EINSTEIN, NEWTON AND 2+2=5
Pentcho Valev
the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source - has
been temporarily replaced with its negation - the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the source - which is false. It is as if I
had appropriated someone else's mathematical system where my only
contribution was to replace 2+2=4 with 2+2=5, thereby extracting profit
from miracles that follow (for instance, my premise 2+2=5 would allow
me to "prove" that, in some cases, a(b+b)>(ab+ab)). As far as the
ideological situation is concerned, George Orwell's description is
perfect:
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of
heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they
would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right.
For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the
force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the
past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind
itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
blair.h...@gmail.com
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> the speed of light is
> independent of the speed of the source - which is false.
How did you falsify it?
--Blair
Sorcerer
<blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153637113.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| --Blair
Easily.
How did Einstein verify it?
Androcles.
Peter Webb
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:xtGwg.5892$b9....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Michelson Morley Experiment
Sorcerer
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44c3683a$0$25276$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
That verifies the speed of light is source dependent. So does Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Einstein wasn't Michelson or Morley, he was a shithead born 1879,
lived in Switzerland. Michelson and Morley's experiment
was performed in Cleveland, Ohio in 1887, when Einstein was an
8-year-old brat like my grandson.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/flashlets/mmexpt6.htm
How did shithead Einstein verify the speed of light was independent of
the motion of the source?
Answer: He didn't. He sat back in his armchair and said "It is because I say
so,
I'm the great bullshitter Einstein".
Androcles.
Sorcerer
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44c3683a$0$25276$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
|
That verifies the speed of light is source dependent. So does Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Einstein wasn't Michelson or Morley, he was a shithead born 1879,
lived in Switzerland. Michelson and Morley's experiment was performed
in Cleveland, Ohio in 1887, when Einstein was an 8-year-old brat like
my grandson.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/flashlets/mmexpt6.htm
How did shithead Einstein verify the speed of light was independent of
the motion of the source?
Answer: He didn't. He sat back in his armchair and said "It is because I say
it is, I'm the great bullshitter Einstein. Get me away from Hitler, gimme
a nice pad in Princeton and I'll put my feet up for the rest of my life and
I'll fuck all your women." And he did, as far as he was able. I will give
him
this, he may not have known much about physics or mathematics, but did
have big balls.
Androcles.
Peter Webb
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:44c3683a$0$25276$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> |
> | "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
> | news:xtGwg.5892$b9....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | >
> | > <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:1153637113.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> | > |
> | > | Pentcho Valev wrote:
> | > | > the speed of light is
> | > | > independent of the speed of the source - which is false.
> | > |
> | > | How did you falsify it?
> | >
> | > |
> | > | --Blair
> | >
> | >
> | > Easily.
> | > How did Einstein verify it?
> | > Androcles.
> | >
> |
> | Michelson Morley Experiment
>
> That verifies the speed of light is source dependent. So does Sagnac.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
>
> Einstein wasn't Michelson or Morley, he was a shithead born 1879,
> lived in Switzerland. Michelson and Morley's experiment was performed
> in Cleveland, Ohio in 1887, when Einstein was an 8-year-old brat like
> my grandson.
>
>
> http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/flashlets/mmexpt6.htm
>
> How did shithead Einstein verify the speed of light was independent of
> the motion of the source?
He didn't need to. Michelsen and Morley had already proved it when he was 8
years old. The independence of the observer's speed from c was an accepted
part of physics by 1905, having been verified many times in the intervening
18 years.
HTH
Peter Webb
Sorcerer
You are now confusing "observer" with "source". Not very bright, are you?
Observers see red and blue shift, but there is no aether.
How did shithead Einstein verify the speed of light was independent of
the motion of the SOURCE?
Androcles.
|
| HTH
|
| Peter Webb
|
|
Peter Webb
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
He didn't have to. This was proved when he was 8 years old. In the Michelsen
Morley experiment, the motion of the SOURCE was changed as well.
He also knew this because changing the inertial reference frame in Maxwell's
equations didn't follow the Galilean transformation. I expect that you
learned about this when you did your physics degree, as I did.
Sorcerer
Of course it was, so Sagnac improved on MMX and proved the velocity
of light was source dependent. You did not answer my question.
How did shithead Einstein verify the speed of light was independent of
the motion of the SOURCE?
| He also knew this because changing the inertial reference frame in
Maxwell's
| equations didn't follow the Galilean transformation. I expect that you
| learned about this when you did your physics degree, as I did.
Einstein didn't use the word "inertial" anywhere in his paper, in fact
he said
"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for
a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img64.gif
second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go
more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
He also said:
It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable
phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the
magnet,"
NOTE the use of the term "relative motion", which is UNDERSTOOD without
defining it, and further note that Maxwell's equations were KNOWN to be
wrong 100 years ago, Maxwell was an aetherialist.
The relative motion of the light and the observer is c+v, so he writes an
equation
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF
and didn't know what a half is.
I'll repeat my question.
How did SHITHEAD Einstein verify the speed of light was independent of
the motion of the source?
Please try to answer the question.
Androcles.
|
|
|
G. L. Bradford
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153635062.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
It's about time you are put straight about one ultimately important
imperative item. The [intrinsic] velocity of the source is always ZERO and
300,000 kps. It's never more and never less, and never between.
GLB
G. L. Bradford
"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:bNWdnQVFat1weV7Z...@insightbb.com...
For those who will always get nit-picky. The [intrinsic] velocity of the
source is always ZERO and "c". Never more, never less, and never between.
GLB
Jeff…Relf
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
( and therefore independent of the speed of the source )
for the same reason the speed of sound in an atmosphere is constant.
But a vacuum has no wind, only photons can travel that fast,
and nothing ( no information ) can travel faster.
Nothing can travel faster than a photon because
it'd take infinite acceleration ( and thus infinite directed energy )
to accelerate something with a non-zero rest mass.
Further, such energies/accelerations would incinerate it.
True singularities can't exist for a similar reason;
they couldn't possibly have infinite energy at their event horizons.
True vacuums also can't exist for a similar reason;
it'd take infinite directed energy to create a perfect vacuum.
In General_Relativity, the geometry of spacetime ( not just space )
and relativistic mass are determined by density and pressure.
A pseudo-singularity, such as the one at the start of the Big Bang
( before our now-visible universe was Planck density )
or at the center of an _Ideal_ black hole has these features:
* the SI second ( i.e. X oscillations of SI's cesium maser )
takes an eternity ( earth time ), so no time passes.
* the SI meter is infinitely wide ( by earth's standards ),
so no volume exists.
* the SI kilogram is infinitely weak ( by earth's standards ) because
the radiation pressure ( which defines it ) is infinitely dissipated;
so infinite Mass_Energy exists ( an obvious absurdity ).
So _Ideal_ singularities are _Static_ and infinitely dense,
both to us ( viewing from earth ) _And_ at the ideal singularity.
Cosmically, the geometry of spacetime ( 4D ) is ever-flat ( euclidian )
with no center of gravity; but, just as you can define the SI kilogram
using X oscillations of a maser,
( or atom laser, by conversion from its pressure ),
pressure is a 5th _Spatial_ dimension, demarcatable ( by conversions )
in SI meters, SI seconds, pascals, Kelvin, and/or entropy.
The units of entropy are Joules per Kelvin, but only the Kelvin changes;
so the entropy goes up as the temperature of the universe drops.
Think of entropy as a measure of how dissipated ( consumed ) something is.
( The sixth spatial dimension is probably Coulombs )
So... forget the silly sci-fi known as M-theory...
by conversions, there are at least 5 _Spatial_ dimensions...
Zooming out, a photon observed today from the birth of the CMB
underwent X oscillations... which, by conversions
( c * t, Pressure_Cosmos = - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Matter * c^2 ),
represents a length, a duration, and a pressure field ( i.e. a mass ):
Pressure_Time_Space: Five _Spatial_ dimensions.
Zooming in, the SI meter, second and kilogram
can each be defined as oscillation counts.
Sans zooming, my directional ( WiFi ) antenna ( for example )
has an infinite number of orientations at any given X,Y,Z,T;
so, there's no limit to the number of unique films ( i.e. time slices )
that can be recorded at a given X,Y,Z.
Each orientation is a point in a pseudo-random pressure field.
Like a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom ( i.e. causal ),
time is psuedo-directional ( i.e. spatial )
because all randomness is pseudorandom.
Spacetime in our observable universe has always accrued exponentially.
It accrued faster when the universe was denser;
so I suspect dark energy is a property of mass-energy;
i.e. it's just spontaneous dissipation... entropy.
If it weren't so, then tons of dark energy is being spontaneously created
in violation of the first law of thermodynamics... a big no-no in my book.
( I posit that gravity is merely left-overs from the ever-denser past )
Thus black holes might be full of negative/dark energy;
i.e. a time-dilated Supernova/White_Hole.
Phineas T Puddleduck
<Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
> Hi Pentcho_Valev, Pay attention, there's a quiz at the end ( ha ha ).
Shame about the utter load of crap in the rest of it.
--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
T Wake
"Jane.Ralf" <Jane...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_200...@Cotse.NET...
> Hi Pentcho_Valev, Pay attention, there's a quiz at the end ( ha ha ).
> The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
Correct. The rest of your post is nonsense.
<nonsense removal snip>
Just for the fun of it, can you explain the effect on the gravitational
force over five spatial dimensions please?
We can do the same with the strong force or the apparent brightness of
distant large scale structures.
When we have done this, we can look at GR and see where Time becomes a
Spatial (as opposed to the temporal version in every textbook I have ever
read) dimension.
Does this sound good to you Jane?
Golden Boar
Why do you keep changing the headers, you fucked up retard!
Mike
Michelson did measure then speed of light in vaccum accurately just
before his death (the pipes he used are still around) and performed the
MMX before that. Nobody has ever measured the speed of light in such a
way as to be able to universally quantify a proposition in the
following way:
The speed of light in vaccum is constant in all inertial reference
frames.
which is one of the four axioms of SR.
Universally quantified propositions CANNOT be proven. At the same time,
nobody has proved that the OWSL is speed source dependent in some
specific inertial reference frame, just because such frame cannot be
found.
Axioms cannot be proven. The OWSL constancy in all inertial reference
frames is an axiom.
It just provides a building block in a formal theory of physics. That's
it. Nothing else into it, possibly no physical significance either.
Attacking the axiom is a red herring and most has eaten the bate. SR
cannot be falsified because it is an abstarct formal theory with no
connection to reality as it deals with globally inertial reference
frames that are pure mathematical constracts.
It is science not connected with experience. It is pseudoscience. On
the contrary, GR attempts to provide a practical model compaticble with
experience and fails at least in the following areas:
1. Gravitomagnetic effects are billion million times larger in
magnitude than predicted by GR
2. Cosmic ray energy is ordrers of magnitude larger than predicted by
GR
3. Frame dragging and gravity waves cannot be detected.
4. Parity violations have been detected in several experiments.
5. The speed of gravity appears to be many orders of magnitude grater
than c, the prediction of GR
6. Quantum effects such as entaglement indicate possible falsification
7. Very small range gravity force behavior experiments do not conform
to GR predictions
and the list can go on
Mike
Sorcerer
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1153773190.9...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| Peter Webb wrote:
| > "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
| > news:xtGwg.5892$b9....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > >
| > > <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > > news:1153637113.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > > |
| > > | Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > > | > the speed of light is
| > > | > independent of the speed of the source - which is false.
| > > |
| > > | How did you falsify it?
| > >
| > > |
| > > | --Blair
| > >
| > >
| > > Easily.
| > > How did Einstein verify it?
| > > Androcles.
| > >
| >
| > Michelson Morley Experiment
|
| Michelson did measure then speed of light in vaccum accurately just
| before his death (the pipes he used are still around) and performed the
| MMX before that. Nobody has ever measured the speed of light in such a
| way as to be able to universally quantify a proposition in the
| following way:
|
| The speed of light in vaccum is constant in all inertial reference
| frames.
|
| which is one of the four axioms of SR.
You are wrong, Mike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
"2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Most current textbooks mistakenly include a major derived result, that the
speed of light is the same to all inertial observers, as part of the second
postulate. A careful reading of Einstein's 1905 paper on this subject shows
that, in fact, he made no such assumption."
What Einstein DID assume is this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA.
The guy was a fuckwit.
Androcles.
Mike
I think the two statements are equivalent. See this for example:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html
But SR has changed a lot since Dr. Al and it is more of a formal theory
these days.
>
> What Einstein DID assume is this:
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
>
> Light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA.
> The guy was a fuckwit.
I think he was just trying but he was a crank.
Mike
>
> Androcles.
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In a sense, Einstein's theory is Newton's theory where a true premise -
> the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source - has
> been temporarily replaced with its negation - the speed of light is
> independent of the speed of the source - which is false. It is as if I
> had appropriated someone else's mathematical system where my only
> contribution was to replace 2+2=4 with 2+2=5, thereby extracting profit
> from miracles that follow (for instance, my premise 2+2=5 would allow
> me to "prove" that, in some cases, a(b+b)>(ab+ab)). As far as the
> ideological situation is concerned, George Orwell's description is
> perfect:
>
> "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
> you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
> that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
> Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
> external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of
> heresies was common sense.
Neither physics nor science is about common sense. If common sense had
been good enough, there wouldn't have been a need to invent science.
Pentcho Valev
This does not mean any idiocy that contradicts common sense should be
part of science. The idiocy according to which the speed of the photon
is independent of the speed of the light source for instance, plus all
its even more idiotic corollaries.
Pentcho Valev
Sorcerer
Not so, the light postulate is aether dependent, no physical cause is given.
See this for example:
|
| http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html
|
| But SR has changed a lot since Dr. Al and it is more of a formal theory
| these days.
That's because the morons and scam artists have no idea of mathematics
or how the cuckoo transformations were derived. The idiot Einstein did
not know what a half is:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
And his THIRD postulate, that he lyingly calls a "definition", is
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from
A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
| >
| > What Einstein DID assume is this:
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| >
| > Light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA.
| > The guy was a fuckwit.
|
| I think he was just trying but he was a crank.
He was a huckster, a deliberate fraud, a philanderer, a criminal.
He was too smart to not know what he was doing. His disciples
are too dumb to read and understand his paper(s).
http://www.schulphysik.de/physik/perihel/Perihel.htm
(No mention of Jupiter, which would certainly cause Mercury
to advance perihelion).
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
He knew about Sagnac (1913), he deliberately ignored it to advance
his own pet idiocy.
The world would be a better place if he'd been put in Auschwitz
or Belsen by Hitler and simply forgotten.
Androcles.
G. L. Bradford
Which "speed of the light source"? The one tied to the intrinsic of the
Big Bang, Planck, and Speed of Light background Horizon, or the one tied to
an observer?
GLB
Bob Cain
> This does not mean any idiocy that contradicts common sense should be
> part of science. The idiocy according to which the speed of the photon
> is independent of the speed of the light source for instance, plus all
> its even more idiotic corollaries.
What do you make of the following? It is from Ned Wright's page at:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
"When a star explodes as a supernova, we see light coming from
material with a large range of velocities dv, at least 10,000 km/sec.
Because of this range of velocities, the spectral lines of a supernova
are very broad due to the Doppler shift. After traveling a distance D
in time D/c, the arrival time of the light would be spread out by dt =
(dv/c)(D/c)." [if c'=c+v]
"However, this DOES NOT happen. For the Crab supernova, with D/c =
6000 years, dv = 10,000 km/sec would give a range of arrival times of
200 years. But the Crab was only bright for 1 year. For very distant
supernovae with D/c = 5 billion years, modern observations with
spectrographs show that the redshifted and blueshifted light arrives
at the same time: within 10 days. This limit on the spread is 5
billion times smaller than the prediction of the "bullet" model of light."
Thus c'=c+v is falsified by observation. c'=c is verified.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Sorcerer
the
velocity of light from that source relative to the observer c+v.cos(phi)
whenever the light passes through a non-existent medium. Encountering
a medium along the way results in all bets off, the light will be
attenuated.
ALL empirical evidence clearly shows this.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
The Einstein cuckoo transformations were derived like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
Androcles.
surrealis...@hotmail.com
It takes a theory one has made a prior commitment to, to decide what is
and what isn't idiocy, as you call it. It's only by the justification
afforded by such a theory that one can justify any claim to what is
normative.
Bob Cain
> The velocity of the source relative to the observer -- v.cos(phi) -- makes
> the
> velocity of light from that source relative to the observer c+v.cos(phi)
> whenever the light passes through a non-existent medium.
What do you make of the following? It is from Ned Wright's page at:
Helmut Wabnig
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
>..............
>| > The guy was a fuckwit.
>|
>| I think he was just trying but he was a crank.
>
>He was a huckster, a deliberate fraud, a philanderer, a criminal.
>He was too smart to not know what he was doing. His disciples
>are too dumb to read and understand his paper(s).
> http://www.schulphysik.de/physik/perihel/Perihel.htm
>(No mention of Jupiter, which would certainly cause Mercury
>to advance perihelion).
>.............
cit. from above page:
An attempt was made to reconstruct EINSTEIN's ingenious calculation of
the perihelic turn in the last part of his paper. It reveals - perhaps
to the dismay of many - his excellent command of ellipse geometry
conducing him to the right path. Although written in a rather cryptic
style like an 'internal memo' for a limited circle of enlightened
scientists, the publication of the perihelion paper prompted a wealth
of publications and a vivid discussion on the subject.
end cit.
w.
herbzet
Sorcerer wrote:
>
[...]
> The world would be a better place if he'd [Einstein] been put in Auschwitz
> or Belsen by Hitler and simply forgotten.
This is a sub-human sentiment.
> Androcles.
--
hz
'Even the crows on the roofs caw about the nature of conditionals.'
-- Callimachus --
jem
>
> Sorcerer wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>The world would be a better place if he'd [Einstein] been put in Auschwitz
>>or Belsen by Hitler and simply forgotten.
>
>
>
> This is a sub-human sentiment.
and it's the sentiment of a sub-human.
Bob Cain
As I figured, you have nothing to say to this observed rebuttal of one
of your foundational fantasies. Einstein's postulate stands verified
and the legs on which your objections stand have been cut off at the
knees. You can stop posting now.
Bob Cain
Eh, Pancho. No comment on this observed rebuttal of one of your pet
fantasies? Einstein's postulate stands verified and the legs on which
your objections stand have been cut off at the knees. You can stop
posting now.
Stamenin
Peter Webb wrote:
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
> news:xtGwg.5892$b9....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1153637113.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > |
> > | Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > | > independent of the speed of the source - which is false.
from where we see it, results from the Lorents transformation. So if we
like to demonstrate that it, is a mistake we must demonstrate that the
Lorentz transformation is a mistaken relation.
Sorcerer
"Helmut Wabnig" <...._.--_.-_-..._-._.._--.@.-_---_-._*_.-_-> wrote in
message news:6f4ec2hnmshaqll5p...@4ax.com...
The "attempt" omits Jupiter, to the dismay of me.
Some people cannot see the forest for the only two trees.
What does the vivid discussion have to do with anything?
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
>
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
> news:xtGwg.5892$b9....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153637113.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> |
>> | Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> | > the speed of light is
>> | > independent of the speed of the source - which is false.
>> |
>> | How did you falsify it?
>>
>>
>> | --Blair
>>
>>
>> Easily.
>> How did Einstein verify it?
>> Androcles.
>>
>>
> Michelson Morley Experiment
Insufficient! All that showed is evidence for lightspeed
source-invariance (although I'd have to calculate the frequency variance
in a Newtonian frame, based on temperature and V_rms). Other experiments,
such as Sagnac, are also needed to show evidence for lightspeed
motion-invariance (Sagnac would not show anything in a Newtonian universe).
Miller's results are also somewhat interesting, though he stands alone in
the notion that we are moving generally towards the South Celestial Pole,
absolutely speaking. [*]
And even then, there are a fair number of issues regarding acceptance by
the non-scientific community of these results.
I also note that Einstein had no participation in the original MMX. All
he postulated, along with Poincaire and Lorentz, if memory serves, was a
possible explanation, which was roundly criticized by the scientific
community at first.
(It still is criticized by many in the non-scientific community, as well,
but General Relativity has been the working hypothesis for a century now.
This is either the result of a gigantic, fraudulent campaign by those who
would not want the truth to be known, or, more likely, simply the way of
things in the Universe, given what we know at the moment -- a knowledge
from a lot of experiments and observations, both local and astronomical.)
[*] we are moving relative to the other galaxies, since we are orbiting
the Milky Way's center of mass, of which a goodly chunk thereof is
a massive black hole.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
An alternative hypothesis is that c' = c+v*exp(-kp), where p is the
distance from the light source, and k is a positive constant. This was
advanced by Henri Wilson, although not in this exact form. Why light
would lose (or gain!) momentum in space has never been clear to me.
However, this does make for a rather pretty mathematical problem.
Since c' = dp/dt, one gets
dp/dt = c+v*exp(-kp)
and separating,
dp/(c+v*exp(-kp)) = dt
If one sets u = c+v*exp(-kp), then du/dp = -kv*exp(-kp) = -k(u-c),
or dp = -du/(k(u-c)), and then
du/(ku(u-c)) = (-1/(ck)) (du/(u-c) - du/u) = dt
or (-1/(ck)) log( (u-c)/u) = t + K for some integration constant K.
Therefore,
t + K = -(1/(ck))*(log(v*exp(-kp) / (c+v*exp(-kp)))
= -(1/(ck))*(log(v) + kp + log(c+v*exp(-kp)))
At p = 0, we arbitrarily assume t = 0; therefore
K = (1/(ck))*(log(c+v) - log(v))
or, in its more or less final form,
t = p/c - (1/(ck))*(log( (c+v)/(c+v*exp(-kp)) ) )
If v = 0, this reduces to
t = p/c
as it should.
For very large p, the term exp(-kp) more or less vanishes (since we're
assuming k positive), leaving us with
t =~ p/c - (1/(ck))*(log( (c+v)/c ) )
and, as a first approximation,
delta(t) =~ (1/(ck))*(log( (c+v)/(c-v) ) )
=~ (2/(ck))*(log( (c+v)/c ) )
since we need to account for both leading and trailing wavefronts.
If one assumes SN1987A had v = 3.3*10^-2 c, and delta(t) of 1/3 of a year,
then
1/3 =~ (2/k)*log(1+3.3*10^-2)
=~ 2/k*(3.3*10^-2)
k =~ 3*2/(3.3*10^-2) = 181.82
or, put another way, at least 63% of the velocity delta would be lost
within about 350 AU of the source.
No doubt further study of supernovae can refine these calculations,
especially since the onset of a supernova is within the space of a few
hours, implying a much higher k.
(Personally, I think Henri's theory is full of something best left
unmentioned, but with any luck the math above should hold up.)
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.30....@earthlink.net...
| On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:14:47 +1000, Peter Webb wrote:
|
| >
| > "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
| > news:xtGwg.5892$b9....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >>
| >> <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >> news:1153637113.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| >> |
| >> | Pentcho Valev wrote:
| >> | > the speed of light is
| >> | > independent of the speed of the source - which is false.
| >> |
| >> | How did you falsify it?
| >>
| >>
| >> | --Blair
| >>
| >>
| >> Easily.
| >> How did Einstein verify it?
| >> Androcles.
| >>
| >>
| > Michelson Morley Experiment
|
| Insufficient! All that showed is evidence for lightspeed
| source-invariance (although I'd have to calculate the frequency variance
| in a Newtonian frame, based on temperature and V_rms). Other experiments,
| such as Sagnac, are also needed to show evidence for lightspeed
| motion-invariance (Sagnac would not show anything in a Newtonian
universe).
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Please try to stop babbling.
[rest snipped]
Androcles
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.30....@earthlink.net...
Wilson's hypothesis ignores doppler, which Wilson does not model.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/unification.JPG
The idiot left out angle of inclination in his wrongram.
Cain is just simply wrong and babbling about things he doesn't understand.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LightCurveVariations.htm
[rest snipped]
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
OK, and the ratio of time of blue to red ray, expressed as a function of
radius (or, if you prefer, center-to-vertex) and angular velocity is ... ?
zzbu...@netscape.net
Sorcerer wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:44c3683a$0$25276$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> |
> | "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
> | news:xtGwg.5892$b9....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | >
> | > <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:1153637113.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> | > |
> | > | Pentcho Valev wrote:
> | > | > the speed of light is
> | > | > independent of the speed of the source - which is false.
> | > |
> | > | How did you falsify it?
> | >
> | > |
> | > | --Blair
> | >
> | >
> | > Easily.
> | > How did Einstein verify it?
> | > Androcles.
> | >
> |
> | Michelson Morley Experiment
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
>
> Einstein wasn't Michelson or Morley, he was a shithead born 1879,
> lived in Switzerland. Michelson and Morley's experiment
> was performed in Cleveland, Ohio in 1887, when Einstein was an
> 8-year-old brat like my grandson.
> http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/flashlets/mmexpt6.htm
>
> How did shithead Einstein verify the speed of light was independent of
> the motion of the source?
It's actually quite.
One can easily derive the 1+1=2 equation that
Cleveland, Ohio has precisely nothing to do with
math, physics, or engineering.
And the rest is quite simple, since as he
explained to the idiot synocapted quantum atomic "physicistst"
idiots at the time, 1905.
The theory is drived from *Euclid's* equations of motion,
not Newton's idiot First Law of Economics.
> Answer: He didn't. He sat back in his armchair and said "It is because I say
> so,
> I'm the great bullshitter Einstein".
> Androcles.
Sorcerer
You are the one that likes to play with numbers, I deal in concepts.
Use what your tin god said:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif:
and of course use the same equation but with c+v in the denominator.
That shouldn't be too difficult for a man of your enormous intellect (and
sarcasm).
Einstein was particularly careful never to write c+v unless he was forced
to, and then he buried it as deeply as he could in an equation:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF
Since he didn't know what a half was, I've shown it to you by the "flash
method"
Sagnac is Einstein's thought(less) experiment wrapped around a
donut, it is the equivalent of MMX showing there is no aether, it shows
there is no time dilation and it proves the principle of relativity, which
the idiot thought was only an approximation to the first order for small
quantities. Don't stand and watch Sagnac in operation, your watch will
slow down. It is as if you ran around the outside. Not too many people
seem to understand "relative motion". The station comes to the train,
the fields pass beneath the airplane. We can see they do.
My desk moves at 18.5 km/s around the sun, so do I, relative velocity
is zero. The PoR IS u+v.
In this demonstration, the bottle moves from left hand to right and back
again.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/RotateMickeyLarge.gif
The bottle ***MOVES*** in Mickey's FoR.
This IS Sagnac, with the ball playing the part of the photon:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Light curves, without a force. Newton's first law is valid as long as
we don't frame hop.
The "stationary" frame is the frame in which c is observed, the "moving"
frame
is the one in which c+v is observed. c is observed if you sit inside the
turntable
and turn with it: It's possible, too.
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/graphics/zerodorblock1.jpg
Relative motion is not limited to straight line motion, Copernicus made
good use of it. The sun really does move across the sky, we can see it
does,
every single day.
"(Sagnac would not show anything in a Newtonian universe)"--- GARBAGE,
written by an idiot. You owe houghton an apology for your lunacy, although
I doubt he'll come back.
Androcles
Sorcerer
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1154293097.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
(1)
| One can easily derive the 1+1=2 equation that
| Cleveland, Ohio has precisely nothing to do with
| math, physics, or engineering.
(2)
| And the rest is quite simple, since as he
| explained to the idiot synocapted
(3)
quantum atomic "physicistst"
(4)
| idiots at the time, 1905.
| The theory is drived
(5)
from *Euclid's* equations of motion,
| not Newton's idiot First Law of Economics.
Was that one blunder per crack pipe, or one per shot of vodka?
*plonk*
Androcles.
zzbu...@netscape.net
It should read:
"Half-pint, moron\ mathema-newton-wanabee,
String: Cantorian sub-morons"
> (4)
>
> | idiots at the time, 1905.
> | The theory is drived
> (5)
>
> from *Euclid's* equations of motion,
> | not Newton's idiot First Law of Economics.
Newton's idiot first law of economics,
flollows immediately from Einstein's
moron second law of Newton Dynamics.
>
> Was that one blunder per crack pipe, or one per shot of vodka?
> *plonk*
It's one per Clinton Wal-Mart blowjob
for the moron quantum canadians.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Peter Webb wrote:
> "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
> >
> > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:44c3683a$0$25276$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > |
> > | "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
> > | news:xtGwg.5892$b9....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > | >
> > | > <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > | > news:1153637113.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > | > |
> > | > | Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > | > | > the speed of light is
> > | > | > independent of the speed of the source - which is false.
> > | > |
> > | > | How did you falsify it?
> > | >
> > | > |
> > | > | --Blair
> > | >
> > | >
> > | > Easily.
> > | > How did Einstein verify it?
> > | > Androcles.
> > | >
> > |
> > | Michelson Morley Experiment
> >
> > That verifies the speed of light is source dependent. So does Sagnac.
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
> >
> > Einstein wasn't Michelson or Morley, he was a shithead born 1879,
> > lived in Switzerland. Michelson and Morley's experiment was performed
> > in Cleveland, Ohio in 1887, when Einstein was an 8-year-old brat like
> > my grandson.
> >
> >
> > http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/flashlets/mmexpt6.htm
> >
> > How did shithead Einstein verify the speed of light was independent of
> > the motion of the source?
>
> years old. The independence of the observer's speed from c was an accepted
> part of physics by 1905, having been verified many times in the intervening
> 18 years.
M&M didn't prove anything.
Which is why Einstein
invented to proof to the retard 1905 dense-packed
retarded Quantum alpha tards that neither M&M
nor double slits proved ANYTHING,
Except to the Astrologer dweebles in Hawaii,
and the retarded math-e-mo browinian motion dweebles
in the Princeton economics department.
>
> HTH
>
> Peter Webb
zzbu...@netscape.net
Marcus Denning wrote:
> "zzbu...@netscape.net" <zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > >
> > > > How did shithead Einstein verify the speed of light was independent
> > > > of the motion of the source?
> > >
> > > He didn't need to. Michelsen and Morley had already proved it when he
> > > was 8 years old. The independence of the observer's speed from c was an
> > > accepted part of physics by 1905, having been verified many times in
> > > the intervening 18 years.
> >
> > M&M didn't prove anything.
> > Which is why Einstein
> > invented to proof to the retard 1905 dense-packed
> > retarded Quantum alpha tards that neither M&M
> > nor double slits proved ANYTHING,
> > Except to the Astrologer dweebles in Hawaii,
> > and the retarded math-e-mo browinian motion dweebles
> > in the Princeton economics department.
>
> and the M&M experiment. Only on usenet can the research and experimentation
> of decades be shown completely false by non-scientists - and without math
> or anything!
You should thank Einstein, since he saved moron
physics from it's irightful eternal demise with refiigerators.
The poiint he was trying to get across to the quantum wankians
is that the Gedankers don't work in FIELD THEORY, MORONS.
>
> Your slave,
>
> Marcus
dda1
zzbu...@netscape.net wrote:
> M&M didn't prove anything.
> Which is why Einstein
> invented to proof to the retard 1905 dense-packed
> retarded Quantum alpha tards that neither M&M
> nor double slits proved ANYTHING,
> Except to the Astrologer dweebles in Hawaii,
> and the retarded math-e-mo browinian motion dweebles
> in the Princeton economics department.
>
Profound CRETINISM. Way to go, shithead!
zzbu...@netscape.net
Van Neuman would have loved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since the only thing he tought was more moronic
than QM and Princeton economists,
was moron Russian Nobel Prize Economists!!!!
zzbu...@netscape.net
Mike wrote:
> Peter Webb wrote:
> > "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
> > >
> > > <blair.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1153637113.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > |
> > > | Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > | > the speed of light is
> > > | > independent of the speed of the source - which is false.
> > > |
> > > | How did you falsify it?
> > >
> > > |
> > > | --Blair
> > >
> > >
> > > Easily.
> > > How did Einstein verify it?
> > > Androcles.
> > >
> >
> > Michelson Morley Experiment
>
> before his death (the pipes he used are still around) and performed the
> MMX before that. Nobody has ever measured the speed of light in such a
> way as to be able to universally quantify a proposition in the
> following way:
>
> The speed of light in vaccum is constant in all inertial reference
> frames.
>
> which is one of the four axioms of SR.
>
> Universally quantified propositions CANNOT be proven. At the same time,
> nobody has proved that the OWSL is speed source dependent in some
> specific inertial reference frame, just because such frame cannot be
> found.
>
> Axioms cannot be proven. The OWSL constancy in all inertial reference
> frames is an axiom.
>
> It just provides a building block in a formal theory of physics. That's
> it. Nothing else into it, possibly no physical significance either.
>
> Attacking the axiom is a red herring and most has eaten the bate. SR
> cannot be falsified because it is an abstarct formal theory with no
> connection to reality as it deals with globally inertial reference
> frames that are pure mathematical constracts.
>
> It is science not connected with experience. It is pseudoscience. On
> the contrary, GR attempts to provide a practical model compaticble with
> experience and fails at least in the following areas:
>
> 1. Gravitomagnetic effects are billion million times larger in
> magnitude than predicted by GR
> 2. Cosmic ray energy is ordrers of magnitude larger than predicted by
> GR
> 3. Frame dragging and gravity waves cannot be detected.
Gravity waves don't have to be detected.
Since the whole point of the SR equilavence princple
and the M&M experiment, which is the non-existent of Maxwell
Aether,
is that gravity fields cannot be detected either.
> 4. Parity violations have been detected in several experiments.
> 5. The speed of gravity appears to be many orders of magnitude grater
> than c, the prediction of GR
GR only predicted the speed of light, in the idiot minds
of the QM uncertainity idiots.
Since SR simply defined it be a value, in an interial frame of
reference.
And then the QM idiots for some reason delcared that
interial frames don't exist, because of randomness,
Which is like saying five doen't exist, because
electrons are RANDOM.
> 6. Quantum effects such as entaglement indicate possible falsification
> 7. Very small range gravity force behavior experiments do not conform
> to GR predictions
Which is why Einstein did the twin paradox, '
to prove to the Bohr cranks that
small range gravity is not GRAVITY, it's
a PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT , not a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>
> and the list can go on
>
> Mike
dda1
Mike wrote:
>
> It is science not connected with experience. It is pseudoscience. On
> the contrary, GR attempts to provide a practical model compaticble with
> experience and fails at least in the following areas:
>
> 1. Gravitomagnetic effects are billion million times larger in
> magnitude than predicted by GR
> 2. Cosmic ray energy is ordrers of magnitude larger than predicted by
> GR
> 3. Frame dragging and gravity waves cannot be detected.
> 4. Parity violations have been detected in several experiments.
> 5. The speed of gravity appears to be many orders of magnitude grater
> than c, the prediction of GR
> 6. Quantum effects such as entaglement indicate possible falsification
> 7. Very small range gravity force behavior experiments do not conform
> to GR predictions
>
> and the list can go on
>
> Mike
Another CRETIN!