need proof for everything.�
> �Very existence of this universe is a sufficient proof for god.�
> �If it is the creation of god then we must find proof for his direct
> interference.�
> �Can you tell how universe came into existence? If not our present
> theory that god created this universe holds and this is how faith
> works. It is not dependent on reason or philosophy.�
> �That is wrong.�
> �Who cares for your opinion? 99 percent of us believe in god.�
> Thereafter god never died.
>
This dialog has nothing to do with science. The propositions of science
are not tested with the application of reason. They are tested by making
predictions of unanticipated phenomena, and then checking those
unanticipated predictions with experimental measurement.
Now then, if you wanted to talk about the distinction between science
and religion, it would go like this:
"But where is there proof for god?"
"God is a question of faith."
"You mean to say, we should believe in god without applying reason?"
"Apply reason all you would like. Many have tried, and there are many
logical arguments for god, but it proves nothing."
"How else, then, would we go about investigating god?"
"Humans distinguish themselves from animals by doing scientific
investigation."
"What do you mean by scientific investigation, other than the
application of reason?"
"Reason is not sufficient. What is necessary is the development of the
hypothesis of god into a testable prediction of an observation or
observations that would be true if god existed that could not be true by
other hypotheses. And then the actual making of those observations to
see if the predictions are correct."
"But there are no predictions that come from the hypothesis of god that
follow that description."
"That's why god is not a matter of scientific interest."
"But lots of people believe in god."
"Lots of people believe in lots of things without scientific thinking
behind it."
"But does there not have to be a logical, sensible proof of god first?"
"Not in science. There only has to be a hypothesis of god, which is then
developed into those discriminating predictions."
"That is not my idea of what science should be."
"As I said, lots of people believe lots of things without scientific
thinking behind it."
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 8, 2012, 6:13:08 PM10/8/12
to
On 06.10.2012 22:03, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 October 2012 11:05:15 UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 06.10.2012 14:05, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> SR is nothing but a cleverly disguised version of LET...
>>
>>> which is why the two theories produce exactly the same results.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you have finally realized that your claims quoted
>>
>> in these papers were wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET.pdf
>>
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET2.pdf
>>
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET3.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> But knowing that it is impossible for you to admit
>>
>> being wrong, I look forward to your explanation of
>>
>> why you were right when claiming that LET an SR could
>>
>> produce different results.
>
> Paul, my time is valuable. It is easier for me to provoke YOU into doing the work than doing it myself. I thank you for that. You convincingly proved that Einstein merely plagiarized Lorentz's theory and contributed nothing new to science.
>
Does that mean that you are admitting that you knew all along
> On Saturday, 6 October 2012 11:05:15 UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 06.10.2012 14:05, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> SR is nothing but a cleverly disguised version of LET...
>>
>>> which is why the two theories produce exactly the same results.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you have finally realized that your claims quoted
>>
>> in these papers were wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET.pdf
>>
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET2.pdf
>>
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET3.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> But knowing that it is impossible for you to admit
>>
>> being wrong, I look forward to your explanation of
>>
>> why you were right when claiming that LET an SR could
>>
>> produce different results.
>
> Paul, my time is valuable. It is easier for me to provoke YOU into doing the work than doing it myself. I thank you for that. You convincingly proved that Einstein merely plagiarized Lorentz's theory and contributed nothing new to science.
>
that your claims in these posting were wrong?
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET2.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsLET3.pdf
You are making all the nonsensical claims only to provoke us
to teach you what is correct, right?
> Now, are you prepared to discuss what is in THIS thread or simply
> divert attention and waste time like you usually do?
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsClocks.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsParadox.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/RalphsParadox2.pdf
I know of course that you knew all the time that your
claims quoted in those papers were wrong.
You succeeded in provoking me to tell you what was right.
So now you know.
Right?
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 7:14:02 PM10/8/12
to
> In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
>
> pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
>
> there is no option but to use two clocks.
>
> When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
>
> contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
>
> are), then there is no need to proceed further. However if you want to
>
> attack SR for its contradictions (for contradictions will be present
>
> if basic postulates are wrong) then, we must assume these postulates
>
> to be correct and then proceed to find contradictions in applications.
>
> In your present example, you are pointing out basic contradiction in
>
> the use of constant velocity in the moving frame to decide time
>
> duration, the way Einstein used it.
Therefore, it is necessary to
>
> assume constancy of light velocity. Once we assume that velocity of
>
> light is constant in any frame then it is clear that by sending light
>
> signals to clocks separated spatially, from mid point, we can
>
> synchronize them or in other words, when we assume constant velocity
>
> of light, we assume that clocks will be synchronized. So where is the
>
> problem in synchronization?
Einstein used light travelling at c+v and c-v and wrongly claimed the clocks were out of synch.
> His other point that time coordinate involves spatial distance is not
>
> valid in the present case, as it has no bearing on the present set
>
> up.
Synchronization is not an issue....nor is any measurement. Two light speeds are effectively COMPARED, using only ONE CLOCK and legitimate theory (After all, it WAS Einstein's).
> In the rod’s frame, there are two synch clocks at ends of the rod and
>
> they measure time for light pulses to travel across it in both the
>
> directions as t’=L/c.
>
> In the stationary frame, we have to keep large number of clocks at
>
> every point. When a light pulse enters the rod end A, then this event
>
> is noted on corresponding clock of the stationary frame. When this
>
> pulse leaves end B of the rod, this event is noted by another
>
> corresponding clock of the stationary frame. Time durations will be L/
>
> (c+v) and L/(c-v). It is to be noted that L will now be contracted
>
> length but it is not accounted as it simply changes value of R in your
>
> equations.
...but it wouldn't matter if it did.
>Thus it can be shown that unless we take average of the
>
> time durations, we arrive at two different time durations. In short,
>
> what we get is t1=R1 t’ and t2=R2 t’; and so comparison of time
>
> duration is not possible.
>
> Your deductions in your previous post were excellent. Don’t change
>
> those simply because somebody tries to find a fault in vain.
Henry Wilson
Oct 8, 2012, 7:27:10 PM10/8/12
to
El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2012 08:44:25 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane escribió:
>
>
> Tom Roberts is confused.
> Several people in this forum are showing everyday a great amount of ignorance and confusion about what SR, GR > and QM say. You and Wilson are two of the typical members with such characteristic.
Do you wish to comment on my experiment or just rant and rave as you usually do?
>
>
> Tom Roberts is confused.
> Several people in this forum are showing everyday a great amount of ignorance and confusion about what SR, GR > and QM say. You and Wilson are two of the typical members with such characteristic.
>> Time interval of what can be measured by a single clock? It can be
>
>> used only for local events, such as heart beats, number of rotations,
>
>> number of local oscillations etc.
> A single clock, in SR like in the rest of physics, is used to measure the time of occurrence of events (like
> at 10:58 we detected a nuclear blast light coming from the -x direction and at 11:37 we detected a second
> nuclear blast light coming from the +x direction). It is also used, as the previous example shows, to > determine the simultaneity of events (in that example, for the given observer's > clock, the two events were not simultaneous).
A single clock can easily be used to COMPARE two speeds....which is what my experiment does.
It corrects Einstein's flawed logic.
>> In your gedanken, there is no option but to use pulse of light (or
>>
>> pulses but a pulse is marked). This pulse acts like a particle and so
>
>> there is no option but to use two clocks.
>
>> When we contradict SR, we do this in two ways. First is to find
>
>> contradictions in the basic postulates. If there are any (and there
>
>> are), then there is no need to proceed further.
>This is clearly utterly nonsense. By definition, postulates can't be contradictory.
Vilas Tamhane
Oct 8, 2012, 10:36:25 PM10/8/12
to
confused. So for the benefit of others let me explain your thoughts.
There is a clock c in the stationary frame which keeps time in that
frame. There is another clock c1 in the frame of moving rod which
keeps time in the moving frame. However according to SR c1 ticks
differently, in the ratio of R, as measured by stationary observer.
The clocks are not used to measure actual time required for the pulses
of light to travel from one end of the rod to the other. They simply
keep the record of time flow in their respective frames. Without
actually measuring time required for the pulses to move across the
rod, it can be calculated as L/(c+v) and L/(c-v). The clock c must
show this time and nobody can have any objection to this proposition.
According to c1 these two readings have to be RL/(c+v) and RL/(c-v).
In other words, events which are not simultaneous in the stationary
frame cannot be simultaneous in the frame of rod. Still in other
words, when, according to SR, it is only the rate of ticking of clocks
change due to change in inertial frames, this ratio of time durations
can be used to prove that if events are simultaneous in one frame they
must be so in other frame.
Koobee Wublee
Oct 8, 2012, 11:46:21 PM10/8/12
to
On Oct 8, 8:12 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 2:48 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Does it look like Koobee Wublee is your teacher? Go study Larmor’s
> On 10/7/2012 2:48 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > and the Voigt transform by yourself. If you insist to be spoon-fed by
> > Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
> > lost. <shrug>
>
> In other words, you feel free to make grand, sweeping statements, but
> are not inclined to back them up, nor to point to any references where
> the backup can be found.
Koobee Wublee meant every word He said here. <shrug>
> > Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
> > lost. <shrug>
>
> In other words, you feel free to make grand, sweeping statements, but
> are not inclined to back them up, nor to point to any references where
> the backup can be found.
What has to be backed up? You can find the Voigt and Larmor’s
original transform on the web. <shrug>
> Koobee, you're a fucking liar, and a shameless one.
fvcking mind and still feels sore as per the little professor. :-)
Koobee Wublee
Oct 8, 2012, 11:50:36 PM10/8/12
to
On Oct 8, 2012, rios wrote:
> Several people in this forum are showing everyday a great
> amount of ignorance and confusion about what SR, GR and QM
> say.
Papa rios and the little bitch come in mind. <shrug>
> Several people in this forum are showing everyday a great
> amount of ignorance and confusion about what SR, GR and QM
> say.
> To measure a length of a moving rod (from the frame of
> reference of the at rest observer) you have to ensure that
> the location of the front end and of the back end are measured
> at the same time, which obviously requires the use of two
> synchronized clocks.
with a precise frequency that is invariant over time, that is able to
tell you what time it is, translated from the number of pulses
received, at the moment of inquiry. If so, it is very stupid for an
observer to measure an evolving event over time with two different
clocks. <shrug>
Do you follow baseball? Maybe that is not a good example for you
since you obviously do not reside in the United States. Let’s bring
up a soccer game. At 11 minutes and 33 seconds into the start of the
game, a goal is scored by the red team. At 16 minutes and 27 seconds,
the other team ties it up. An observer can and should use the same
clock to measure these two events. It would be very stupid for the
observer to use two different clocks to measure these two events, no?
<shrug>
> By definition, postulates can't be contradictory.
contradictory to other hypotheses. <shrug>
Papa rios has no common sense. Just a few days ago, the same papa
rios demonstrated itself to be very ignorant in Newtonian laws of
physics. :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e24491581436c5b1
Where do they get these idiots from? Don’t Einstein Dingleberries
study basic physics and science anymore? <shrug>
Peter Webb
Oct 9, 2012, 12:28:12 AM10/9/12
to
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:2171145d-9ba2-43ac...@lb2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 8:12 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 2:48 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > and the Voigt transform by yourself. If you insist to be spoon-fed by
> > Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
> > lost. <shrug>
>
> In other words, you feel free to make grand, sweeping statements, but
> are not inclined to back them up, nor to point to any references where
> the backup can be found.
Koobee Wublee meant every word He said here. <shrug>
What has to be backed up?
_____________________________________________
> > Koobee Wublee, can you afford the tuition? If not, get the fvck
> > lost. <shrug>
>
> In other words, you feel free to make grand, sweeping statements, but
> are not inclined to back them up, nor to point to any references where
> the backup can be found.
Koobee Wublee meant every word He said here. <shrug>
What has to be backed up?
Your assertion that the Voigt and Larmor transforms equally well satisfy the
experimental verifications of SR. They don't. They satisfy the MMX
experiment, but not other experiments. That is why they are rejected as
false.
You can find the Voigt and Larmor�s
original transform on the web. <shrug>
> Koobee, you're a fucking liar, and a shameless one.
What lies? The Voigt transform? The little bitch is out of its
fvcking mind and still feels sore as per the little professor. :-)
________________________________________________________
> Koobee, you're a fucking liar, and a shameless one.
What lies? The Voigt transform? The little bitch is out of its
fvcking mind and still feels sore as per the little professor. :-)
The lie is that the Voigt and Larmor transforms correctly predict the
outcomes of all tests of SR. They don't. If you believe they do, you need to
either find a reputable source which states this (impossible, as its not
true), or (for example) calculate the extent of the time dilation in the
Hafele Keating experiment using the Voigt and Larmor transforms and show
they produce the same (correct) answer as Relativity. Of course, you won't
do this. Firstly, you don't know how - you have seen these terms on a
website, but have no idea how to actually use them. Secondly, if you could
do this exercise, you would see that you are wrong.
Koobee Wublee
Oct 9, 2012, 12:41:05 AM10/9/12
to
On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> Your assertion that the Voigt and Larmor transforms equally well satisfy the
> experimental verifications of SR.
That is very correct. <shrug>
> Your assertion that the Voigt and Larmor transforms equally well satisfy the
> experimental verifications of SR.
> They don't.
Your unsubstantiated opinion due to your lack of knowledge. <shrug>
> They satisfy the MMX
> experiment, but not other experiments. That is why they are rejected as
> false.
usual. <shrug>
> The lie is that the Voigt and Larmor transforms correctly predict the
> outcomes of all tests of SR. They don't.
> If you believe they do, you need to
> either find a reputable source which states this (impossible, as its not
> true), or (for example) calculate the extent of the time dilation in the
> Hafele Keating experiment using the Voigt and Larmor transforms and show
> they produce the same (correct) answer as Relativity. Of course, you won't
> do this. Firstly, you don't know how - you have seen these terms on a
> website, but have no idea how to actually use them. Secondly, if you could
> do this exercise, you would see that you are wrong.
Larmor’s transform. Also, in practical applications, any transform
would degenerate into the Galilean transform. Thus, even if a
transform says the Aether must exist, it will satisfy the principle of
relativity at low speeds. <shrug>
Tell us. Did you raise these stupid questions yourself, or some
professor asked you to relay the questions? <shrug>
Peter Webb
Oct 9, 2012, 2:46:04 AM10/9/12
to
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
Another stupid comment from you. The Voigt and Larmor transformations would
only produce the same answers as Lorentz if they were the same as Lorentz.
They aren't, and so produce different answers. If you claim they produce the
same answers, then you are claiming they are mathematically identical to
Lorentz. They aren't. If they were the same as Lorentz, you have no basis to
claim they are different.
Also, in practical applications, any transform
would degenerate into the Galilean transform. Thus, even if a
transform says the Aether must exist, it will satisfy the principle of
relativity at low speeds. <shrug>
No, you are supposed to be supporting your claim that the Larmor and Voigt
transformations are consistent with all experimental tests of Relativity.
This is simply not true, and you have not produced a single reference or
reason to think they do satisfy all tests of Relativity. I have provided
several tests of Relativity which both fail, for example the Hafele Keating
experiment. If you really believe that the Larmor and Voight transformations
correctly predict the outcome of Hafele Keating, provide your calculations.
(Of course you can't; you have heard of these things but as you know zero
physics you have no idea how to use them or what they mean).
Tell us. Did you raise these stupid questions yourself, or some
professor asked you to relay the questions? <shrug>
So, go for it. Provide some reason to think that the Larmor and Voigt
transforms correctly predict the outcome of Hafele Keating, as you
incorrectly claim.
Henry Wilson
Oct 9, 2012, 5:31:43 AM10/9/12
to
> I read your post again and I think if Tom reads it he will be further
>
> confused. So for the benefit of others let me explain your thoughts.
>
> There is a clock c in the stationary frame which keeps time in that
>
> frame. There is another clock c1 in the frame of moving rod which
>
> keeps time in the moving frame. However according to SR c1 ticks
>
> differently, in the ratio of R, as measured by stationary observer.
>
> The clocks are not used to measure actual time required for the pulses
>
> of light to travel from one end of the rod to the other. They simply
>
> keep the record of time flow in their respective frames. Without
>
> actually measuring time required for the pulses to move across the
>
> rod, it can be calculated as L/(c+v) and L/(c-v). The clock c must
>
> show this time and nobody can have any objection to this proposition.
This is correct. The reading of the MOVING clock is known to advance by different amounts during the opposite transits of the light signals. According to Tom Roberts, the only satisfactory way to measure a time interval in a particular frame is to use a single clock that is at rest in that frame.
>
> confused. So for the benefit of others let me explain your thoughts.
>
> There is a clock c in the stationary frame which keeps time in that
>
> frame. There is another clock c1 in the frame of moving rod which
>
> keeps time in the moving frame. However according to SR c1 ticks
>
> differently, in the ratio of R, as measured by stationary observer.
>
> The clocks are not used to measure actual time required for the pulses
>
> of light to travel from one end of the rod to the other. They simply
>
> keep the record of time flow in their respective frames. Without
>
> actually measuring time required for the pulses to move across the
>
> rod, it can be calculated as L/(c+v) and L/(c-v). The clock c must
>
> show this time and nobody can have any objection to this proposition.
In my experiment, the travel times are not measured. They are calculated, as Einstein himself did...and it is 100% certain that according to the moving clock, those times are DIFFERENT in the moving frame. So, the fact that Einstein's P2 requires that they are the same means that P2 must be a logical impossibility and wrong.
> According to c1 these two readings have to be RL/(c+v) and RL/(c-v).
>
> In other words, events which are not simultaneous in the stationary
>
> frame cannot be simultaneous in the frame of rod. Still in other
>
> words, when, according to SR, it is only the rate of ticking of clocks
>
> change due to change in inertial frames, this ratio of time durations
>
> can be used to prove that if events are simultaneous in one frame they
>
> must be so in other frame.
Einstein believed he could simply measure the times directly with a deliberately de-synched pair of clocks and fool the whole scientific community...and he got away with his devious trick for 107 years.
Henry Wilson
Oct 9, 2012, 5:46:17 AM10/9/12
to
paparios
Oct 9, 2012, 7:31:12 AM10/9/12
to
El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2012 23:50:36 UTC-4, Koobee Wublee escribió:
> On Oct 8, 2012, rios wrote:
>
>
> > To measure a length of a moving rod (from the frame of
>
> > reference of the at rest observer) you have to ensure that
>
> > the location of the front end and of the back end are measured
>
> > at the same time, which obviously requires the use of two
>
> > synchronized clocks.
>
>
>
> By clock, it is hoped that you mean an accumulating device of pulses,
>
> with a precise frequency that is invariant over time, that is able to
>
> tell you what time it is, translated from the number of pulses
>
> received, at the moment of inquiry. If so, it is very stupid for an
>
> observer to measure an evolving event over time with two different
>
> clocks. <shrug>
>
Well, you can inform Koobee Wublee that he should go back to school and learn to read. It is quite stupid for him to consider the measuring of the length of a moving rod as "an evolving event over time".
> On Oct 8, 2012, rios wrote:
>
>
> > To measure a length of a moving rod (from the frame of
>
> > reference of the at rest observer) you have to ensure that
>
> > the location of the front end and of the back end are measured
>
> > at the same time, which obviously requires the use of two
>
> > synchronized clocks.
>
>
>
> By clock, it is hoped that you mean an accumulating device of pulses,
>
> with a precise frequency that is invariant over time, that is able to
>
> tell you what time it is, translated from the number of pulses
>
> received, at the moment of inquiry. If so, it is very stupid for an
>
> observer to measure an evolving event over time with two different
>
> clocks. <shrug>
>
>
> Do you follow baseball? Maybe that is not a good example for you
>
> since you obviously do not reside in the United States. Let’s bring
>
> up a soccer game. At 11 minutes and 33 seconds into the start of the
>
> game, a goal is scored by the red team. At 16 minutes and 27 seconds,
>
> the other team ties it up. An observer can and should use the same
>
> clock to measure these two events. It would be very stupid for the
>
> observer to use two different clocks to measure these two events, no?
>
> <shrug>
>
>
>
> Papa rios has no common sense. Just a few days ago, the same papa
>
> rios demonstrated itself to be very ignorant in Newtonian laws of
>
> physics. :-)
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e24491581436c5b1
>
>
>
> Where do they get these idiots from? Don’t Einstein Dingleberries
>
> study basic physics and science anymore? <shrug>
S. Gillessen1, F. Eisenhauer, T. K. Fritz, H. Bartko, K. Dodds-Eden, O. Pfuhl, T. Ott and R. Genzel, THE ORBIT OF THE STAR S2 AROUND SGR A* FROM VERY LARGE TELESCOPE AND KECK DATA, The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2009) L114.
You can read it on line at:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/707/2/L114/fulltext/apjl_707_2_114.text.html
Several other references are also available
Eckart, A. & Genzel, R. 1996, Nature, 383, 415
Eisenhauer, F., Schödel, R., Genzel, R., Ott, T., Tecza, M., Abuter, R., Eckart, A., & Alexander, T. 2003, ApJ, 597, L121
Eisenhauer, F. et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 246
Ghez, A. M., Klein, B. L., Morris, M. R., & Becklin, E. E. 1998, ApJ, 509, 678
Ghez, A. M., Morris, M. R., Becklin, E. E., Tanner, A., & Kremenek, T. 2000, Nature, 407, 349
Ghez, A. M. et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, L127 A. M. et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1087
Ghez, A. M. et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1044
Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., Trippe, S., Alexander, T., Genzel, R., Martins, F., & Ott, T. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1075
Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Trippe, S., Ott, T., & Genzel, R. 2007, ApJ, 659, 378
Salim, S. & Gould, A. 1999, ApJ, 523, 633
Schödel, R. et al. 2002, Nature, 419, 694
Zucker, S., Alexander, T., Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., & Genzel, R. 2006, ApJ, 639, L21
I understand your pal Koobee Wublee considers all these guys to be "very ignorant in Newtonian laws of physics". Tell him that I very much prefer to be on the side of these guys.
Big Dog
Oct 9, 2012, 8:56:44 AM10/9/12
to
On 10/8/2012 11:41 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>
>> Your assertion that the Voigt and Larmor transforms equally well satisfy the
>> experimental verifications of SR.
>
> That is very correct. <shrug>
>
>> They don't.
>
> Your unsubstantiated opinion due to your lack of knowledge. <shrug>
>
>> They satisfy the MMX
>> experiment, but not other experiments. That is why they are rejected as
>> false.
>
> You, peter webb, have no fvcking idea what you are babbling about as
> usual. <shrug>
>
>> The lie is that the Voigt and Larmor transforms correctly predict the
>> outcomes of all tests of SR. They don't.
>
> That is no lie. You, peter webb, just have to study more. <shrug>
It is a lie. And you haven't backed it up, Koobee.
> On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>
>> Your assertion that the Voigt and Larmor transforms equally well satisfy the
>> experimental verifications of SR.
>
> That is very correct. <shrug>
>
>> They don't.
>
> Your unsubstantiated opinion due to your lack of knowledge. <shrug>
>
>> They satisfy the MMX
>> experiment, but not other experiments. That is why they are rejected as
>> false.
>
> You, peter webb, have no fvcking idea what you are babbling about as
> usual. <shrug>
>
>> The lie is that the Voigt and Larmor transforms correctly predict the
>> outcomes of all tests of SR. They don't.
>
> That is no lie. You, peter webb, just have to study more. <shrug>
You just say it works, when it doesn't. And you haven't even attempted
to show it works. So you are a fucking liar.
Big Dog
Oct 9, 2012, 9:06:03 AM10/9/12
to
On 10/9/2012 6:31 AM, paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2012 23:50:36 UTC-4, Koobee Wublee escribi�:
over time. Events don't evolve over time, in the lingo of relativity.
It's interesting that Koobee critiques relativity without knowing what
the words -- like "event" -- even mean.
Maybe this is the "mathemagics" part he is struggling with.
> El lunes, 8 de octubre de 2012 23:50:36 UTC-4, Koobee Wublee escribi�:
>> On Oct 8, 2012, rios wrote:
>>
>> By clock, it is hoped that you mean an accumulating device of pulses,
>> with a precise frequency that is invariant over time, that is able to
>> tell you what time it is, translated from the number of pulses
>> received, at the moment of inquiry. If so, it is very stupid for an
>> observer to measure an evolving event over time with two different
>> clocks. <shrug>
>>
>
> Well, you can inform Koobee Wublee that he should go back to school and learn to read.
> It is quite stupid for him to consider the measuring of the length of a moving rod as "an evolving event over time".
>
Not to mention Koobee thinking that events (of ANY description) evolve
>>
>> By clock, it is hoped that you mean an accumulating device of pulses,
>> with a precise frequency that is invariant over time, that is able to
>> tell you what time it is, translated from the number of pulses
>> received, at the moment of inquiry. If so, it is very stupid for an
>> observer to measure an evolving event over time with two different
>> clocks. <shrug>
>>
>
> Well, you can inform Koobee Wublee that he should go back to school and learn to read.
> It is quite stupid for him to consider the measuring of the length of a moving rod as "an evolving event over time".
>
over time. Events don't evolve over time, in the lingo of relativity.
It's interesting that Koobee critiques relativity without knowing what
the words -- like "event" -- even mean.
Maybe this is the "mathemagics" part he is struggling with.
hanson
Oct 9, 2012, 3:48:36 PM10/9/12
to
--- [[ KW 1 -:- Fatso & Webb 0, zero, zilch, nada ]]---
>
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ROTFLMAO.... Fatso,
>
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", cranked itself, fantasized, weaseled & so
Fatso came to the rescue of Einstein's largest Dingleberry,
"Peter Webb" a victim of kike brainwashing in the Outback,
<webbfamily@DIES AM optusnet.com.au>, & he wrote,
because:
>>> They don't.
Fatso, listen. Your attempted help for Webb, as a failed
and laid off Middle school teacher, is as feeble as are
your own religious Gedanken farts that lead you to believe
that your worship of Albert's sphincter, via SR/GR is
real-world physics... At least Tom Roberts [TR] ] expressed
rather civilized when he had a flash of lucidity that:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
More salient though is that you, Fatso, argue against
Einstein, your idol.. who unlike you, after 50 years
of "brooding" was honest enough to become
>
_ Einstein, the SR/GR Relativity denier _
>
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
>
Take care, Fatso, and thanks for the laughs...
and argue with Einstein, your idol, instead of me.
ahahaha... ahahahahahanson
>
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ROTFLMAO.... Fatso,
>
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", cranked itself, fantasized, weaseled & so
Fatso came to the rescue of Einstein's largest Dingleberry,
"Peter Webb" a victim of kike brainwashing in the Outback,
<webbfamily@DIES AM optusnet.com.au>, & he wrote,
because:
>
> On 10/8/2012 11:41 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>>
> On 10/8/2012 11:41 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>>
ED Webb wrote:
>>> Your assertion that the Voigt and Larmor transforms equally well satisfy
>>> the experimental verifications of SR.
>>
>>> Your assertion that the Voigt and Larmor transforms equally well satisfy
>>> the experimental verifications of SR.
>>
KW wrote:
>> That is very correct. <shrug>
>>
ED Webb wrote:
>> That is very correct. <shrug>
>>
>>> They don't.
>>
KW wrote:
>> Your unsubstantiated opinion due to your lack of knowledge. <shrug>
>>
KW wrote:
>> Your unsubstantiated opinion due to your lack of knowledge. <shrug>
>>
ED Webb wrote:
>>> They satisfy the MMX
>>> experiment, but not other experiments. That is why they are rejected as
>>> false.
>>
>>> They satisfy the MMX
>>> experiment, but not other experiments. That is why they are rejected as
>>> false.
>>
KW wrote:
>> You, peter webb, have no fvcking idea what you are babbling about as
>> usual. <shrug>
>>
>> You, peter webb, have no fvcking idea what you are babbling about as
>> usual. <shrug>
>>
ED Webb wrote:
>>> The lie is that the Voigt and Larmor transforms correctly predict the
>>> outcomes of all tests of SR. They don't.
>>
>>> The lie is that the Voigt and Larmor transforms correctly predict the
>>> outcomes of all tests of SR. They don't.
>>
KW wrote:
>> That is no lie. You, peter webb, just have to study more. <shrug>
>
>> That is no lie. You, peter webb, just have to study more. <shrug>
>
Fatso wrote:
> It is a lie. And you haven't backed it up, Koobee.
> You just say it works, when it doesn't. And you haven't even attempted to
> show it works. So you are a fucking liar.
>
> It is a lie. And you haven't backed it up, Koobee.
> You just say it works, when it doesn't. And you haven't even attempted to
> show it works. So you are a fucking liar.
>
ED Webb wrote:
>>> If you believe they do, you need to
>>> either find a reputable source which states this (impossible, as its not
>>> true), or (for example) calculate the extent of the time dilation in the
>>> Hafele Keating experiment using the Voigt and Larmor transforms and show
>>> they produce the same (correct) answer as Relativity. Of course, you
>>> won't
>>> do this. Firstly, you don't know how - you have seen these terms on a
>>> website, but have no idea how to actually use them. Secondly, if you
>>> could
>>> do this exercise, you would see that you are wrong.
>>
>>> If you believe they do, you need to
>>> either find a reputable source which states this (impossible, as its not
>>> true), or (for example) calculate the extent of the time dilation in the
>>> Hafele Keating experiment using the Voigt and Larmor transforms and show
>>> they produce the same (correct) answer as Relativity. Of course, you
>>> won't
>>> do this. Firstly, you don't know how - you have seen these terms on a
>>> website, but have no idea how to actually use them. Secondly, if you
>>> could
>>> do this exercise, you would see that you are wrong.
>>
KW wrote:
>> Just replace whatever the Lorentz transform with either the Voigt or
>> Larmor�s transform. Also, in practical applications, any transform
>> Just replace whatever the Lorentz transform with either the Voigt or
>> would degenerate into the Galilean transform. Thus, even if a
>> transform says the Aether must exist, it will satisfy the principle of
>> relativity at low speeds. <shrug>
>>
>> Tell us. Did you raise these stupid questions yourself, or some
>> professor asked you to relay the questions? <shrug>
>>
hanson wrote:
>> transform says the Aether must exist, it will satisfy the principle of
>> relativity at low speeds. <shrug>
>>
>> Tell us. Did you raise these stupid questions yourself, or some
>> professor asked you to relay the questions? <shrug>
>>
Fatso, listen. Your attempted help for Webb, as a failed
and laid off Middle school teacher, is as feeble as are
your own religious Gedanken farts that lead you to believe
that your worship of Albert's sphincter, via SR/GR is
real-world physics... At least Tom Roberts [TR] ] expressed
rather civilized when he had a flash of lucidity that:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
More salient though is that you, Fatso, argue against
Einstein, your idol.. who unlike you, after 50 years
of "brooding" was honest enough to become
>
_ Einstein, the SR/GR Relativity denier _
>
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
>
Take care, Fatso, and thanks for the laughs...
and argue with Einstein, your idol, instead of me.
ahahaha... ahahahahahanson
Koobee Wublee
Oct 10, 2012, 2:04:42 AM10/10/12
to
On Oct 9, 4:31 am, papa rios wrote:
> Koobee Wublee escribió:
> > By clock, it is hoped that you mean an accumulating device of pulses,
> > with a precise frequency that is invariant over time, that is able to
> > tell you what time it is, translated from the number of pulses
> > received, at the moment of inquiry. If so, it is very stupid for an
> > observer to measure an evolving event over time with two different
> > clocks. <shrug>
>
> Well, you can inform Koobee Wublee that he should go back to school
> and learn to read. It is quite stupid for him to consider the
> measuring of the length of a moving rod as "an evolving event over
> time".
Yes, Koobee Wublee shall inform Him of papa rios’s objections about
nothing can evolve through time. A static universe is just so boring
though. <shrug>
> > Do you follow baseball? Maybe that is not a good example for you
> > since you obviously do not reside in the United States. Let’s bring
> > up a soccer game. At 11 minutes and 33 seconds into the start of the
> > game, a goal is scored by the red team. At 16 minutes and 27 seconds,
> > the other team ties it up. An observer can and should use the same
> > clock to measure these two events. It would be very stupid for the
> > observer to use two different clocks to measure these two events, no?
> > <shrug>
>
> Once again, tell Koobee Wublee, that the question involves measuring
> the length of a moving rod, which it is obvious he knows nothing about.
Yes, Koobee Wublee shall inform Him about papa rios’s objections not
to measure a moving rod with a single clock but TWO DIFFERENT,
INDEPENDENT CLOCKS. <shrug>
> > Papa rios has no common sense. Just a few days ago, the same papa
> > rios demonstrated itself to be very ignorant in Newtonian laws of
> > physics. :-)
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e24491581436c5b1
>
> > Where do they get these idiots from? Don’t Einstein Dingleberries
> > study basic physics and science anymore? <shrug>
>
> Well, since the subject of a black hole at the center of any galaxy
> is a subject widely discussed in the scientific literature, you can
> tell Koobee Wublee, that he can read the details of the research at:
>
> S. Gillessen1, F. Eisenhauer, T. K. Fritz, H. Bartko,
> K. Dodds-Eden, O. Pfuhl, T. Ott and R. Genzel,
> THE ORBIT OF THE STAR S2 AROUND SGR A* FROM VERY LARGE TELESCOPE
> AND KECK DATA, The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2009) L114.
>
> You can read it on line at:
>
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/707/2/L114/fulltext/apjl_707_2_11...
for Koobee Wublee to remember to relay to Him. Wouldn’t it be easier
if we consider what Newtonian laws of physics have to say about the
mass of several million suns first? It is believed that the Newtonian
laws of physics says if there are stars with the mass several million
suns in the galactic core, there ought to be stars with the combined
mass of several millions suns. So, where is the myth of a black hole
lurking in the center of the galaxy coming from? Why does papa rios
believe in myths like this? A dumb ass perhaps? It would be much
easier for Koobee Wublee to inform Him of papa rios being just a dumb
ass in the first place, no? Please advise. <shrug>
> Koobee Wublee escribió:
> > By clock, it is hoped that you mean an accumulating device of pulses,
> > with a precise frequency that is invariant over time, that is able to
> > tell you what time it is, translated from the number of pulses
> > received, at the moment of inquiry. If so, it is very stupid for an
> > observer to measure an evolving event over time with two different
> > clocks. <shrug>
>
> Well, you can inform Koobee Wublee that he should go back to school
> and learn to read. It is quite stupid for him to consider the
> measuring of the length of a moving rod as "an evolving event over
> time".
nothing can evolve through time. A static universe is just so boring
though. <shrug>
> > Do you follow baseball? Maybe that is not a good example for you
> > since you obviously do not reside in the United States. Let’s bring
> > up a soccer game. At 11 minutes and 33 seconds into the start of the
> > game, a goal is scored by the red team. At 16 minutes and 27 seconds,
> > the other team ties it up. An observer can and should use the same
> > clock to measure these two events. It would be very stupid for the
> > observer to use two different clocks to measure these two events, no?
> > <shrug>
>
> Once again, tell Koobee Wublee, that the question involves measuring
> the length of a moving rod, which it is obvious he knows nothing about.
to measure a moving rod with a single clock but TWO DIFFERENT,
INDEPENDENT CLOCKS. <shrug>
> > Papa rios has no common sense. Just a few days ago, the same papa
> > rios demonstrated itself to be very ignorant in Newtonian laws of
> > physics. :-)
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e24491581436c5b1
>
> > Where do they get these idiots from? Don’t Einstein Dingleberries
> > study basic physics and science anymore? <shrug>
>
> Well, since the subject of a black hole at the center of any galaxy
> is a subject widely discussed in the scientific literature, you can
> tell Koobee Wublee, that he can read the details of the research at:
>
> S. Gillessen1, F. Eisenhauer, T. K. Fritz, H. Bartko,
> K. Dodds-Eden, O. Pfuhl, T. Ott and R. Genzel,
> THE ORBIT OF THE STAR S2 AROUND SGR A* FROM VERY LARGE TELESCOPE
> AND KECK DATA, The Astrophysical Journal 707 (2009) L114.
>
> You can read it on line at:
>
>
> Several other references are also available
>
> Eckart, A. & Genzel, R. 1996, Nature, 383, 415
> Eisenhauer, F., Schödel, R., Genzel, R., Ott, T., Tecza,
> M., Abuter, R., Eckart, A., & Alexander, T. 2003, ApJ, 597, L121
> Eisenhauer, F. et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 246
> Ghez, A. M., Klein, B. L., Morris, M. R., & Becklin, E. E. 1998,
> ApJ, 509, 678
> Ghez, A. M., Morris, M. R., Becklin, E. E., Tanner, A., & Kremenek,
> T. 2000, Nature, 407, 349
> Ghez, A. M. et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, L127 A. M. et al. 2005, ApJ,
> 635, 1087
> Ghez, A. M. et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1044
> Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., Trippe, S., Alexander, T., Genzel,
> R., Martins, F., & Ott, T. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1075
> Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Trippe, S., Ott, T., & Genzel, R. 2007,
> ApJ, 659, 378
> Salim, S. & Gould, A. 1999, ApJ, 523, 633
> Schödel, R. et al. 2002, Nature, 419, 694
> Zucker, S., Alexander, T., Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., & Genzel,
> R. 2006, ApJ, 639, L21
>
> I understand your pal Koobee Wublee considers all these guys to be
> "very ignorant in Newtonian laws of physics". Tell him that I very
> much prefer to be on the side of these guys.
Wait! That is a lot of stuff and the names of self-styled physicists
> Several other references are also available
>
> Eckart, A. & Genzel, R. 1996, Nature, 383, 415
> Eisenhauer, F., Schödel, R., Genzel, R., Ott, T., Tecza,
> M., Abuter, R., Eckart, A., & Alexander, T. 2003, ApJ, 597, L121
> Eisenhauer, F. et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 246
> Ghez, A. M., Klein, B. L., Morris, M. R., & Becklin, E. E. 1998,
> ApJ, 509, 678
> Ghez, A. M., Morris, M. R., Becklin, E. E., Tanner, A., & Kremenek,
> T. 2000, Nature, 407, 349
> Ghez, A. M. et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, L127 A. M. et al. 2005, ApJ,
> 635, 1087
> Ghez, A. M. et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 1044
> Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., Trippe, S., Alexander, T., Genzel,
> R., Martins, F., & Ott, T. 2009, ApJ, 692, 1075
> Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Trippe, S., Ott, T., & Genzel, R. 2007,
> ApJ, 659, 378
> Salim, S. & Gould, A. 1999, ApJ, 523, 633
> Schödel, R. et al. 2002, Nature, 419, 694
> Zucker, S., Alexander, T., Gillessen, S., Eisenhauer, F., & Genzel,
> R. 2006, ApJ, 639, L21
>
> I understand your pal Koobee Wublee considers all these guys to be
> "very ignorant in Newtonian laws of physics". Tell him that I very
> much prefer to be on the side of these guys.
for Koobee Wublee to remember to relay to Him. Wouldn’t it be easier
if we consider what Newtonian laws of physics have to say about the
mass of several million suns first? It is believed that the Newtonian
laws of physics says if there are stars with the mass several million
suns in the galactic core, there ought to be stars with the combined
mass of several millions suns. So, where is the myth of a black hole
lurking in the center of the galaxy coming from? Why does papa rios
believe in myths like this? A dumb ass perhaps? It would be much
easier for Koobee Wublee to inform Him of papa rios being just a dumb
ass in the first place, no? Please advise. <shrug>
0 new messages