Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Are *observed* SR effects real?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 7:13:03 AM7/5/08
to
Are *observed* SR effects real?

Luttgens:

Two persons, A and B, are both 1.60 m tall when their
height is mesured in the same room.
After some jogging, the distance between A and B is
x meters, and A will claim that B measure 0.80 m, whereas
B will observe that A measures 0.80 m. Of course, both
are right, but this doesn't change the intrinsic height of
A and B, i.e. 1.60 m.

Similarly, Kat considers that Dirk Vdm measured
only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock,
and Vdm claims that Kat travelled during 5 years, but
measured 5 * sqrt(1-0.866^2) =~ 2.5 years on her clock.

SRists don't realize that such observational differences
represent a mere perspective effect, but not an intrinsic
modification of clock rates. They claim that Kat's time has
been physically 'dilated' by a factor 2 because of her
motion wrt the Earth, even if other observers wrt
to which Kat would be moving at othir velocities would
find other 'dilation' factors.
They nevertheless believe that such 'time dilation' is
a permanent effect, which is of course stupid, as it is
simply an observational artefact.

Their belief that clock rates are physically and
*permanently* affected by motion is not different from
that of primitive people, who think that distances
physically affect the height of observed persons.
But those primitive people, unless they were very stupid,
don't believe that the perspective effect is permanent.

PD:

False dichotomy. Both of the alternatives you
present, which you assume to be the only ones
available, are incorrect.

SR does not say that there is something physical
that happens to the clock that alters the way
they work. Nor does SR say anything about
this being a permanent affect.

However, SR does not dismiss it as a perspective
effect or an illusion, either.

You have falsely presumed that if it is not one,
then it must be the other.

What is in fact the case is that physics is
about measurement and a theoretical structure
that allows you to predict what will be *measured*.

It does absolutely no good to have a theory
that tells you that what is going on is one thing,
but that that's not what you'll measure.

The interesting thing about SR is that it
emphasized (not revealed nor added, but
emphasized) that there are certain assumptions
that are built into the *definition* of
measurements. For example, simultaneity of two
events is intrinsic to the *meaning* of
measured length. So if simultaneity is
frame-dependent, then so is length, as length
is *defined*. It does absolutely no good, then,
to insist that length should be a frame-independent
quantity, as it is impossible to define length
as a *measurable* quantity that separates it
from simultaneity.
So then insisting that length be frame-independent
in some underlying reality is to either
a) say that the underlying reality is
unmeasurable, or
b) define length in a self-contradictory way,
making it a one-word oxymoron.

Luttgens:

You wrote: "SR does not say that there is
something physical that happens to the clock
that alters the way they work. Nor does SR
say anything about this being a permanent affect."

I agree, but some 'experts' claim that the
effect is permanent, cf. their interpretation
of the H&K experiment.

PD:

I'm not sure I understand what you think the
interpretation is. In the H&K experiment, when
the airborne clock landed, it was indeed behind
the ground-bound clock. However, when the
two clocks were then compared side-by-side,
they were "ticking" at the same rate.

So the "behindness" did not go away when the
clock landed, but the rate change did.
So is that "permanent" or not?

Luttgens:

Airborne clocks would have been *observed*
to tick slower than ground clocks in the H&K
experiment, but, as you rightly pointed out,
SR does not say that there is something
physical that happens to the clock that alters
the way they work. Nor does SR say anything
about this being a permanent effect.

Btw, the H&K experiment doesn't allow to
conclude that time 'dilation' physically
and permanently affects airborne clocks.

The authors themselves recognized:

1) that "real" cesium beam clocks generally
show systematic rate differences, which in
extreme cases may amount to time differences
as large as 1 microsecond per day
2) that the relative rates for cesium beam
clocks do not remain precisely constant.
3) the number of measured values is too small
for a good statistical analysis.


Sue...

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 7:43:14 AM7/5/08
to
On Jul 5, 7:13 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
[...]
If I drop my wrist watch from the top
of a ladder it stops ticking and is
correct twice a day. Without intervention
by a watchmaker the change is "permanent".

In complex number mathematics,to describe
physical phenomena reals and imaginaries
can often be freely interchanged without
regard to lexcical meaning.

Inertial frames of reference are imaginary
but they can be used to work out real
trajectories.

A suggestion:
Try to borrow some terms from a relevant
paper with adaquate mathmatical foundation
and examples so you don't have to invent
new terms.

Can you find some better terms here:

Proper Time
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT
http://www.shaping.ru/congress/english/spenser1/spencer1.asp

The Inertia of Twins
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm

Sue...


Shubee

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 9:18:13 AM7/5/08
to
On Jul 5, 6:13 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Are *observed* SR effects real?
>
> PD:
>
> False dichotomy. Both of the alternatives you
> present, which you assume to be the only ones
> available, are incorrect.
>
> SR does not say that there is something physical
> that happens to the clock that alters the way
> they work. Nor does SR say anything about
> this being a permanent affect.
>
> However, SR does not dismiss it as a perspective
> effect or an illusion, either.
>
> You have falsely presumed that if it is not one,
> then it must be the other.

PD is correct up to this point but I question his reluctance to call
time dilation a perspective effect.

> What is in fact the case is that physics is
> about measurement and a theoretical structure
> that allows you to predict what will be *measured*.
>
> It does absolutely no good to have a theory
> that tells you that what is going on is one thing,
> but that that's not what you'll measure.

Zero points for valueless tripe.

> The interesting thing about SR is that it
> emphasized (not revealed nor added, but
> emphasized) that there are certain assumptions
> that are built into the *definition* of
> measurements. For example, simultaneity of two
> events is intrinsic to the *meaning* of
> measured length.

I derive special relativity by first defining an inertial frame of
reference to be a Euclidean space where clock time is defined at each
point so as to satisfy a minimal set of "inertial properties." There,
measured length is defined by the metric of Euclidean space. Requiring
a definition for simultaneity doesn't even seem necessary to me,
unless you believe that the laws of physics require that clocks be
synchronized, which strikes me as an absurd notion. Most certainly the
simultaneity of two events is NOT intrinsic to the *meaning* of
measured length.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

> So if simultaneity is frame-dependent, then so is length,
> as length is *defined*.

Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>

> It does absolutely no good, then,
> to insist that length should be a frame-independent
> quantity, as it is impossible to define length
> as a *measurable* quantity that separates it
> from simultaneity.

That's a very naive belief system that you have there. Have you never
heard of a metric space?

> So then insisting that length be frame-independent
> in some underlying reality is to either
> a) say that the underlying reality is
> unmeasurable,

That would be my preference.

> or
> b) define length in a self-contradictory way,
> making it a one-word oxymoron.

No thank you. I reject Einstein's self-contradictory, oxymoronic
emphasis.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf


jem

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 9:45:12 AM7/5/08
to
Shubee wrote:
>
> Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
> special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>

This from a thoroughly delusional incompetent who's spent more than
five years unsuccessfully trying to derive the basic SR transformation
that relates frame-dependent quantities.

Shubee

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 10:15:09 AM7/5/08
to

Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
ever conceived.

Unfortunately, the misguided competition still believes the false
assumption that homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations
must be presupposed in order to derive the Lorentz transformation.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm

Shubee

alanm...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 12:32:30 PM7/5/08
to
On Jul 5, 4:13 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Are *observed* SR effects real?
>
> Luttgens:
>
> Two persons, A and B, are both 1.60 m tall when their
> height is mesured in the same room.
> After some jogging, the distance between A and B is
> x meters, and A will claim that B measure 0.80 m, whereas
> B will observe that A measures 0.80 m. Of course, both
> are right, but this doesn't change the intrinsic height of
> A and B, i.e. 1.60 m.

(cut) Both A and B will still claim that both A and B are 1.6
meters tall, unless both A and B are slithering along the ground like
snakes. A will measure B as relatively thinner, and likewise B will
measure A as thinner, but since height is not in the direction of
motion, no change will be detected- A. McIntire

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 1:58:01 PM7/5/08
to
On Jul 5, 6:32 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

My scenario is a simple illustration of perspective,
an optical phenomenon, which was well known by painters
since many centuries.

Marcel Luttgens

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 2:27:57 PM7/5/08
to

mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Are *observed* SR effects real?

What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?

[snip babble]

Stuart Ray

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 8:03:58 PM7/5/08
to
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 07:15:09 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Sh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
>derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
>ever conceived.

Do you have any theory as to why everyone who has ever examined your
"derivation" has concluded that you are a misguided fool? Are you
that much smarter than EVERY other person in the world? Or is there a
conspiracy against you? Have you ever seriously discussed with one of
those people WHY they believe you are misguided? Has anyone ever made
what you consider to be a valid criticism of your "derivation"? Are
there any common threads in all the invalid criticisms you've
received?

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 8:06:21 PM7/5/08
to
On Jul 5, 4:03 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 07:15:09 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfis a valid

> >derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
> >ever conceived.
>
> Do you have any theory as to why everyone who has ever examined your
> "derivation" has concluded that you are a misguided fool?  Are you
> that much smarter than EVERY other person in the world?  Or is there a
> conspiracy against you?  Have you ever seriously discussed with one of
> those people WHY they believe you are misguided? Has anyone ever made
> what you consider to be a valid criticism of your "derivation"? Are
> there any common threads in all the invalid criticisms you've
> received?

Read t' Hooft's comments about Shooby's "theory", then read Shooby's
reaction to the comments. Classic.

Plus count how many times Shooby invokes Wolfgang Rindler in his
various arguments. As if auditing a course in relativity twenty years
ago is relevant...

Shubee

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 9:09:09 PM7/5/08
to
On Jul 5, 7:03 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 07:15:09 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
> >derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
> >ever conceived.
>
> Do you have any theory as to why everyone who has ever examined your
> "derivation" has concluded that you are a misguided fool?

You are obviously the misguided fool. You have no idea about the
endorsements that I've received.

What percentage of posters here at sci.physics.relativity do you
believe are competent enough in math to find a flaw in my approach to
special relativity? Not everyone here is an idiot and there are folks
who have enjoyed my derivation but judging from the troll nature of
your statement, you are obviously incapable of doing high school
algebra yourself to point out my errors.

> Are you that much smarter than EVERY other person in the world?

Sci.physics.relativity is infamous for the number of cranks that are
attracted to relativistic physics but who can't do math on any level.
You obviously fit the profile.

> Has anyone ever made what you consider to be a valid criticism of your "derivation"?

Yes. Earlier versions of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
were too difficult for Nobel Laureates to understand. I believe that
problem has been fixed.

> Are there any common threads in all the invalid criticisms you've
> received?

Yes. The commonality is the great number of buffoons like Dono and
Eric Gisse who argue idiotically that my derivation is invalid because
it only derives the Lorentz transformation in one spatial dimension.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

BURT

unread,
Jul 5, 2008, 10:55:57 PM7/5/08
to

No Flat Atoms. No Flat Physics.

Stuart Ray

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 12:37:46 AM7/6/08
to
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Sh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> You have no idea about the endorsements that I've received.

You're quite right about that. What endorsements have you received?

>Not everyone here is an idiot...

That's good to know.

> There are folks who have enjoyed my derivation...

Hmmm... well, I'm not sure if that's an endorsement. I enjoyed your
derivation too. In fact, I'm still smiling from it as I type this.
But that doesn't mean I endorse it.

>> Has anyone ever made what you consider to be a valid criticism of your "derivation"?
>Yes. Earlier versions of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>were too difficult for Nobel Laureates to understand. I believe that
>problem has been fixed.

Hmmm... so the only criticisms you've received have been that it was
too "difficult"? I was thinking that perhaps some individuals might
have actually suggested your "derivation" quite simple to understand,
but tragically misguided and lacking in any cognitive content. Am I
really the first person to make this comment?

>The commonality is the great number of buffoons ... who argue idiotically

> that my derivation is invalid because it only derives the Lorentz transformation
> in one spatial dimension.

Hmmm... I would say that is among the least of its problems. But if
that has been the most common response, have you dealt with it by
showing how it can be extended to all dimensions?

Dono

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 1:00:24 AM7/6/08
to
On Jul 5, 9:37 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > You have no idea about the endorsements that I've received.
>
> You're quite right about that. What endorsements have you received?
>
> >Not everyone here is an idiot...
>
> That's good to know.
>
> > There are folks who have enjoyed my derivation...
>
> Hmmm... well, I'm not sure if that's an endorsement. I enjoyed your
> derivation too. In fact, I'm still smiling from it as I type this.
> But that doesn't mean I endorse it.
>
> >> Has anyone ever made what you consider to be a valid criticism of your "derivation"?
> >Yes. Earlier versions ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

> >were too difficult for Nobel Laureates to understand. I believe that
> >problem has been fixed.
>
> Hmmm... so the only criticisms you've received have been that it was
> too "difficult"? I was thinking that perhaps some individuals might
> have actually suggested your "derivation" quite simple to understand,
> but tragically misguided and lacking in any cognitive content. Am I
> really the first person to make this comment?
>
> >The commonality is the great number of buffoons ... who argue idiotically
> > that my derivation is invalid because it only derives the Lorentz transformation
> > in one spatial dimension.
>
> Hmmm... I would say that is among the least of its problems. But if
> that has been the most common response, have you dealt with it by
> showing how it can be extended to all dimensions?

But how do you explain all this to a person like Shitbert who has
fallen off the deep end and refuses to take his pills?

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 1:51:42 AM7/6/08
to
On Jul 5, 8:37 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
[...]

> >> Has anyone ever made what you consider to be a valid criticism of your "derivation"?

> >Yes. Earlier versions ofhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf


> >were too difficult for Nobel Laureates to understand. I believe that
> >problem has been fixed.
>
> Hmmm... so the only criticisms you've received have been that it was
> too "difficult"?  I was thinking that perhaps some individuals might
> have actually suggested your "derivation" quite simple to understand,
> but tragically misguided and lacking in any cognitive content. Am I
> really the first person to make this comment?

....no

>
> >The commonality is the great number of buffoons ... who argue idiotically
> > that my derivation is invalid because it only derives the Lorentz transformation
> > in one spatial dimension.
>
> Hmmm... I would say that is among the least of its problems. But if
> that has been the most common response, have you dealt with it by
> showing how it can be extended to all dimensions?

It is neither the most common response nor has he dealt with the
argument. Hell, I'm the only one who ever _made_ the argument so it is
safe to say it was never argued that the derivation was wrong because
of it - just that it appeared that his method does not generalize.

Eugene will pay acknowledge the arguments then ignore them. He still
needs to clean up his paper - the presentation sucks. He still needs
to make at least some contact with physics by showing how the
invariant interval or the mass-energy relations appear. He still needs
to drop the chip on his shoulder, and drop off a few pounds of the
falsely earned smugness.

It is interesting to note that despite posting about his little theory
for at least 4 or 5 years now, he cannot show why a physicist should
give a tinker's damn about it.

Bryan Olson

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 3:55:04 AM7/6/08
to
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 4:13 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>
>>> Are *observed* SR effects real?
>>> Luttgens:
>>> Two persons, A and B, are both 1.60 m tall when their
>>> height is mesured in the same room.
>>> After some jogging, the distance between A and B is
>>> x meters, and A will claim that B measure 0.80 m, whereas
>>> B will observe that A measures 0.80 m.

Them's some freekin' stupid joggers.

>>> Of course, both
>>> are right,

They're really not.

>>> but this doesn't change the intrinsic height of
>>> A and B, i.e. 1.60 m.

>> (cut) Both A and B will still claim that both A and B are 1.6
>> meters tall, unless both A and B are slithering along the ground like
>> snakes. A will measure B as relatively thinner, and likewise B will
>> measure A as thinner, but since height is not in the direction of
>> motion, no change will be detected- A. McIntire
>
> My scenario is a simple illustration of perspective,
> an optical phenomenon, which was well known by painters
> since many centuries.

It's an illustration of you not knowing what you're talking about.


--
--Bryan

Bryan Olson

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 3:59:30 AM7/6/08
to
Shubee wrote:
> jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote:
>>
>>> Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
>>> special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>

>> This from a thoroughly delusional incompetent who's spent more than
>> five years unsuccessfully trying to derive the basic SR transformation
>> that relates frame-dependent quantities.
>
> Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
> derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
> ever conceived.

Perhaps Jem's description should be amended to something like,
"... spent more than five years deluding himself into believing ..."


--
--Bryan

Bryan Olson

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 4:17:48 AM7/6/08
to
Shubee wrote:

> Stuart Ray wrote:
>> Are you that much smarter than EVERY other person in the world?
>
> Sci.physics.relativity is infamous for the number of cranks that are
> attracted to relativistic physics but who can't do math on any level.
> You obviously fit the profile.

Gee Shubee, in a thread where you call Einstein's emphasis
self-contradictory", bemoan what "sadly, physicists believe"
and proclaim your own superior results while citing only your
own web pages, you might be better off not bringing up the
"crank" issue.

Or maybe you're doing the group a favor. Since many readers do
not have the background to spot the errors in your work, you
offer other clues.

>> Has anyone ever made what you consider to be a valid criticism of your "derivation"?
>
> Yes. Earlier versions of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> were too difficult for Nobel Laureates to understand.

Ah, good one.


--
--Bryan

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 5:40:49 AM7/6/08
to

Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.

Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.

Marcel Luttgens

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 6:02:41 AM7/6/08
to

Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10.

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 9:23:19 AM7/6/08
to

H&K said themselves that their experiment couldn't be
statistically interpreted, see their original paper,
p. 170: "However, the number of measured values is too


small for a good statistical analysis."

But 'textbook experts' like you have no clue about
experimental errors.

And why do you repeat the obvious fact that relativistic
effects on clocks are *observable*. Once again, you are
implying -without proof- that observable effects are real.

Marcel Luttgens


Shubee

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 9:38:39 AM7/6/08
to
On Jul 5, 11:37 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > You have no idea about the endorsements that I've received.
>
> You're quite right about that. What endorsements have you received?

There are acknowledgments that can be interpreted as an endorsement on
some level. Thus, the nicest endorsement that I've received was from
Eugene V. Stefanovich in his paper, A Hamiltonian Approach to Quantum
Gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019).

> >> Has anyone ever made what you consider to be a valid criticism of your "derivation"?
> >Yes. Earlier versions of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> >were too difficult for Nobel Laureates to understand. I believe that
> >problem has been fixed.
>
> Hmmm... so the only criticisms you've received have been that it was
> too "difficult"?

You asked for valid criticisms. That is correct. It has been the only
valid criticism.

> I was thinking that perhaps some individuals might
> have actually suggested your "derivation" quite simple to understand,
> but tragically misguided and lacking in any cognitive content.

Then you're at odds with Eric Gisse who has been a 3rd year physics
student at the University of Alaska for the last 4 years now. His
incessant whining has been that my approach doesn't generalize but
offers no proof of his assertion.

> >The commonality is the great number of buffoons ... who argue idiotically
> > that my derivation is invalid because it only derives the Lorentz transformation
> > in one spatial dimension.
>
> Hmmm... I would say that is among the least of its problems. But if
> that has been the most common response, have you dealt with it by
> showing how it can be extended to all dimensions?

I don't jump through hoops for trolls. The next section to be written
will add the required axioms to make time dilation computations
possible. It will include an insightful solution to exercise 1 and 2
of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm

Exercise 1 has been recently solved on this newsgroup and verified by
a mathematician. That endorsement had finally silenced Dono, who had
hounded me for 6 months on every thread I posted to, regardless of the
topic, with his incessant idiocy that my nonlinear transformations
were not invertible.

Shubee

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 10:46:38 AM7/6/08
to

Reading what you want to read, Marcel?

This is the ENTIRE paragraph:

"The agreement between the mean of the measured values and the
predicted values in Table 1 is very satisfactory. In addition, the
consistency among measured values is striking. For the westward trip,
the standard deviation is less than 5 percent of the mean. According
to the statistical theory of error, the standard deviation is a valid
indicator of the precsion of the measurement. However, the number of


measured values is too small for a good statistical analysis".

Sure doesn't support your case _nearly_ as much when taken into
context, now does it? All H&K were claiming was that modern error
analysis needs a lot more data points for the statistics to be "good"
in the modern sense of the word.

Now go back and repeat another argument from the retired electrical
engineer who doesn't know fuck all about physics.

> But 'textbook experts' like you have no clue about
> experimental errors.

Yea, my eyes always glaze over error bars.

Since when do _you_ care about experiment? You've done nothing but
shit over experiments that disagree with your preconceived notions of
how the universe works.

>
> And why do you repeat the obvious fact that relativistic
> effects on clocks are *observable*. Once again, you are
> implying -without proof- that observable effects are real.
>
> Marcel Luttgens

So how come muon and pion beams exist? How come the Sagnac effect is
real? How come Compton scattering works?

Stuart Ray

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 12:24:19 PM7/6/08
to
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Sh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> What endorsements have you received?
>There are acknowledgments that can be interpreted as an endorsement on
>some level. Thus, the nicest endorsement that I've received was from
>Eugene V. Stefanovich in his paper, A Hamiltonian Approach to Quantum
>Gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019).

If that is indeed the nicest endorsement you and/or your "derivation"
have received, then I'm afraid you have not received any favorable
endorsements at all. First, Mr. Stefanovich is a known lunatic, so
receiving an "endorsement" from him is like getting a character
recommendation from Charles Manson. Second, he did not refer at all to
your "derivation", which is what we were discussing. (If you thought I
was asking for general character endorsements, I'm sorry for not
making this more clear.) All we have is a well-known crackpot (Mr.
Stefanovich) saying in one of his idiotic pseudo-papers on HIS idiotic
crackpot theory that he had "helpful online discussions" with you.
This does not in any way constitute an endorsement of (or even a
comment on) your "derivation". Which brings me back to the original
question: Has ANY human being (or any other creature) who has
examined your "derivation" concluded that it was valuable? If, as
seems to be the case, the answer is No, then what do you conclude from
this? Is everyone else in the world really so much dumber than you
are?

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 1:01:04 PM7/6/08
to

Gisse, you are contradicting yourself!
There is no "modern" statistical analysis!
You 'need' enough points to draw conclusions valid
at some chosen probability.

>
> Now go back and repeat another argument from the retired electrical
> engineer who doesn't know fuck all about physics.

My argument was not from Kelly, but from H&K.
And you are rather stupid to think that a retired
engineer is unable to point up logical and statistical
errors in a paper.

>
> > But 'textbook experts' like you have no clue about
> > experimental errors.
>
> Yea, my eyes always glaze over error bars.
>

And your brain has no clue about their interpretation.

> Since when do _you_ care about experiment? You've done nothing but
> shit over experiments that disagree with your preconceived notions of
> how the universe works.
>

And *you* know how it works!


>
> > And why do you repeat the obvious fact that relativistic
> > effects on clocks are *observable*. Once again, you are
> > implying -without proof- that observable effects are real.
>
> > Marcel Luttgens
>
> So how come muon and pion beams exist? How come the Sagnac effect is
> real? How come Compton scattering works

What a mix!

Marcel Luttgens

Androcles

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 1:03:18 PM7/6/08
to

"Stuart Ray" <sb...@spamlessss.com> wrote in message
news:4870ee37....@news.gte.net...

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics is also known as the drivel bucket.
Every nutter and his dog dumps a paper in it and nobody reads it.

Sue...

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 1:28:39 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 6:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 1:40 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > > > Are *observed* SR effects real?
>
> > > What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
> > > while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
> > > back together?
>

>


> > Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
> > you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
> > considerations about SR is a good example.
>
> > Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
> > a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
> > that those clocks will show a time difference with
> > clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
> > statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
> > to justify the contrary.
>
> > Marcel Luttgens
>
> Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
> are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
> when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10.

Without Sagnac and local gravitational effects, clocks
or any other mechanism subject to gravito-inertial
fields, violates the relativity principle if it is
affected by motion. So you can't have it both ways.
Either H&K is misinterpreted, or the principle of
relativity was violated.

"The relativity principle?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Sue...

Shubee

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 1:31:06 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 11:24 am, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>

On Jul 6, 11:24 am, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>


> wrote:
>
> >> What endorsements have you received?
> >There are acknowledgments that can be interpreted as an endorsement on
> >some level. Thus, the nicest endorsement that I've received was from
> >Eugene V. Stefanovich in his paper, A Hamiltonian Approach to Quantum
> >Gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019).
>
> If that is indeed the nicest endorsement you and/or your "derivation"
> have received, then I'm afraid you have not received any favorable
> endorsements at all.

Since your profile says that this is the only thread you have posted
to, you are very likely just an idiot sock puppet. Acting like the
degenerate Androcles is no proof that you are smarter than he is. Till
now, you have only demonstrated the behavior of a shit-throwing
chimpanzee. Since you believe that you have superior abilities to
Eugene V. Stefanovich, let's see you prove your worth. Let's see you
simplify Dono's embarrassingly large, inelegant algebraic expression
[1] to the final answer, which I have arrived at directly and simply,
in two different ways. [2][3].

Don't obscure your obvious inability to do high school algebra like
the dullards Dono and Gisse. Why did you ignore the independent proof
that my nonlinear solution set to the Shubertian clock model of
spacetime is a mathematical group and that it was confirmed by a
mathematician to be isomorphic to the Lorentz group?

Shubee
1. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/jerks
2. http://www.everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=969
3. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/09e32c49e1a6a766

Shubee

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 1:56:46 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 3:17 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

> Gee Shubee, in a thread where you call Einstein's emphasis
> self-contradictory", bemoan what "sadly, physicists believe"

Here's an idea: On one of the days when you "understand relativity
perfectly" solve a *quantitative* exercise, one where you have to
apply your understanding to compute something specific.

Only until you can prove that you are worthy to criticize me, and not
a troll, then I'll listen to your criticisms.

Shubee

Shubee

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 2:02:16 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 2:59 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> Shubee wrote:
> > jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> Shubee wrote:
>
> >>> Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
> >>> special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>
>
> > Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
> > derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
> > ever conceived.
>
> Perhaps Jem's description should be amended to something like,
> "... spent more than five years deluding himself into believing ..."

Wow, a professional shit-throwing chimpanzee.

Shubee

Dono

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 2:45:52 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 10:31 am, Shitbert <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why did you ignore the independent proof
> that my nonlinear solution set to the Shubertian clock model of
> spacetime

Shitbert,

You ran out of medication again. Try a cold shower, might calm down
your vivid delusions.

jem

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 3:09:24 PM7/6/08
to
Shubee wrote:

> On Jul 5, 8:45 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote:

>>> Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
>>> special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>

>> This from a thoroughly delusional incompetent who's spent more than


>> five years unsuccessfully trying to derive the basic SR transformation
>> that relates frame-dependent quantities.

> Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid


> derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
> ever conceived.

I'm still waiting to see you demonstrate that the "weakest axiom set
ever conceived" for deriving the Lorentz Transformation, is
inconsistent with the Galilean Transformation. Can you do that,
Shooby? Sorry, Shooby, dumb question. What I meant is, do you have a
good excuse for not being able to do it?

> Unfortunately, the misguided competition still believes the false
> assumption that homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations
> must be presupposed in order to derive the Lorentz transformation.

What are "homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations", Shooby?

Shubee

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 3:37:09 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 2:09 pm, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Shubee wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 8:45 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> Shubee wrote:
> >>> Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
> >>> special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>
>
> > Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
> > derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
> > ever conceived.
>
> I'm still waiting to see you demonstrate that the "weakest axiom set
> ever conceived" for deriving the Lorentz Transformation, is
> inconsistent with the Galilean Transformation. Can you do that,
> Shooby? Sorry, Shooby, dumb question. What I meant is, do you have a
> good excuse for not being able to do it?

The Galilean transformation is widely understood to be a Lorentzian
transformation with a very specific spacetime structure constant.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm

There is no derivation for the fundamental constant.

> > Unfortunately, the misguided competition still believes the false
> > assumption that homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations
> > must be presupposed in order to derive the Lorentz transformation.
>
> What are "homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations", Shooby?

A very misleading concept, I assure you. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3398
for example.

Shubee

Shubee

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 6:14:03 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 1:45 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:

> You ran out of medication again. Try a cold shower, might calm down
> your vivid delusions.

You sure do go to extreme lengths to try to cover your mathematical
inadequacies. What sane person believes that you're capable of
mathematical understanding? It's clear to everyone that is civilized
that you only impress yourself and other shit-throwing chimpanzees.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf


Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 7:07:23 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 9:01 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:

[...]

>
> Gisse, you are contradicting yourself!
> There is no "modern" statistical analysis!
> You 'need' enough points to draw conclusions valid
> at some chosen probability.

That's why they had four clocks. They findings are consistent with
special relativity.

[...]

> > So how come muon and pion beams exist? How come the Sagnac effect is
> > real? How come Compton scattering works
>
> What a mix!
>
> Marcel Luttgens

Well?

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 7:08:09 PM7/6/08
to

Thank you sue, for your typical irrelevant words and link.

H&K is not a test of special relativity.

Sue...

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 8:28:18 PM7/6/08
to

Your are quite welcome.

> H&K is not a test of special relativity.

I certainly agree with you on that point.

<< The authors unfortunately went through
an inconsistent analysis of their
data to establish that Special Relativity
was valid [4, 6].
[...]
[4] 4] J. C. Hafele, & R. E. Keating, Science, 177, 166-170 (1972).
[6] J. C. Hafele, Nature, 227,270 (1970). >>

--C. S. Unnikrishnan
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406023


Sue...

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 9:23:20 PM7/6/08
to

...and why is the analysis inconsistent? Your irrelevant [surprise!]
reference doesn't explain why, and neither do you.

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 9:27:15 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 10:02 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2:59 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> > Shubee wrote:
> > > jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> > >> Shubee wrote:
>
> > >>> Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
> > >>> special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>
>
> > > Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfis a valid

> > > derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
> > > ever conceived.
>
> > Perhaps Jem's description should be amended to something like,
> > "... spent more than five years deluding himself into believing ..."
>
> Wow, a professional shit-throwing chimpanzee.
>
> Shubee

Why do you persist in posting here?

You don't like any of us, and you will not advance your cause from
this newsgroup. So why not just fuck off?

Sue...

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 9:44:18 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 9:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:02 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 2:59 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> > > Shubee wrote:
> > > > jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> > > >> Shubee wrote:
>
> > > >>> Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
> > > >>> special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>
>
> > > > Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfisa valid

> > > > derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
> > > > ever conceived.
>
> > > Perhaps Jem's description should be amended to something like,
> > > "... spent more than five years deluding himself into believing ..."
>
> > Wow, a professional shit-throwing chimpanzee.
>
> > Shubee
>
> Why do you persist in posting here?

Good question. There is little if any science about it.
I suppose there is some small pleasure in seeing
windmills where others see dragons.
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~david/images/doredonandwindmills.jpg

Sue...

Stuart Ray

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 10:22:39 PM7/6/08
to
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Sh...@gmail.com>
wrote: [some lame insults and irrelevant foolishness]

The question on the table is this: Since NO human being who has
examined your "derivation" has concluded that it was valuable, what do


you conclude from this? Is everyone else in the world really so much

dumber than you are? Are ALL other human beings deluded fools and are
you the only clear-thinking person alive? Has it ever (and I mean even
once, for just a moment) occurred to you that YOU are the one who
isn't seeing clearly? I would honestly like to know.

Shubee

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 10:55:44 PM7/6/08
to
On Jul 6, 9:22 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>

> wrote: [some lame insults and irrelevant foolishness]

Use your brain Androcles. If you can't accept my challenge to simplify
an idiot's high school algebra, then you're just as dumb as Dono and
Gisse. I don't waste my time with chimpanzees.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/


Androcles

unread,
Jul 6, 2008, 11:32:07 PM7/6/08
to

"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e00dfe75-3cb3-4b8f...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

You have nothing important to say and no brain to use, fuckhead,
and you are even dumber than Dono and Gisse. I don't waste my
time with your lame insults or your irrelevant foolishness.
Here's MY challenge, arsehole, and if you had a brain you'd answer it.

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Hint: Because he was a fucking idiot like you.

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 12:00:33 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 6, 10:32 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

So you're answering my challenge with a challenge. Do you realize,
Androcles, that you're appealing to the same lame argument of
authority as your alter-ego, Stuart Ray?

To answer your question I would tell Einstein, if he were alive today,
that he should rewrite his paper because he is making the subject far
more difficult than it really is.

Shubee

Androcles

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 12:11:50 AM7/7/08
to

"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0fda963f-63c4-4a55...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

| On Jul 6, 10:32 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| >
news:e00dfe75-3cb3-4b8f...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Jul 6, 9:22 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
| > | > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Shubee
<e.Shu...@gmail.com>| > wrote: [some lame insults and irrelevant
foolishness]
| >
| > |
| > | Use your brain Androcles. If you can't accept my challenge to simplify
| > | an idiot's high school algebra, then you're just as dumb as Dono and
| > | Gisse. I don't waste my time with chimpanzees.
| > |
| > | Shubee
| > |http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
| >
| > You have nothing important to say and no brain to use, fuckhead,
| > and you are even dumber than Dono and Gisse. I don't waste my
| > time with your lame insults or your irrelevant foolishness.
| > Here's MY challenge, arsehole, and if you had a brain you'd answer it.
| >
| > Why did Einstein say
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same?
| >
| > Hint: Because he was a fucking idiot like you.
|
| So you're answering my challenge with a challenge.

My challenge has been out on usenet for weeks. I have priority.
YOU are answering MY challenge with a challenge. I don't waste

Bryan Olson

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 1:51:08 AM7/7/08
to
Shubee wrote:
> Only until you can prove that you are worthy to criticize me, and not
> a troll, then I'll listen to your criticisms.

If you submit your research to a serious journal of the
field, I will not be among the referees.

Reality is that your work, Shubee, is where it belongs
here on s.p.r and on your own website, where it need
meet no standard beyond your own decision to post.


--
--Bryan

Bryan Olson

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 1:57:11 AM7/7/08
to
Shubee wrote:

> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Perhaps Jem's description should be amended to something like,
>> "... spent more than five years deluding himself into believing ..."
>
> Wow, a professional shit-throwing chimpanzee.

No; at whatever I am here, I'm an amateur.


--
--Bryan

Martin Hogbin

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 4:55:02 AM7/7/08
to
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Are *observed* SR effects real?
>
> Luttgens:
>
> Two persons, A and B, are both 1.60 m tall when their
> height is mesured in the same room.
> After some jogging, the distance between A and B is
> x meters, and A will claim that B measure 0.80 m, whereas
> B will observe that A measures 0.80 m. Of course, both
> are right, but this doesn't change the intrinsic height of
> A and B, i.e. 1.60 m.
>
> Similarly, Kat considers that Dirk Vdm measured
> only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock,
> and Vdm claims that Kat travelled during 5 years, but
> measured 5 * sqrt(1-0.866^2) =~ 2.5 years on her clock.
>
> SRists don't realize that such observational differences
> represent a mere perspective effect, but not an intrinsic
> modification of clock rates. They claim that Kat's time has
> been physically 'dilated' by a factor 2 because of her
> motion wrt the Earth, even if other observers wrt
> to which Kat would be moving at othir velocities would
> find other 'dilation' factors.
> They nevertheless believe that such 'time dilation' is
> a permanent effect, which is of course stupid, as it is
> simply an observational artefact.
>
> Their belief that clock rates are physically and
> *permanently* affected by motion is not different from
> that of primitive people, who think that distances
> physically affect the height of observed persons.
> But those primitive people, unless they were very stupid,
> don't believe that the perspective effect is permanent.

Restating your misconceptions doea not make them any
more true.

Martin Hogbin

harry

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 6:31:28 AM7/7/08
to

<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:38400080-8a58-4e49...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> Are *observed* SR effects real?

Only in special cases! :-)
But you already know that, don't you?

Cheers,
Harald


Androcles

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 7:33:43 AM7/7/08
to

"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:121542...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...

|
| <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
| news:38400080-8a58-4e49...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| > Are *observed* SR effects real?
|
| Only in special cases! :-)

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

Oh look, this equation says:
the speed of light from 0 to x' is c-v,
the speed of light from x' to 0 is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same.

How do you answer that, van fuckhead?

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.


Androcles

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 7:29:42 AM7/7/08
to

"Martin Hogbin" <goatN...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:1YqdnXePT8TCSezV...@bt.com...

Your single line comments don't make them any less drivel, Pigmidden.


Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 8:44:24 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 12:51 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> Shubee wrote:
> > Only until you can prove that you are worthy to criticize me, and not
> > a troll, then I'll listen to your criticisms.
>
> If you submit your research to a serious journal of the
> field, I will not be among the referees.

That's a near certainty because serious journals generally don't
select chimpanzees to be referees.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 8:51:28 AM7/7/08
to

Don't flatter yourself. An amateur in this subject should be able to
do physics and math at the high school level and you're obviously too
incompetent to do that. But you sure do excel at shit-throwing. You
are a dirty, smelly chimpanzee.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm

PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 9:03:40 AM7/7/08
to
> PD:
>
> False dichotomy. Both of the alternatives you
> present, which you assume to be the only ones
> available, are incorrect.
>
> SR does not say that there is something physical
> that happens to the clock that alters the way
> they work. Nor does SR say anything about
> this being a permanent affect.
>
> However, SR does not dismiss it as a perspective
> effect or an illusion, either.
>
> You have falsely presumed that if it is not one,
> then it must be the other.
>
> What is in fact the case is that physics is
> about measurement and a theoretical structure
> that allows you to predict what will be *measured*.
>
> It does absolutely no good to have a theory
> that tells you that what is going on is one thing,
> but that that's not what you'll measure.
>
> The interesting thing about SR is that it
> emphasized (not revealed nor added, but
> emphasized) that there are certain assumptions
> that are built into the *definition* of
> measurements. For example, simultaneity of two
> events is intrinsic to the *meaning* of
> measured length. So if simultaneity is
> frame-dependent, then so is length, as length
> is *defined*. It does absolutely no good, then,
> to insist that length should be a frame-independent
> quantity, as it is impossible to define length
> as a *measurable* quantity that separates it
> from simultaneity.
> So then insisting that length be frame-independent
> in some underlying reality is to either
> a) say that the underlying reality is
> unmeasurable, or
> b) define length in a self-contradictory way,
> making it a one-word oxymoron.
>
> Luttgens:
>
> You wrote: "SR does not say that there is
>
> something physical that happens to the clock
> that alters the way they work. Nor does SR
> say anything about this being a permanent affect."
>
> I agree, but some 'experts' claim that the
> effect is permanent, cf. their interpretation
> of the H&K experiment.
>
> PD:
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you think the
> interpretation is. In the H&K experiment, when
> the airborne clock landed, it was indeed behind
> the ground-bound clock. However, when the
> two clocks were then compared side-by-side,
> they were "ticking" at the same rate.
>
> So the "behindness" did not go away when the
> clock landed, but the rate change did.
> So is that "permanent" or not?
>
> Luttgens:
>
> Airborne clocks would have been *observed*
> to tick slower than ground clocks in the H&K
> experiment, but, as you rightly pointed out,
> SR does not say that there is something
> physical that happens to the clock that alters
> the way they work. Nor does SR say anything
> about this being a permanent effect.

That's correct. The observations are exactly what I indicated. Since
science is a methodology of being able to accurately predict
observations according to some model, the fact that relativity was
able to predict these observations is considered a scientific success.

>
> Btw, the H&K experiment doesn't allow to
> conclude that time 'dilation' physically
> and permanently affects airborne clocks.
>
> The authors themselves recognized:
>
> 1) that "real" cesium beam clocks generally
> show systematic rate differences, which in
> extreme cases may amount to time differences
> as large as 1 microsecond per day
> 2) that the relative rates for cesium beam
> clocks do not remain precisely constant.
> 3) the number of measured values is too small
> for a good statistical analysis.

So you are suggesting that the data are unreliable. Fortunately,
several experiments have been done since the original H&K experiment
where these sources of uncertainty are mitigated, and the effect
persists.

PD

PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 9:06:40 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 5, 8:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
> special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>

Physics in general is the study of quantities, some of which are frame-
dependent and some of which are not.
Velocity, electric field, momentum, kinetic energy are examples of
quantities that are.
Acceleration, invariant mass, spacetime interval are examples of
quantities that are not.

>
>
> > So then insisting that length be frame-independent
> > in some underlying reality is to either
> > a) say that the underlying reality is
> > unmeasurable,
>

> That would be my preference.

And this is scientifically valueless.

>
> > or
> > b) define length in a self-contradictory way,
> > making it a one-word oxymoron.
>

> No thank you. I reject Einstein's self-contradictory, oxymoronic
> emphasis.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Stuart Ray

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 9:36:58 AM7/7/08
to
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:55:44 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Sh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> you're appealing to the same lame argument of authority

I see. So you justify your disregard of the perceptions and beliefs of
every other human being because to take them into account would be
tantamount to an unwarranted "appeal to authority". If you believe you
are Napoleon Bonaparte and everyone else in the world says no, you are
not, you can't give the perceptions of every other living creature any
weight in forming your own judgements. So crackpotism leads inevitably
to solipsism. Nothing is real but your own perceptions. What a sad
fate. I'm sorry for you, and for your brethren in mental illness,
Androcles.

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 9:40:40 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 8:06 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > So then insisting that length be frame-independent
> > > in some underlying reality is to either
> > > a) say that the underlying reality is
> > > unmeasurable,
>
> > That would be my preference.
>
> And this is scientifically valueless.

Understanding all the ways that reality might be is not scientifically
valueless. As Niels Bohr once said to Einstein, "Einstein, stop
telling God what to do."

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 9:50:27 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 8:36 am, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:55:44 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > you're appealing to the same lame argument of authority
>
> I see. So you justify your disregard of the perceptions and beliefs of
> every other human being ...

You're a dirty, smelly chimpanzee without any relevant understanding
and therefore have no right to vote on a subject that requires a
mastery of high school algebra.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 9:59:08 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 8:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 8:06 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 8:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > So then insisting that length be frame-independent
> > > > in some underlying reality is to either
> > > > a) say that the underlying reality is
> > > > unmeasurable,
>
> > > That would be my preference.
>
> > And this is scientifically valueless.
>
> Understanding all the ways that reality might be is not scientifically
> valueless.

It is if that reality is not confirmable by measurement. That becomes
metaphysics, not physics.
Metaphysics is not valueless, it's just *scientifically* valueless.

> As Niels Bohr once said to Einstein, "Einstein, stop
> telling God what to do."

And in response, Einstein proposed the experiment that proved him
wrong about quantum mechanics.

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 10:09:58 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 8:06 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
> > special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>
>
> Physics in general is the study of quantities, some of which are frame-
> dependent and some of which are not.

That's a poor defense of Einstein's oxymoronic emphasis.

According to Klein, Weyl and Wikipedia, geometry is the study of
invariants.

"Every geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and the goal
of every geometry is to study invariants of this group." Klein,
Erlanger Program.

"Each type of geometry is the study of the invariants of a group of
transformations; that is, the symmetry transformation of some chosen
space." Stewart and Golubitsky 1993, p. 44.

"A geometry is defined by a group of transformations, and investigates
everything that is invariant under the transformations of this given
group." Weyl 1952, p. 133.

"The geometry of Minkowski space is defined by the Poincaré group."

Don't you believe in the spacetime geometry model that is so popular
today?

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf


PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 10:39:37 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 9:09 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 8:06 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 8:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
> > > special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>
>
> > Physics in general is the study of quantities, some of which are frame-
> > dependent and some of which are not.
>
> That's a poor defense of Einstein's oxymoronic emphasis.
>
> According to Klein, Weyl and Wikipedia, geometry is the study of
> invariants.

Sorry, I was just talking about physics, not geometry. Geometry is a
*tool* used in physics, and your web-researched "definition" of
geometry in no way constrains what physics is about.

I'd be interested in your telling me how you think kinetic energy is
driven by the invariants of the geometry of spacetime.

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 10:58:44 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 8:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 8:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 7, 8:06 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 8:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > So then insisting that length be frame-independent
> > > > > in some underlying reality is to either
> > > > > a) say that the underlying reality is
> > > > > unmeasurable,
>
> > > > That would be my preference.
>
> > > And this is scientifically valueless.
>
> > Understanding all the ways that reality might be is not scientifically
> > valueless.
>
> It is if that reality is not confirmable by measurement. That becomes
> metaphysics, not physics.

Then Einstein's first postulate is metaphysics because there is no
experiment that proves the nonexistence of an absolute yet
undetectable frame of reference.

> Metaphysics is not valueless, it's just *scientifically* valueless.

I wouldn't say that Einstein's first postulate is *scientifically*
valueless. Let's just say that it's overrated and not provable.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

> > As Niels Bohr once said to Einstein, "Einstein, stop
> > telling God what to do."
>
> And in response, Einstein proposed the experiment that proved him
> wrong about quantum mechanics.

Einstein's narrow-mindedness on the probabilistic nature of reality is
so widely acknowledged, there is no need to debate it.

The context of Bohr's reply to Einstein is Einstein's famous platitude
that "God doesn't play dice" with the universe. Bohr's reply,
"Einstein, stop telling God what to do" sometimes includes "...with
his dice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

Shubee

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 11:13:48 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 9:39 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd be interested in your telling me how you think kinetic energy is
> driven by the invariants of the geometry of spacetime.

Objects like kinetic energy, relativistic mass and 3-momentum, are
pretensors and therefore belong to the set of geometric invariants
that Klein had in mind.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 11:35:56 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 9:58 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 8:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 8:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 7, 8:06 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 5, 8:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > So then insisting that length be frame-independent
> > > > > > in some underlying reality is to either
> > > > > > a) say that the underlying reality is
> > > > > > unmeasurable,
>
> > > > > That would be my preference.
>
> > > > And this is scientifically valueless.
>
> > > Understanding all the ways that reality might be is not scientifically
> > > valueless.
>
> > It is if that reality is not confirmable by measurement. That becomes
> > metaphysics, not physics.
>
> Then Einstein's first postulate is metaphysics because there is no
> experiment that proves the nonexistence of an absolute yet
> undetectable frame of reference.

The absence of an absolute and undetectable frame of reference is not
one of Einstein's postulates. Do you need the postulates reiterated
for you? Be sure you don't confuse a postulate from what you consider
an implication of a postulate; that would be the equivalent to
confusing an axiom with a theorem.

>
> > Metaphysics is not valueless, it's just *scientifically* valueless.
>
> I wouldn't say that Einstein's first postulate is *scientifically*

> valueless. Let's just say that it's overrated and not provable.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 11:47:04 AM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 7:13 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 9:39 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'd be interested in your telling me how you think kinetic energy is
> > driven by the invariants of the geometry of spacetime.
>
> Objects like kinetic energy, relativistic mass and 3-momentum, are
> pretensors and therefore belong to the set of geometric invariants
> that Klein had in mind.

Kinetic energy, relativistic mass and 3-momentum are not invariants
and do not transform as tensors.

>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 12:06:54 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 10:13 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 9:39 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'd be interested in your telling me how you think kinetic energy is
> > driven by the invariants of the geometry of spacetime.
>
> Objects like kinetic energy, relativistic mass and 3-momentum, are
> pretensors and therefore belong to the set of geometric invariants
> that Klein had in mind.

Umm... no. Nice jargon-flinging, though. Might help if you had the
foggiest idea of the meaning of the terms when you fling them..

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 12:11:31 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 10:35 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The absence of an absolute and undetectable frame of reference is not
> one of Einstein's postulates. Do you need the postulates reiterated
> for you? Be sure you don't confuse a postulate from what you consider
> an implication of a postulate; that would be the equivalent to
> confusing an axiom with a theorem.

The original relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz most certainly
agreed with the constancy of light postulate and affirmed the
undetectability of any absolute frame of reference. Since the original
theory of relativity is self-consistent, the theorem in Einsteinian
relativity, wherever it came from, that there is no absolute frame of
reference, is either false or a hidden third metaphysical postulate.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 12:25:46 PM7/7/08
to

The most absolutely beautiful and general way to derive the equations
of relativistic mass and momentum conservation is with pretensors,
discovered by me while in graduate school. I certainly don't feel a
great need to publish my discovery because I believe I can apply it to
yet unsolved problems. If pretensors were only good to derive
relativistic mechanics, then they wouldn't be very important. I'm
following the advice given me by Wolfgang Rindler. "Never publish
anything that can be developed further because if you don't fully
develop and generalize your own work, someone else surely will."

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 1:12:11 PM7/7/08
to
Conservation laws such as kinetic energy, relativistic mass and 3-
momentum are Lorentz-invariant objects in Minkowski spacetime. Pre-
tensors need not be tensors.

Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm

Dono

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 1:13:30 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 8:13 am, Shitbert <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Objects like kinetic energy, relativistic mass and 3-momentum, are
> pretensors and therefore belong to the set of geometric invariants
> that Klein had in mind.
>

> <shameless self-promotion snipped>

Shittybert,

I think the above will be immortalized by DvM, I will make sure he
sees it and that he nails you (again)
None of the above is an invariant owning to the fact that they are all
speed (KE, m) or velocity (p) dependent. You went 0 for 3. I think
that you wanted to talk about PRETENDERS (yourself) but it came out as
"pretensors" (something that you know nothing about).


PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 1:40:54 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 11:11 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 10:35 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The absence of an absolute and undetectable frame of reference is not
> > one of Einstein's postulates. Do you need the postulates reiterated
> > for you? Be sure you don't confuse a postulate from what you consider
> > an implication of a postulate; that would be the equivalent to
> > confusing an axiom with a theorem.
>
> The original relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz most certainly
> agreed with the constancy of light postulate

Yes.

> and affirmed the
> undetectability of any absolute frame of reference.

Sorry, that's not part of the postulate.

> Since the original
> theory of relativity is self-consistent, the theorem in Einsteinian
> relativity, wherever it came from, that there is no absolute frame of
> reference, is either false or a hidden third metaphysical postulate.

BS.

Moreover, metaphysical postulates have nothing to do with *physical*
postulates that have measurable consequences.

PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 1:42:14 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 12:12 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Conservation laws such as kinetic energy, relativistic mass and 3-
> momentum are Lorentz-invariant objects in Minkowski spacetime. Pre-
> tensors need not be tensors.

Sorry, but a conservation LAW being invariant does not mean that the
quantities are invariant.
Here's a quarter. Please use it to buy a clue.

PD

PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 1:43:16 PM7/7/08
to

Uh-huh, so Klein had in mind something which you have discovered but
decline to discuss.

PD

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 1:43:30 PM7/7/08
to

Since you haven't developed it further in twenty years, I don't see
what you are worried about.

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 2:03:37 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 12:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 11:11 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 7, 10:35 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The absence of an absolute and undetectable frame of reference is not
> > > one of Einstein's postulates. Do you need the postulates reiterated
> > > for you? Be sure you don't confuse a postulate from what you consider
> > > an implication of a postulate; that would be the equivalent to
> > > confusing an axiom with a theorem.
>
> > The original relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz most certainly
> > agreed with the constancy of light postulate
>
> Yes.
>
> > and affirmed the undetectability of
> > any absolute frame of reference.
>
> Sorry, that's not part of the postulate.

I was referring to the original theory of relativity according to
Poincaré. "He discussed the 'principle of relative motion' in two
papers in 1900 and named it the principle of relativity in 1904,
according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can
discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9

> > Since the original
> > theory of relativity is self-consistent, the theorem in Einsteinian
> > relativity, wherever it came from, that there is no absolute frame of
> > reference, is either false or a hidden third metaphysical postulate.
>
> BS.

How is the original relativity of Poincaré internally inconsistent?

Shubee

Dono

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 2:13:01 PM7/7/08
to

:-) :-)

Shubee

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 2:23:21 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 12:42 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 12:12 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Conservation laws such as kinetic energy, relativistic mass and 3-
> > momentum are Lorentz-invariant objects in Minkowski spacetime. Pre-
> > tensors need not be tensors.
>
> Sorry, but a conservation LAW being invariant does not mean that the
> quantities are invariant.

I didn't say that the quantities kinetic energy, relativistic mass and
3-momentum are invariant. I said that they were non-tensorial objects,
pretensors to be exact, and Lorentz-invariant conservation laws.

Shubee

Eric Gisse

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 2:59:38 PM7/7/08
to

Still wrong, shooby.

None of those quantities obey Lorentz-invariant conservation laws
because none of the quantities are Lorentz invariant. The only
quantities eligible for the status of Lorentz invariance are
quantities built out of Lorentz scalars, 4-vectors, tensors, etc.

rval...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 4:17:54 PM7/7/08
to

Androcles ha escrito:
> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:121542...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
> |
> | <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> | news:38400080-8a58-4e49...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...


> | > Are *observed* SR effects real?
> |

> | Only in special cases! :-)
>
> Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> Oh look, this equation says:
> the speed of light from 0 to x' is c-v,
> the speed of light from x' to 0 is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same.
>
You are confusing the relative velocity between two moving entities in
some frame (a light ray and the moving origin of the “moving frame” k,
both moving in the “stationary frame” K), with the velocity of one
entity (a light ray) in some frame (the “moving frame”) when going
between two points at rest in that k frame (the origin and some other
point associated with x’).
By Einstein’s DEFINITION (in paragraph 1), the “time” light spends
going from A to B is the same “time” it expends going from B to A,
being A and B any two points of the Euclidean space corresponding to
any frame (in this case the points associated with 0 and x’ in the
“moving frame” k). That definition is in complete agreement with our
common sense (by Euclidean geometry distance AB is equal to BA, and
equal speed c corresponds with equal “time”). In that frame (as in any
other by the second postulate) vacuum light speed is the isotropic c,
not the (c-v) and (c+v) you are referring, saying that they are “the
speed of light”, confusing it with the relative velocity of light with
other moving entities in the same frame. Harry is very right saying
Einstein didn’t write that.
A light ray can have a vector velocity C in any frame, and at the same
time have many different relative velocities C-V with other moving
entities with vector velocity V in the same frame (as any other
entity), with no contradiction at all with the second postulate.

> How do you answer that, van fuckhead?
>
> "Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
> According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
Einstein wrote the equation, you are the one that still doesn’t
understand its meaning. I consider you a very smart person (and also a
great courage one defending what you consider right for many years
against many persons). I am sure that you will end doing it.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

Dono

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 4:25:18 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 7, 11:23 am, Shitbert <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I didn't say that the quantities kinetic energy, relativistic mass and
> 3-momentum are invariant. I said that they were non-tensorial objects,
> pretensors to be exact, and Lorentz-invariant conservation laws.
>

> Shittybert


You are lying , Shitbert

Here is what you said:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/6276c6cef55ac838

SCUMBAG!

Androcles

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 6:06:54 PM7/7/08
to

<rval...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db01bed3-255f-4d4a...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...


Androcles ha escrito:
> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:121542...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
> |
> | <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> |
> news:38400080-8a58-4e49...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> | > Are *observed* SR effects real?
> |
> | Only in special cases! :-)
>
> Ref:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> Oh look, this equation says:
> the speed of light from 0 to x' is c-v,
> the speed of light from x' to 0 is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same.
>
You are confusing the relative velocity between two moving entities in
some frame (a light ray and the moving origin of the �moving frame� k,
both moving in the �stationary frame� K), with the velocity of one
entity (a light ray) in some frame (the �moving frame�) when going
between two points at rest in that k frame (the origin and some other
point associated with x�).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are a confused imbecile, there is no possibility of my confusing
this equation:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
with your ranting stupidity above.

Oh look, this equation:

(THIS ONE:--->)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

SAYS:


the speed of light from 0 to x' is c-v,
the speed of light from x' to 0 is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same.

Try again, you fucking idiot, and don't tell me I'm confused, you shitheaded
anencephalous cretin.

rval...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 6:13:27 PM7/7/08
to

Androcles ha escrito:
> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:121542...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
> |
> | <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> | news:38400080-8a58-4e49...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> | > Are *observed* SR effects real?
> |
> | Only in special cases! :-)
>
> Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> Oh look, this equation says:
> the speed of light from 0 to x' is c-v,
> the speed of light from x' to 0 is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same.
>
You are confusing the relative velocity between two moving entities in
some frame (a light ray and the moving origin of the “moving frame” k,
both moving in the “stationary frame” K), with the velocity of one
entity (a light ray) in some frame (the “moving frame”) when going
between two points at rest in that k frame (the origin and some other
point associated with x’).

Androcles

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 6:18:14 PM7/7/08
to

<rval...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db01bed3-255f-4d4a...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Androcles ha escrito:
> "harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:121542...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
> |
> | <mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> |
> news:38400080-8a58-4e49...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> | > Are *observed* SR effects real?
> |
> | Only in special cases! :-)
>
> Ref:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> Oh look, this equation says:
> the speed of light from 0 to x' is c-v,
> the speed of light from x' to 0 is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same.
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------

By Einstein�s DEFINITION (in paragraph 1), the �time� light spends
going from A to B is the same �time� it expends going from B to A,
being A and B any two points of the Euclidean space corresponding to
any frame (in this case the points associated with 0 and x� in the
�moving frame� k).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is an idiot's definition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


That definition is in complete agreement with our
common sense (by Euclidean geometry distance AB is equal to BA, and
equal speed c

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey fuckhead!
The EQUATION says c+v and c-v, you MORON!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


corresponds with equal �time�). In that frame (as in any
other by the second postulate) vacuum light speed is the isotropic c,
not the (c-v) and (c+v) you are referring, saying that they are �the
speed of light�, confusing it with the relative velocity of light with
other moving entities in the same frame. Harry is very right saying
Einstein didn�t write that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein didn't write the equation he wrote.... You are fucking hopeless.
PISS OFF.

Darwin123

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 6:35:25 PM7/7/08
to
On Jul 5, 7:13 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Are *observed* SR effects real?
>
> Luttgens:
>
> Two persons, A and B, are both 1.60 m tall when their
> height is mesured in the same room.
> After some jogging, the distance between A and B is
> x meters, and A will claim that B measure 0.80 m, whereas
> B will observe that A measures 0.80 m. Of course, both
> are right, but this doesn't change the intrinsic height of
> A and B, i.e. 1.60 m.
>
> Similarly, Kat considers that Dirk Vdm measured
> only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock,
> and Vdm claims that Kat travelled during 5 years, but
> measured 5 * sqrt(1-0.866^2) =~ 2.5 years on her clock.
>
> SRists don't realize that such observational differences
> represent a mere perspective effect, but not an intrinsic
> modification of clock rates. They claim that Kat's time has
> been physically 'dilated' by a factor 2 because of her
> motion wrt the Earth, even if other observers wrt
> to which Kat would be moving at othir velocities would
> find other 'dilation' factors.
> They nevertheless believe that such 'time dilation' is
> a permanent effect, which is of course stupid, as it is
> simply an observational artefact.
>
In the cases where this effect is important, the two clocks are
brought together in space, time, and matched velocities at two places.
The beginning of the trip and the end. If the time at the beginning of
the trip is set to zero for both clocks, and other environmental
effects are controlled, the clocks will read different times at the
end of the trip. There can be no artifact when the clocks are brought
back together in space, time, and matched velocities.
I think there may be some confusion as to the controlling of other
environmental factors. In the Hafele-Keating effect, small jars and
shakes changed the rate of the clocks. However, this was immediately
corrected for after the rate changed and so that the change in rate
could not accumulate.
Similarly, if the fast acceleration smashes the clock, the Lorentz
transformation can not be applied to the clock. We are assuming the
clocks are built with a metrology protocol, so the more mundane causes
of malfunction do not apply.
In other words, there is a presumption that neither clock "breaks"
due to reasons other than their relative velocities. If the twin in
the space ship hits a meteoroid, the Lorentz transformation is null
and void.
Physicists and other scientists, when doing an experiment, take a
lot of time and do a lot of work constructing a proper control where
extraneous parameters are controlled. The Hefele-Keating experiment,
for instant, was performed by scientists at the U.S. National Bureau
of Standards. Building a properly controlled experiment is unavoidable
if you want a meaningful experiment.

Androcles

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 6:20:44 PM7/7/08
to

<rval...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db01bed3-255f-4d4a...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Einstein wrote the equation, you are the one that still doesn�t


understand its meaning. I consider you a very smart person (and also a
great courage one defending what you consider right for many years
against many persons). I am sure that you will end doing it.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

I consider you a hopeless idiot without an ounce of sense in you.
I am sure that you will end being one.

Stuart Ray

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 7:23:25 PM7/7/08
to
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 06:50:27 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Sh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>You're a dirty, smelly chimpanzee without any relevant understanding
>and therefore have no right to vote...

Exactly my point. Every human being you've ever encountered has told
you that they believe your "derivation" is without value. Your
conclusion is that they are ALL mistaken, and clearly they lack the
relevant understanding (because if they possessed the "understanding"
necessary to agree with you, they would agree with you), so they "have
no right to vote". As a result, you find yourself surrounded by world
full of nothing but dirty, smelly, chimpanzees who have no right to
vote. You are all... and all because your ego will not allow you to
contemplate the alternative... which is that maybe (just maybe) you're
not Napoleon Bonaparte. Given the choice between humiliation and
solipsism, you choose the latter. The same is true of Androcles.
You're both cut from the same cloth. You just entertain different
delusions.

Androcles

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 7:41:11 PM7/7/08
to

"Stuart Ray" <sb...@spamlessss.com> wrote in message
news:4872a30d....@news.gte.net...

Pray tell, what delusion do I entertain?
Or were you resorting to your own solipsism, believing that I hold
a theory?
You and Shubert are both cut from the same cloth, but go ahead
and humiliate me if you can. All you need do is PROVE your case.
I'll own up to being rude and arrogant, but egocentric I am not.


PD

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 9:50:46 PM7/7/08
to

It's getting pretty deep in here.
Unless you've got a place to stack all this HS, then I suggest you
digging it up.

Stuart Ray

unread,
Jul 7, 2008, 11:14:45 PM7/7/08
to
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:41:11 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>Pray tell, what delusion do I entertain?

The delusion that Einstein said

| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,


| > the "time" each way is the same

>I'll own up to being rude and arrogant, but egocentric I am not.

Holding a childish crackpot view for decades, derisively dismissing
all explanations from everyone you encounter, until reaching the point
where you cannot even contemplate the possibility that you are wrong,
and where you believe that anyone who disagrees with you (which
includes everyone on earth) is "a fucking idiot"... this is not
possible without a nearly invincible egocentrism. You've become a
universe unto yourself, of necessity, because any attempt to reconcile
yourself with the rest of the real world of other human beings would
require some humiliation on your part, the prospect of which is
intolerable to you. That's prima facie proof of egocentrism.

Androcles

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 5:02:50 AM7/8/08
to

"Stuart Ray" <sb...@spamlessss.com> wrote in message
news:4872d724....@news.gte.net...

| On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:41:11 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| >Pray tell, what delusion do I entertain?
|
| The delusion that Einstein said
|
|| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
|| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
|| > the "time" each way is the same


What Einstein actually said was
Quote:
the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires to travel from B to A.
Unquote.

and:
Quote:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
Unquote.

hanson rephrased that into simpler language for cretins like you because he
understood it when I pointed it out to him, and I've continued to used it.
You claim that is a delusion.
What are you smoking, fuckhead?


mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 6:02:11 AM7/8/08
to
On Jul 7, 1:07 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:01 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > Gisse, you are contradicting yourself!
> > There is no "modern" statistical analysis!
> > You 'need' enough points to draw conclusions valid
> > at some chosen probability.
>
> That's why they had four clocks. They findings are consistent with
> special relativity.
>
> [...]
>
> > > So how come muon and pion beams exist? How come the Sagnac effect is
> > > real? How come Compton scattering works
>
> > What a mix!
>
> > Marcel Luttgens
>
> Well?

Well,

The H&K experiment was statistically not
interpretable. Moreover, neither the pions beam
nor the cosmic muons obsevations allow to conclude
that time dilation is a real phenomenon.

Gisse, you have no chance to stay younger than
your buddies simply by making a round-trip in space
at high speed!

Here is what Tom Roberts wrote in the NG sci.physics:

> Subject: Armchair Physics: Time Dilatation is Real
> Date: October 12, 1997
> Author: Tom Roberts, tjrobe...@lucent.com

"It sometimes happens that the mere existence
of a certain phenomenon carries with it wide-ranging
implications about the world we inhabit, or about physical
theories. In this article I will discuss an example of this:

The existence of charged pion beams implies that time
dilatation is real.

The charged pion is a well-known meson with a mass
of about 140 MeV, and a mean lifetime of about
2.6*10^-8 sec [see any publication of the Particle Data
Group. The one I have is from _Phys._Rev._, _D50_, p1173
(1994)].

At various particle accelerators around the world
there are dozens of charged pion beams, ranging
in length from a few tens of meters up to over a kilometer.
These beams transport secondary particles from an
interaction between a high-energy proton beam and
a target to an experimental area. They are called pion
beams for the simple reason that the vast majority of
particles they transport are pions, though there are
small numbers of other particles. Particle densities in
these beams can range from a few thousand to
a few billion particles per second, depending upon
factors which won't concern us in this discussion.
Note that these beams are always carried inside
vacuum pipes (to eliminate unwanted interactions
with air molecules).

One obvious observation about every one of these
beams is that the particles in them travel within a few
percent of the speed of light. For beams tuned to
>10 GeV, the difference between particle velocity
and the speed of light is zero to within experimental
accuracy, independent of the energy to which the
beam magnets are tuned. This is now "old hat",
and is rarely measured.

If one simply multiplies the speed of the mesons by
their mean lifetime, one gets 7.8 meters for their
"mean life-distance" -- the mean distance a pion could
travel before decaying. Obviously these beams are
very much longer than this, so why don't most of the
pions decay within the beam line? A 1 kilometer beam
line is 128 time longer than this "mean life- distance",
implying that only 1 in 10^56 of the starting particles
would reach the experimental area (!). If this were true,
then with a billion per second going in, none would
come out for billions of billions of years(!).

To explain these beams' ability to transport large
numbers of pions, clearly the high energy of
the particles and/or their high velocity (approaching c)
must affect their decay rate. But how can the particles
detect their own velocity though a vacuum? How can
they know they are traveling so fast -- there is nothing
against which they can "see" their own velocity.

The obvious conclusion is that this is a direct
observation of Time Dilatation, as predicted by Einstein's
Theory of Special Relativity (SR). In SR, the particles
cannot and need not "see" their own velocity relative
to the vacuum (whatever that might mean). Each meson
merely decays with its usual lifetime in its own proper
rest frame. When observed in the laboratory, however,
the meson velocity of 0.999... * c causes its laboratory
-measured lifetime to be increased by time dilatation
factors ranging from ~10 to several thousand. This
easily explains how these long pion beams can transport
large numbers of pions without having virtually all of them
decay before arriving at the experimental area.

Without time dilatation (or some equivalent effect)
none of the original pions could emerge from the beam
line without decaying. In practice, of course, most of the
original pions emerge. This imposes a strong constraint
on any worldview which would attempt to deny Special
Relativity. The simplest explanation is that time dilatation
is real.

Tom Roberts "

But Tom Roberts has omitted the other part of the SR
interpretation of the apparent higher survival age of the
pions:

In the frame of reference in which the pions are stationary,
their mean lifetime *remains 2.6*10^-8 sec*, and
the length of the vacuum pipes *appears* to be
contracted, because of its velocity relative to the pions.
And the contraction factor is identical to the time
dilation factor used by Tom Roberts to "explain how
these long pion beams can transport large numbers
of pions without having virtually all of them decay
before arriving at the experimental area", and claim
that *time dilatation is real.".

Obviously, a lot of pions have largely time to reach the
experimental area without decaying, as the distance
they travel is shortenened. There is no need for the
particles to "detect their own velocity though a vacuum"!

Note that the higher survival rate of the cosmic muons
can similarly be explained by length contraction, their
mean lifetime also being unaffected by their velocity.

SRists should tell both parts of the story, not only the
one which seems to confirm their preconceived ideas,
Iow, they should be somewhat more honest.

Marcel Luttgens

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 8:35:02 AM7/8/08
to

jem

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 9:22:12 AM7/8/08
to
Shubee wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2:09 pm, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote:
>>> On Jul 5, 8:45 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>> Shubee wrote:
>>>>> Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
>>>>> special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug>
>>> Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
>>> derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
>>> ever conceived.
>> I'm still waiting to see you demonstrate that the "weakest axiom set
>> ever conceived" for deriving the Lorentz Transformation, is
>> inconsistent with the Galilean Transformation. Can you do that,
>> Shooby? Sorry, Shooby, dumb question. What I meant is, do you have a
>> good excuse for not being able to do it?
>
> The Galilean transformation is widely understood to be a Lorentzian
> transformation with a very specific spacetime structure constant.

Sorry, Shooby, but you haven't looked widely enough. No speed limit -
no LT. You haven't put away the drawing board, have you?

> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
>
> There is no derivation for the fundamental constant.
>
>>> Unfortunately, the misguided competition still believes the false
>>> assumption that homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations
>>> must be presupposed in order to derive the Lorentz transformation.
>> What are "homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations", Shooby?
>
> A very misleading concept, I assure you. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3398
> for example.

Not misleading at all, Shooby. In fact, "homogeneous and isotropic
coordinate transformations" aren't even mentioned in your referenced
article.

What's discussed in the article is homogeneity and isotropy of space
and time measurements. Is that what you meant to say, Shooby - that
"the misguided competition still believes the false assumption that
homogeneous and isotropic measurements of space and time must be
presupposed in order to derive the Lorentz transformation"?

jem

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 9:40:28 AM7/8/08
to
PD wrote:
> On Jul 7, 10:13 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 9:39 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'd be interested in your telling me how you think kinetic energy is
>>> driven by the invariants of the geometry of spacetime.
>> Objects like kinetic energy, relativistic mass and 3-momentum, are
>> pretensors and therefore belong to the set of geometric invariants
>> that Klein had in mind.
>
> Umm... no. Nice jargon-flinging, though. Might help if you had the
> foggiest idea of the meaning of the terms when you fling them..

I'm going to have to stand up for Shooby here, PD. I have *never*
known Shooby to use a term he didn't have a foggy idea of.

No need to thank me for the kind words, Shooby.

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 10:11:11 AM7/8/08
to

mlut...@wanadoo.fr

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 10:23:27 AM7/8/08
to
On Jul 7, 3:03 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 5, 6:13 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Are *observed* SR effects real?
>
> > Luttgens:
>
> > Two persons, A and B, are both 1.60 m tall when their
> > height is mesured in the same room.
> > After some jogging, the distance between A and B is
> > x meters, and A will claim that B measure 0.80 m, whereas
> > B will observe that A measures 0.80 m. Of course, both
> > are right, but this doesn't change the intrinsic height of
> > A and B, i.e. 1.60 m.
>
> > Similarly, Kat considers that Dirk Vdm measured
> > only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock,
> > and Vdm claims that Kat travelled during 5 years, but
> > measured 5 * sqrt(1-0.866^2) =~ 2.5 years on her clock.
>
> > SRists don't realize that such observational differences
> > represent a mere perspective effect, but not an intrinsic
> > modification of clock rates. They claim that Kat's time has
> > been physically 'dilated' by a factor 2 because of her
> > motion wrt the Earth, even if other observers wrt
> > to which Kat would be moving at othir velocities would
> > find other 'dilation' factors.
> > They nevertheless believe that such 'time dilation' is
> > a permanent effect, which is of course stupid, as it is
> > simply an observational artefact.
>
> > Their belief  that clock rates are physically and
> > *permanently* affected by motion is not different from
> > that of primitive people, who think that distances
> > physically affect the height of observed persons.
> > But those primitive people, unless they were very stupid,
> > don't believe that the perspective effect is permanent.
>
> > PD:
>
> > False dichotomy. Both of the alternatives you
> > present, which you assume to be the only ones
> > available, are incorrect.
>
> > SR does not say that there is something physical
> > that happens to the clock that alters the way
> > they work. Nor does SR say anything about
> > this being a permanent affect.
>
> > However, SR does not dismiss it as a perspective
> > effect or an illusion, either.
>
> > You have falsely presumed that if it is not one,
> > then it must be the other.
>
> > What is in fact the case is that physics is
> > about measurement and a theoretical structure
> > that allows you to predict what will be *measured*.
>
> > It does absolutely no good to have a theory
> > that tells you that what is going on is one thing,
> > but that that's not what you'll measure.
>
> > The interesting thing about SR is that it
> > emphasized (not revealed nor added, but
> > emphasized) that there are certain assumptions
> > that are built into the *definition* of
> > measurements. For example, simultaneity of two
> > events is intrinsic to the *meaning* of
> > measured length. So if simultaneity is
> > frame-dependent, then so is length, as length
> > is *defined*. It does absolutely no good, then,
> > to insist that length should be a frame-independent
> > quantity, as it is impossible to define length
> > as a *measurable* quantity that separates it
> > from simultaneity.
> > So then insisting that length be frame-independent
> > in some underlying reality is to either
> > a) say that the underlying reality is
> > unmeasurable, or
> > b) define length in a self-contradictory way,
> > making it a one-word oxymoron.
>
> > Luttgens:
>
> > You wrote: "SR does not say that there is
>
> > something physical that happens to the clock
> > that alters the way they work. Nor does SR
> > say anything about this being a permanent affect."
>
> > I agree, but some 'experts' claim that the
> > effect is permanent, cf. their interpretation
> > of the H&K experiment.
>
> > PD:
>
> > I'm not sure I understand what you think the
> > interpretation is. In the H&K experiment, when
> > the airborne clock landed, it was indeed behind
> > the ground-bound clock. However, when the
> > two clocks were then compared side-by-side,
> > they were "ticking" at the same rate.
>
> > So the "behindness" did not go away when the
> > clock landed, but the rate change did.
> > So is that "permanent" or not?
>
> > Luttgens:
>
> > Airborne clocks would have been *observed*
> > to tick slower than ground clocks in the H&K
> > experiment, but, as you rightly pointed out,
> > SR does not say that there is something
> > physical that happens to the clock that alters
> > the way they work. Nor does SR say anything
> > about this being a permanent effect.
>
> That's correct. The observations are exactly what I indicated. Since
> science is a methodology of being able to accurately predict
> observations according to some model, the fact that relativity was
> able to predict these observations is considered a scientific success.
>
>
>
> > Btw, the H&K experiment doesn't allow to
> > conclude that time 'dilation' physically
> > and permanently affects airborne clocks.
>
> > The authors themselves recognized:
>
> > 1) that "real" cesium beam clocks generally
> > show systematic rate differences, which in
> > extreme cases may amount to time differences
> > as large as 1 microsecond per day
> > 2) that the relative rates for cesium beam
> > clocks do not remain precisely constant.
> > 3) the number of measured values is too small
> > for a good statistical analysis.
>
> So you are suggesting that the data are unreliable. Fortunately,
> several experiments have been done since the original H&K experiment
> where these sources of uncertainty are mitigated, and the effect
> persists.
>
> PD

Do you have references to such experiments?

Marcel Luttgens

harry

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 11:43:41 AM7/8/08
to

Dono

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 2:32:35 PM7/8/08
to
On Jul 7, 4:23 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
>which is that maybe (just maybe) you're
> not Napoleon Bonaparte.

But Shitbert IS Napoleon Bonaparte (and Josephine, as well). At his
local lunatic asylum :-)

YBM

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 3:15:20 PM7/8/08
to
Dono a écrit :

As a matter of fact Eugene Shubert motto is "The New William Miller"
on his self-deluded and bigot forum. Given that Miller is quite
an emblem of insignifiance, failure, obscurantism and stupidity it's
surprisingly good as a model for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Miller_%28preacher%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment

Except that if there were "Millerits" once, there is no
Shubertists, and will never be.

I've read some of the Seventh-day Adventist Church pages on
Wikipedia. That such a brain-dead movement (even compared to
other christian sects) could even exist and have more than
three followers seems incredible to me, as it would for
any european I'd guess.

Stuart Ray

unread,
Jul 8, 2008, 7:58:38 PM7/8/08
to
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:02:50 +0100, "Androcles"

<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>| >Pray tell, what delusion do I entertain?
>| The delusion that Einstein said
>|"the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
>| the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
>| the "time" each way is the same
>hanson rephrased that into simpler language for cretins like you because he
>understood it when I pointed it out to him, and I've continued to used it.
>You claim that is a delusion.

Yes, every rational human being on the planet knows that it is a
delusion... that's my point. The falseness of your beliefs have been
explained to you literally thousands of times. My point is that you
are ultimately forced (like Shubert) to reject the sanity of the
entire human race, because the only alternative would be to
contemplate the possibility that perhaps you really aren't Napoleon
Bonaparte... and this is a prospect your egocentrism makes it
impossible for you to tolerate. You're trapped eternally in an insane
world of your own making, surrounded by nothing but "fuckheads". An
unpleasant fate.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages