Re: Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
koobee...@gmail.com
> Hans C. Ohanian is a well-qualified physicist (PhD with John Wheeler),
> author of numerous papers & several texts on physics (EM, SR, GR, etc)
> and a life-long student of Einstein, who has decided that he is now
> old enough to 'dish the dirt' on the 20th century's "greatest hero".
Does this suggest that Dr. Ohanian has no gut to publish that while
Wheeler was still alive?
> Some in this NG may know of Einstein's serious flaws in his personal
> life but few will have realized that throughout his professional life
> he made numerous errors & mistakes in his physics. Ohanian describes
> (without the use of any math) some of the more egregious mistakes made
> in his key papers (4 of the famous 5 in 1905), with a total of over 40
> mistakes in his almost 180 publications. A few students of the
> history of physics may know that Einstein's 1905 derivation of the
> mass-energy relationship contained a serious, invalidating error or
> that Einstein failed on six other occasions (up to 1935) to prove
> "his" formula. Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the
> erroneous Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT.
Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. He was nobody.
There is no need to be jealous of a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
The question is why Einstein Dingleberries continue to worship
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar?
> The critics of Einstein in this NG will find plenty of ammunition
> here, while those physics undergrads who were simply taught that
> Einstein laid the firm foundations for 20th century physics will be
> given pause for thought.
Since Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, it is not worth
to compile such a list. However, when confronted, it certainly would
be a fine subject of discussion in these newsgroups. <shrug>
> The early chapters on Galileo's and Newton's contributions to the
> concept of relativity also reveal that these 'giants of science' were
> not adverse to fudging their own results to propagate their own
> glory. You would not want to be on the Enemy's List of either of
> these founders. This is also an amusing review for those
> professionals who thought that politics only came with the creation of
> modern university departments.
So, Einstein Dingleberries have created the religion of SR and GR with
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar being their
messiah. It is absolutely laughable. <shrug>
Igor
What's laughable is your pathetic inability to transform domains.
Have you figured them out yet?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe he misrepresented Gamma.
hanson
>
Einstein Dingleberry "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> enters & wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:44 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 1, 3:26 pm, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Hans C. Ohanian is a well-qualified physicist (PhD with John Wheeler),
> > author of numerous papers & several texts on physics (EM, SR, GR, etc)
> > and a life-long student of Einstein, who has decided that he is now
> > old enough to 'dish the dirt' on the 20th century's "greatest hero".
>
> Does this suggest that Dr. Ohanian has no gut to publish that while
> Wheeler was still alive?
>
> > Some in this NG may know of Einstein's serious flaws in his personal
> > life but few will have realized that throughout his professional life
> > he made numerous errors & mistakes in his physics. Ohanian describes
> > (without the use of any math) some of the more egregious mistakes made
> > in his key papers (4 of the famous 5 in 1905), with a total of over 40
> > mistakes in his almost 180 publications. A few students of the
> > history of physics may know that Einstein's 1905 derivation of the
> > mass-energy relationship contained a serious, invalidating error or
> > that Einstein failed on six other occasions (up to 1935) to prove
> > "his" formula. Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the
> > erroneous Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT.
>
"Einstein never challenged the MMX"?... Actually, Albert challenged
his own con and scam as early as 1907. See here for a few such
occasions, explained by Einstein himself: http://tinyurl.com/aq5yrd
I am glad that establishment people finally begin to rid themselves
of the Zionist burden under which they suffered for over a century.
>
koobee.wublee wrote:
> Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. He was nobody.
> There is no need to be jealous of a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
> The question is why Einstein Dingleberries continue to worship
> Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar?
>
Maxwell wrote:
> > The critics of Einstein in this NG will find plenty of ammunition
> > here, while those physics undergrads who were simply taught that
> > Einstein laid the firm foundations for 20th century physics will be
> > given pause for thought.
>
koobee.wublee wrote:
> Since Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, it is not worth
> to compile such a list. However, when confronted, it certainly would
> be a fine subject of discussion in these newsgroups. <shrug>
>
Maxwell wrote:
> > The early chapters on Galileo's and Newton's contributions to the
> > concept of relativity also reveal that these 'giants of science' were
> > not adverse to fudging their own results to propagate their own
> > glory. You would not want to be on the Enemy's List of either of
> > these founders. This is also an amusing review for those
> > professionals who thought that politics only came with the creation of
> > modern university departments.
>
koobee.wublee wrote:
So, Einstein Dingleberries have created the religion of SR and
GR with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar being their
messiah. It is absolutely laughable. <shrug>
>
Dingleberry "Igor" hoovler wrote:
What's laughable is your pathetic inability to transform domains.
Have you figured them out yet?
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... Igor, listen:
KW does think for himself... You don't. You only do believe.
What is in it for you, Igor, that you do defend your messiah
so readily?.. It is that clear you have made it into the "transform
domains" whereat you are dangling from Albert's sphincter, as
an Einstein Dingleberry, loudly worshipping there in the breeze
of his messianic farts...hahaha... You are a good follower, Igor
.Thanks for the laughs.. AHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Hans C. Ohanian is a well-qualified physicist (PhD with John Wheeler),
> author of numerous papers & several texts on physics (EM, SR, GR, etc)
> and a life-long student of Einstein, who has decided that he is now
> old enough to 'dish the dirt' on the 20th century's "greatest hero".
>
> life but few will have realized that throughout his professional life
> he made numerous errors & mistakes in his physics. Ohanian describes
> (without the use of any math) some of the more egregious mistakes made
> in his key papers (4 of the famous 5 in 1905), with a total of over 40
> mistakes in his almost 180 publications. A few students of the
> history of physics may know that Einstein's 1905 derivation of the
> mass-energy relationship contained a serious, invalidating error or
> that Einstein failed on six other occasions (up to 1935) to prove
> "his" formula. Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the
> erroneous Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT.
>
> here, while those physics undergrads who were simply taught that
> Einstein laid the firm foundations for 20th century physics will be
> given pause for thought.
>
> concept of relativity also reveal that these 'giants of science' were
> not adverse to fudging their own results to propagate their own
> glory. You would not want to be on the Enemy's List of either of
> these founders. This is also an amusing review for those
> professionals who thought that politics only came with the creation of
> modern university departments.
>
> it can be found at:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings-Genius/dp/0393062937/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238624467&sr=1-1
This statement (of yours?) deserves special attention:
"Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the erroneous
Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT."
He did in fact, in 1909 and then again in 1954:
http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
koobee...@gmail.com
> "Einstein never challenged the MMX"?
What do you expect from a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar such as
Einstein anyway?
> ... Actually, Albert challenged
> his own con and scam as early as 1907. See here for a few such
> occasions, explained by Einstein himself: http://tinyurl.com/aq5yrd
Since Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, whatever he
said cannot be taken seriously. <shrug>
> I am glad that establishment people finally begin to rid themselves
> of the Zionist burden under which they suffered for over a century.
Hmmm... I don’t think so. The Einstein Dingleberries are still very
entertaining themselves in sticking their heads in the sphincter of
Einstein. <shrug>
> koobee.wublee wrote:
> > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. He was nobody.
> > There is no need to be jealous of a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
> > The question is why Einstein Dingleberries continue to worship
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar?
>
> > Since Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar, it is not worth
> > to compile such a list. However, when confronted, it certainly would
> > be a fine subject of discussion in these newsgroups. <shrug>
>
> > So, Einstein Dingleberries have created the religion of SR and
> > GR with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar being their
> > messiah. It is absolutely laughable. <shrug>
>
> Dingleberry "Igor" hoovler wrote:
>
> > What's laughable is your pathetic inability to transform domains.
> > Have you figured them out yet?
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... ahahahaha... Igor, listen:
> KW does think for himself... You don't. You only do believe.
> What is in it for you, Igor, that you do defend your messiah
> so readily?
You also cannot take an Einstein Dingleberry’s words seriously. After
all, these dingleberries do worship a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. <shrug>
> .. It is that clear you have made it into the "transform
> domains" whereat you are dangling from Albert's sphincter, as
> an Einstein Dingleberry, loudly worshipping there in the breeze
> of his messianic farts...hahaha... You are a good follower, Igor
The so-called transform domain brought up by Einstein Dingleberry Igor
is the stupidity of allowing a special choice of coordinate system to
affect the invariant geometry. The Einstein Dingleberries have failed
to understand the following principle:
Invariant Geometry = The metric * The choice of coordinate system
Without a coordinate system, it is impossible to describe the
geometry. The metric alone is not enough to describe the invariant
geometry, and the coordinate system alone is not enough to describe
the invariant geometry as well. You need to specify both at the same
time to do so. This simple mathematical concept rooted in basic
geometry should have been addressed in elementary schools, and yet the
Einstein Dingleberries have failed miserably to understand that. We
are talking about from the pHd down. <shrug>
> .Thanks for the laughs.. AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Ahahaha... The only word to describe the Einstein Dingleberries is ?
d??ts. (You fill in the ?) Ahahaha...
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Apr 2, 1:26 am, maxwell in sci.physics.relativity:
> > Hans C. Ohanian is a well-qualified physicist (PhD with John Wheeler),
> > author of numerous papers & several texts on physics (EM, SR, GR, etc)
> > and a life-long student of Einstein, who has decided that he is now
> > old enough to 'dish the dirt' on the 20th century's "greatest hero".
>
> [...]
> This statement (of yours?) deserves special attention:
>
> "Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the erroneous
> Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT."
Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. His opinion lies in
where the current wind blows that is a trait typical of a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> He did in fact, in 1909 and then again in 1954:
Yes, wishy washy type. <shrug>
> Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
> light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
> Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
> this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
> theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
> considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
> purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
> that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
> light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
> light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
> as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
> Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
> our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
> state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
> like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
> of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
> the emitting to the absorbing object."
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar showed very clearly
why he was indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Mr. Stachel’s job depends on the worship of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. Under this economical condition, I am not
surprised that he would continue to spread the lies about Einstein.
<shrug>
> Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
Who really gives a fvck about what Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar thinks?
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
Mr. Stachel is very out of touch with reality. The side effects of
worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar really
are taking a toll on Mr. Stachel. <shrug>
Androcles
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8a39195-f1e1-4148...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 1, 11:26 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Apr 2, 1:26 am, maxwell in sci.physics.relativity:
> > Hans C. Ohanian is a well-qualified physicist (PhD with John Wheeler),
> > author of numerous papers & several texts on physics (EM, SR, GR, etc)
> > and a life-long student of Einstein, who has decided that he is now
> > old enough to 'dish the dirt' on the 20th century's "greatest hero".
>
> [...]
> This statement (of yours?) deserves special attention:
>
> "Throughout his life, Einstein never challenged the erroneous
> Maxwellian EM theory that was the basis for all of SRT."
Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. His opinion lies in
where the current wind blows that is a trait typical of a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
You wouldn't make a good propagandist with that repetition.
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:43:14 +0200, harry wrote:
> > As long as it has scientific merit instead of just putting dirt on the
> > street (or a mix, which requires intelligent reading)...
>
> I had actually heard that this was in the works quite some time back.
> Based on what I heard, it's not an attempt at tearing Einstein down;
It should be. <shrug>
> [...] Stumbling over
> errors in his derivations is not unheard of;
No one dares to face the fact that his messiah was merely a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> I've done it, and no
> doubt lots of others before me have stumbled over exactly the same
> errors.
You must be either lying or inept in mathematics. In his 1905 paper
on electrodynamics of a moving charge, Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar attempted to derive the equation (E = m c^2)
or more specifically (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)) through a
series of catastrophic and amateurish errors. From these fundamental
errors, there is no fvcking way that the famous equation can be
derived. This shows that Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
lair was indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. How can you
conclude otherwise? <shrug>
> [Whining crap snipped]
I have had enough of your worship of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
doug
koobee...@gmail.com wrote:
Well go back to your tantrums and pouting while you revel in
your jealousy of Einstein. The world does not care.
Mitchell Jones
<64dae92c-5489-4184...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
***{For those who wonder how discrete particles can, in their conjoint
behavior, manifest as waves, here is an unusual example:
"As barchan dunes migrate, smaller dunes outpace larger dunes, bumping
into the rear of the larger dune and eventually appear to punch through
the large dune to appear on the other side. The process seems to be
similar to waves of light, sound or water that pass directly through
each other; the detailed mechanism is, however, very different, being
nonlinear. These are known as solitons."
"The dunes emulate soliton behavior but unlike solitons, the sand
particles do not pass through each other. When the smaller dune
rear-ends the larger dune, the winds begin to deposit sand on the rear
dune while blowing sand off the front dune without replenishing it.
Eventually, the rear dune has assumed dimensions similar to the former
front dune which has now become a smaller, faster moving dune that pulls
away with the wind. (Schwämmle & Herrmann, 2003)" [Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan.]
--Mitchell Jones}***
> The
> purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
> that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
> light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
> light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
> as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
> Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
> our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
> state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
> like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
> of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
> the emitting to the absorbing object."
***{The only way to make sense out of Einstein is to separate his math
from his attempts to explain, in terms of natural language, why the math
is true--and, like it or not, his math is mostly true. (By "true" in
this case, I mean that when it is used in calculations within its
domain--i.e., between experimentally measured data points--it gives good
results.)
His attempts to explain his math in natural language, however, are
childlike to the point of, in many cases, being utterly nonsensical.
Some of his passages, with justification, have even been described as
"gibberish." Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking that the math
must be wrong simply because the natural language interpretations are
absurd.
In the above connection it is worthwhile to remember that Newton
couldn't explain his math either. Unlike Einstein, he simply did not try
to explain it. Instead, he took pot shots at others, when they tried to
do so. When others tried to explain gravity as "action at a distance,"
for example, he replied as follows:
"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, is to me so great an absurdity
that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent
faculty for thinking, can ever fall into it."
Einstein, by way of contrast, tried to explain his math in terms of
natural language, with the result that, for a hundred years, others have
had the privilege of taking pot shots at him.
The moral of the story is simple: if you come up with an equation that
matches up well with a set of experimentally measured data points, and
gives accurate predictions in the unmeasured regions of that domain, do
not make the mistake of trying to explain your equation, unless you
actually have an explanation that is rationally comprehensible. If you
do not have a defensible explanation, simply admit it, and move on.
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Thus while he had no specific theory about the mechanism underlying
> gravitation, he rejected out of hand any theory that involved *space*
> ("vacuum") as the agent, and would have regarded Einstein's "curved space"
> idea as utter nonsense.
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317
> &Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
S T R I C H
merely another one of those pro-Einstein spins. These have the same
common attributes:
1) Use a seemingly anti-Einstein title. This serves two purposes: the
first and obvious one is that it attracts publicity; the second and
less obvious one is that it implies that the publication is a
comprehensive discussion of Einstein's fallacy. This brings us to the
secnd attribute.
2) The publication purports to be an 'official' or 'orthodox' or
'establishment' discussion of the mertis and demerits of Einstein.
3) After such discussion, the pre-formed conclusion is derived that
Einstein was correct anyway, or at least, correct in large part. Thus
the anti-Einstein title morphs into a pro-Einstein conclusion.
4) In the eyes of the layman, the 'Einstein is wrong' rumors they are
hearing more of about are therefore proved wrong.
Of course, this is all irrelevant, because Einstein's biggest idea,
relativity, is his biggest error. And thus far, the establishment has
yet to come to grips with this reality. Thus Koobee has been right.
Einstein copied most of his ideas from the great minds of the times
(the plagiarist), and like most cheaters, he did not use his head (the
nitwit) when copying. Thus he got his theory all wrong. And when he
was questioned about the faults of the theory, he made stuff up to
resolve them (the liar), such as his wrong solution of the twin
paradox. He even made up equations he could not solve. Everybody
knows how Schwarzchild solved the simplest case for him.
Androcles
"Mitchell Jones" <mjo...@21cenlogic.com> wrote in message
news:mjones-A719C7....@news.thundernews.com...
> His attempts to explain his math in natural language, however, are
> childlike to the point of, in many cases, being utterly nonsensical.
> Some of his passages, with justification, have even been described as
> "gibberish." Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking that the math
> must be wrong simply because the natural language interpretations are
> absurd.
Ok. c' = c+v.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
Any questions?
koobee...@gmail.com
Thank you, Mr. Strich.
Yes, the field equations at a first glance appear to be so complicated
to solve. It was Schwarzschild who realized that by choosing a
coordinate system to result in the metric with a determinant of -1
would lead to simpler set of field equations. So, starting with the
commonly spherical polar coordinate system, (r, longitude, latitude),
the new coordinate becomes (u, v, w) say. Since the geometry is
always invariant, Schwarzschild’s justification is still very valid.
The metric using the two different coordinate systems must be
different to describe the same geometry. Then, the following solution
just naturally reveals itself.
ds^2 = c^2 N (1 – K / u) dt^2 – du^2 / (1 – K / u) – u^2 dP^2
Where
** N, K = integration constants
** dP^2 = cos^2(w) dv^2 + dw^2
By far this is not the only solution that is static, spherically
symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Schwarzschild merely saw this one
--- probably under the artillery fire by the imperial Russian army in
the eastern front.
Since the field equations are described in the common spherically
symmetric polar coordinate system (r, longitude, latitude), (u, v, w)
must be translated back to make any sense. In doing so, the equation
above described in (u, v, w) is the same equation as the one below
described in (r, longitude, latitude).
ds^2 = c^2 N (1 – K / u) dt^2 – r^4 dr^2 / u^4 (1 – K / u) – u^2 dO^2
Where
** u = (r^3 + K^3)^1/3
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
A year or two later, Hilbert finally realized that the following is
also a solution.
ds^2 = c^2 N (1 – K / r) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – K / r) – r^2 dO^2
And the following
ds^2 = c^2 N dt^2 / (1 + K / r) – (1 + K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2 dO^2
Disappointed with the set of field equations able to yield an infinite
number of solutions that are all static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat, Hilbert just walked away from the whole thing.
That allowed Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar who
knew nothing better to claim full credit for the field equations.
To continue the lie of GR, the Einstein Dingleberries somehow are able
to hypnotize themselves into believing all these equations are all the
same. This nonsense would not be made by students from elementary
school first time learning the logics of mathematics.
koobee...@gmail.com
> ***{For those who wonder how discrete particles can, in their conjoint
> behavior, manifest as waves, here is an unusual example:
>
> "As barchan dunes migrate, smaller dunes outpace larger dunes, bumping
> into the rear of the larger dune and eventually appear to punch through
> the large dune to appear on the other side. The process seems to be
> similar to waves of light, sound or water that pass directly through
> each other; the detailed mechanism is, however, very different, being
> nonlinear. These are known as solitons."
>
> "The dunes emulate soliton behavior but unlike solitons, the sand
> particles do not pass through each other. When the smaller dune
> rear-ends the larger dune, the winds begin to deposit sand on the rear
> dune while blowing sand off the front dune without replenishing it.
> Eventually, the rear dune has assumed dimensions similar to the former
> front dune which has now become a smaller, faster moving dune that pulls
> away with the wind. (Schwämmle & Herrmann, 2003)" [Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan.]
Hmmm... The wind must be pushing the sands. Photons are not pushed
by anything. How can particles not being pushed behave like waves?
> ***{The only way to make sense out of Einstein is to separate his math
> from his attempts to explain, in terms of natural language, why the math
> is true--and, like it or not, his math is mostly true. (By "true" in
> this case, I mean that when it is used in calculations within its
> domain--i.e., between experimentally measured data points--it gives good
> results.)
Nonsense. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar never
came up with any mathematics this is original. <shrug>
> His attempts to explain his math in natural language, however, are
> childlike to the point of, in many cases, being utterly nonsensical.
That is because Einstein was a nitwit. <shrug>
> Some of his passages, with justification, have even been described as
> "gibberish." Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking that the math
> must be wrong simply because the natural language interpretations are
> absurd.
That is because Einstein Dingleberries do not understand the
mathematics that is credited to Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar. <shrug>
> In the above connection it is worthwhile to remember that Newton
> couldn't explain his math either.
This statement is utterly absurd.
> Unlike Einstein, he simply did not try
> to explain it.
You can never explain math but only interpret. <shrug>
> Instead, he took pot shots at others, when they tried to
> do so. When others tried to explain gravity as "action at a distance,"
> for example, he replied as follows:
>
> "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
> without the mediation of anything else, is to me so great an absurdity
> that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent
> faculty for thinking, can ever fall into it."
There remains no satisfactory resolution to why electrodynamics also
exhibits action-at-a-distance phenomenon. <shrug>
> Einstein, by way of contrast, tried to explain his math in terms of
> natural language, with the result that, for a hundred years, others have
> had the privilege of taking pot shots at him.
Nonsense. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> The moral of the story is simple: if you come up with an equation that
> matches up well with a set of experimentally measured data points, and
> gives accurate predictions in the unmeasured regions of that domain, do
> not make the mistake of trying to explain your equation, unless you
> actually have an explanation that is rationally comprehensible. If you
> do not have a defensible explanation, simply admit it, and move on.
This is not how science works. If the equation predicts nonsense such
as the twin’s paradox, it must be abandoned right off the bat.
Instead, the Einstein Dingleberries try to hypnotize themselves into
believing in the resolution without any mathematical facts. It is
like some nitwit believes in perpetual motion machines. <shrug>
Dirk Van de moortel
450bfcc1-1c64-4e28...@s12g2000prc.googlegroups.com
> On Apr 2, 11:12 am, Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
>> ***{For those who wonder how discrete particles can, in their conjoint
>> behavior, manifest as waves, here is an unusual example:
>>
>> "As barchan dunes migrate, smaller dunes outpace larger dunes, bumping
>> into the rear of the larger dune and eventually appear to punch through
>> the large dune to appear on the other side. The process seems to be
>> similar to waves of light, sound or water that pass directly through
>> each other; the detailed mechanism is, however, very different, being
>> nonlinear. These are known as solitons."
>>
>> "The dunes emulate soliton behavior but unlike solitons, the sand
>> particles do not pass through each other. When the smaller dune
>> rear-ends the larger dune, the winds begin to deposit sand on the rear
>> dune while blowing sand off the front dune without replenishing it.
>> Eventually, the rear dune has assumed dimensions similar to the former
>> front dune which has now become a smaller, faster moving dune that pulls
>> away with the wind. (Schwämmle & Herrmann, 2003)" [Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barchan.]
>
> Hmmm... The wind must be pushing the sands. Photons are not pushed
> by anything. How can particles not being pushed behave like waves?
You haven't paid attention. Look up gravites combined with jones in google.
A sub-imbecile like you can learn a lot from a super-imbecile like Jones.
And, by the way:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/JonesMath.html
Dirk Vdm
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for the explanation Koobee. By the way, where can I get a
copy of your refutation of the role of GR in GPS? A link or an email
will suffice. Just for my records.
sal
... snip a bunch of garbage, as usual -- Yes, kw, when I said "morons" I
meant you, too.
> [SAL said:]
>> [...] Stumbling over
>> errors in his derivations is not unheard of;
>> I've done it, and no
>> doubt lots of others before me have stumbled over exactly the same
>> errors.
>
[KW said:]
> You must be either lying or inept in mathematics.
Because I claim to have run across an error in one of Einstein's
derivations, I must be a liar or inept in math? Do tell.
Here's an example.
It's a totally trivial, irrelevent error in the English version of the
1905 Electrodynamics paper. See the Dover edition page 52, line 11. In
the paper, that's part II, section 6; second block of equations,
introduced with the sentence " ... by referring the electromagnetic
processes to the system of co-ordinates there introduced, moving with the
velocity v, we obtain the equations".
The second equation in that set has xi and zeta swapped; it should read
(1/c) (@/@\tau)[\beta(Y-(v/c)N)] = @L/@\zeta - (@/@\xi)[\beta(N-(v/c)Y)]
To see that this must be true, take the low-velocity limit and compare
what you get with Maxwell's equations as Einstein wrote them earlier on
the same page. (Xi corresponds to x, zeta corresponds to z.)
The erroneous equation is not used for anything in the rest of the paper;
the error is hence not important. I only ran across it because, as I
said, I was trying to follow that section of the paper line by line and I
couldn't duplicate that result. If I'd had a set of Errata for the paper
it would have saved time.
And I only mention it here to counter the common cry of the incompetent,
"I don't understand that, so you must be lying!".
Anyhow it's time I plonked you again, K-W -- you are thoroughly detestable.
*plonk*
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
Androcles
"sal" <pragm...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:49d51e80$0$968$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to 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?
koobee...@gmail.com
I don’t have a write-up of it because I think the idea is so simple
and so obvious that GR is not needed in the design of GPS. All we, as
a receiver, want is to figure out our location and time (as a side
effect). Thus, the variables are:
** t = Satellite time (an n-bit counter)
** x
** y
** z
The requirement is that each satellite has to know its own location
and time relative to all the satellites at any moment. Thus, the time
counter must be synchronized among the satellites. That is all
satellites must set the time keeping counter to a specific value when
a synchronization signal is received from other satellites. Say the
location and the time at broadcast of four satellites are:
** (t1, x1, y1, z1)
** (t2, x2, y2, z2)
** (t3, x3, y3, z3)
** (t4, x4, y4, z4)
Each satellite constantly broadcasts its time and location information
to whoever wants to receive. Upon reception, the receiver should now
know the location and satellite broadcast time of each satellite.
Then, the mathematics is merely junior high school algebra in which
the following four equations with four unknowns can be established.
The left hand side of the equation is the distance light travels from
the satellites to the receiver, and the right hand side of the
equations is the actual distance from the receiver to the satellites.
** c^2 (t - t1)^2 = (x – x1)^2 + (y – y1)^2 + (z – z1)^2
** c^2 (t – t2)^2 = (x – x2)^2 + (y – y2)^2 + (z – z2)^2
** c^2 (t – t3)^2 = (x – x3)^2 + (y – y3)^2 + (z – z3)^2
** c^2 (t – t4)^2 = (x – x4)^2 + (y – y4)^2 + (z – z4)^2
Where
** c = Speed of light
Solving for t, x, y, and z would yield (x, y, z) which is the
coordinate of your location. t is useless because it is merely the
content of an n-bit counter. However, each satellite also broadcasts
the Greenwich time as well. So, you will know your almanac time from
the GPS too.
Solving these equations although is no trivial task, for a modern
processor it should be a piece of cake. The question is why Einstein
Dingleberries (some claimed to have pHd) have failed to understand the
very simple mathematics of GPS. Have the pHd’s not understood
algebra? In the following post, I have challenged Sam Wormley and
others to answer two fair questions that will put this subject to rest
once and for all, but Sam is a small man.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.satellite-nav/msg/96469243c91147e1
He refused --- proving he is a small man indeed.
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:12:37 -0700, koobee.wublee wrote:
> ... snip ...
As an Einstein Dingleberry, your worship of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar is ever so obvious. <shrug>
> [KW said:]
> > You must be either lying or inept in mathematics.
>
> Because I claim to have run across an error in one of Einstein's
> derivations, I must be a liar or inept in math? Do tell.
Well, someone has brought up the equation (E = m c^2). It does not
appear you have caught the errors. Thus, either you are ignoring it
(lying) because of your worship in Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar or just do not understand the basic
mathematics involved (inept). <shrug>
> [snipped the distraction crap]
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> Solving for t, x, y, and z would yield (x, y, z) which is the
> coordinate of your location.
Which t, kooby?
Sattelite t differs from ground t by 50,000ns/day.
[snip]
Don Stockbauer
Ohanian describes "Einstein's Mistakes"
Didn't you mean "Onanian"?
koobee...@gmail.com
> You haven't paid attention. Look up gravites combined with jones in google.
> A sub-imbecile like you can learn a lot from a super-imbecile like Jones.
Well, I really don’t care about Mr. Jone’s past transgression. I know
for absolute sure that moortel is a crackpot who compiles his so-
called fumble lists (without understand what fumble really means in
his pathetic understanding of the American English language) based on
his own ignorance of the subjects discussed. It is like broadcasting
to the world to emphasize how whacked up moortel himself is. <shrug>
koobee...@gmail.com
The college drop-out is indeed very ignorant. After all, he is still
only a college drop-out. <shrug>
Dorn.Strich
> On Apr 2, 1:07 pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 3:18 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Yes, the field equations at a first glance appear to be so complicated
> > > to solve. It was Schwarzschild who realized that by choosing a
> > > coordinate system to result in the metric with a determinant of -1
> > > would lead to simpler set of field equations. So, starting with the
> > > commonly spherical polar coordinate system, (r, longitude, latitude),
> > > the new coordinate becomes (u, v, w) say. Since the geometry is
> > > always invariant, Schwarzschild's justification is still very valid.
> > > The metric using the two different coordinate systems must be
> > > different to describe the same geometry. Then, the following solution
> > > just naturally reveals itself.
>
>
> > > Where
>
> > > ** N, K = integration constants
> > > ** dP^2 = cos^2(w) dv^2 + dw^2
>
> > > By far this is not the only solution that is static, spherically
> > > symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Schwarzschild merely saw this one
> > > --- probably under the artillery fire by the imperial Russian army in
> > > the eastern front.
>
> > > Since the field equations are described in the common spherically
> > > symmetric polar coordinate system (r, longitude, latitude), (u, v, w)
> > > must be translated back to make any sense. In doing so, the equation
> > > above described in (u, v, w) is the same equation as the one below
> > > described in (r, longitude, latitude).
>
>
> > > Where
>
> > > ** u = (r^3 + K^3)^1/3
> > > ** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
>
> > > A year or two later, Hilbert finally realized that the following is
> > > also a solution.
>
>
> > > And the following
>
> > > ds^2 = c^2 N dt^2 / (1 + K / r) - (1 + K / r) dr^2 - (r + K)^2 dO^2
> ** c^2 (t - t2)^2 = (x - x2)^2 + (y - y2)^2 + (z - z2)^2
> ** c^2 (t - t3)^2 = (x - x3)^2 + (y - y3)^2 + (z - z3)^2
> ** c^2 (t - t4)^2 = (x - x4)^2 + (y - y4)^2 + (z - z4)^2
>
> Where
>
> ** c = Speed of light
>
> Solving for t, x, y, and z would yield (x, y, z) which is the
> coordinate of your location. t is useless because it is merely the
> content of an n-bit counter. However, each satellite also broadcasts
> the Greenwich time as well. So, you will know your almanac time from
> the GPS too.
>
> Solving these equations although is no trivial task, for a modern
> processor it should be a piece of cake. The question is why Einstein
> Dingleberries (some claimed to have pHd) have failed to understand the
> very simple mathematics of GPS. Have the pHd's not understood
> algebra? In the following post, I have challenged Sam Wormley and
> others to answer two fair questions that will put this subject to rest
> once and for all, but Sam is a small man.
>
>
> He refused --- proving he is a small man indeed.- Απόκρυψη κειμένου σε παράθεση -
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
Thanks Koobee for that clear explanation. It is obvious how the
relativity clowns are just too stupid to get it or too devouit to
accept it. As for Sam, he is a small man. Notice how he has been
trolling without substance for the past month. Maybe his dementia is
really kicking in. Just like AL-zheimer.
Eric Gisse
>
> > - ÅìöÜíéóç êåéìÝíïõ óå ðáñÜèåóç -
>
> Thanks Koobee for that clear explanation. It is obvious how the
> relativity clowns are just too stupid to get it or too devouit to
> accept it. As for Sam, he is a small man. Notice how he has been
> trolling without substance for the past month. Maybe his dementia is
> really kicking in. Just like AL-zheimer.
So Dave...how do you resolve the fact that the t obtained from wooby's
method is different from the t on the ground by nearly 50,000 ns/day?
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
Another easy question from Eric. Eric, have you heard of quantum
mechanics?
Eric Gisse
I have an open mind - let's see your calculations.
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
Well, if you knew what I was talking about, you would not ask for
calculations. You have been proven clueless once again.
Dirk Van de moortel
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AbsurdClaim.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrivateLagrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LonelyTop.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SmellHere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TwoMetrics.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffGeoAero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FlatSphere.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReasonLaws.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewLagrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LosingIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AerospaceRelativity.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewPotential.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WhatWrong.html
Dirk Vdm
mL
[...]
> Here's an example.
>
> It's a totally trivial, irrelevent error in the English version of the
> 1905 Electrodynamics paper. See the Dover edition page 52, line 11. In
> the paper, that's part II, section 6; second block of equations,
> introduced with the sentence " ... by referring the electromagnetic
> processes to the system of co-ordinates there introduced, moving with
the
> velocity v, we obtain the equations".
>
> The second equation in that set has xi and zeta swapped; it should read
>
> (1/c) (@/@\tau)[\beta(Y-(v/c)N)] = @L/@\zeta - (@/@\xi)[\beta(N-(v/c)Y)]
Yes, an easily spotted typo - blame the translators.
The equation is written correctly in the German original:
http://www.pro-physik.de/Phy/pdfs/ger_890_921.pdf
There's, however, sort of an "incompleteness" problem here.
In addition to the initially given (empty space) equations
curl E = -(1/c)@H/@t, curl H = (1/c)@E/@t,
where E = (X,Y,Z) and H = (L,M,N)
you *also* need the remaining Maxwell equations, div E = 0
and div H = 0, in order to derive the transformed equations.
/mel
koobee...@gmail.com
> So Dave...how do you resolve the fact that the t obtained from wooby's
> method is different from the t on the ground by nearly 50,000 ns/day?
I am adopting Uncle Al’s style.
1) 50usec/day between ground and satellite even if exist can be
circumvented using clever engineering know-how.
2) Idiot.
3) Your truly has shown Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and
the liar many times already.
4) Idiot.
5) Trust the designs of engineer projects to experts instead. It is
proving to work.
6) Idiot.
7) GPS falsifies SR.
8) Idiot.
9) Go back to junior high and brush up on your algebra.
10) Idiot.
11) Study SR and find its faults.
12) Idiot.
13) Get lost.
PD
> On Apr 3, 7:47 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So Dave...how do you resolve the fact that the t obtained from wooby's
> > method is different from the t on the ground by nearly 50,000 ns/day?
>
> I am adopting Uncle Al’s style.
>
> 1) 50usec/day between ground and satellite even if exist can be
> circumvented using clever engineering know-how.
>
This is Tom Potter's recommendation too. In his mind, it is FAR better
to make an ad-hoc timing correction -- because it is easy -- without
bothering to ask the reason for needing to make the correction in the
first place, than it is to make the same correction because a
successful theory tells you should expect to have to, if that theory
makes you gag uncontrollably.
PD
koobee...@gmail.com
As I said, you are not an engineer. Leave the project to experts.
GPS is proving to be a working system. <shrug>
There is no GR correction required.
GPS falsifies SR.
<shrug>
doug
koobee...@gmail.com wrote:
And it works because the experts put the GR corrections in.
>
> There is no GR correction required.
Yes, it is already been put in years ago.
>
> GPS falsifies SR.
As usual, koobee is wrong.
>
> <shrug>
The <shrug> always means koobee knows he is wrong and hopes no one
will notice.
>
>
PD
> On Apr 3, 9:44 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 11:40 am, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 1) 50usec/day between ground and satellite even if exist can be
> > > circumvented using clever engineering know-how.
>
> > This is Tom Potter's recommendation too. In his mind, it is FAR better
> > to make an ad-hoc timing correction -- because it is easy -- without
> > bothering to ask the reason for needing to make the correction in the
> > first place, than it is to make the same correction because a
> > successful theory tells you should expect to have to, if that theory
> > makes you gag uncontrollably.
>
> As I said, you are not an engineer.
This is true. My training is as a physicist, which profession
generated the principle that explained why a correction will be
needed.
> Leave the project to experts.
And the experts decided to include the correction, as that correction
was suggested to them by physicists as needed.
> GPS is proving to be a working system. <shrug>
Yes, indeed.
>
> There is no GR correction required.
There is a correction needed. The quantity of the correction is
accurately provided by reasons provided in GR. If you'd prefer the
engineers to make the same correction, just as long as they don't
attribute it to GR or any recommendations made by physicists, this
seems rather silly to me, but I'm sure it would help you control your
gagging.
>
> GPS falsifies SR.
SR doesn't claim to provide the correction needed for GPS satellites.
>
> <shrug>
Eric Gisse
C'mon - we know eachother too well for this. You know I'm capable, and
you know that you aren't. You know that I know that you know and all
that.
Just ask for a hug, that way the next 6 months of shitposting can be
curbed.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 3, 7:47 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So Dave...how do you resolve the fact that the t obtained from wooby's
> > method is different from the t on the ground by nearly 50,000 ns/day?
>
> I am adopting Uncle Al’s style.
Uncle Al is educated, so you are missing a critical element of his
being.
>
> 1) 50usec/day between ground and satellite even if exist can be
> circumvented using clever engineering know-how.
Yep. That's why the offset - as predicted by GR - is put in the
satellite itself.
[...]
PD
Then there is the Strich9 game, "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose". It goes
like this: "I will say something ridiculous. You will ask me to back
up what I say. I will tell you that if you understood what I was
talking about, you wouldn't ask me to back up what I say. Therefore by
demanding that I back up a ridiculous statement, I claim this proves
you are clueless."
PD
Eric Gisse
Yes, and the working system uses general relativity.
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
>
> There is no GR correction required.
Page 28 of the document just cited:
"3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan. The signals shall be contained within two
20.46-MHz bands centered about L1 and L2. The carrier frequencies for
the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common
frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source
-- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV
carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an
observer located in the SV -- are offset to compensate for
relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by Δ f/f =
-4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of
10.23 MHz offset by a Δ f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
10.22999999543 MHz. The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be
1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively. "
>
> GPS falsifies SR.
>
> <shrug>
You say this like it is news. SR is only valid locally.
Nobody ever claimed SR was valid under the influence of gravitation.
In fact, every SR textbook I have ever seen makes it explicitly clear
that that is not the case.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> The <shrug> always means koobee knows he is wrong and hopes no one
> will notice.
Kooby stopped responding to me as soon as I made it a habit of
including references to the last time he said <stupid thing>.
>
>
>
>
Dorn.Strich
You talk of this GR correction as if it were a straightforward derived
equation.
You forget that the original reason the 'GPS' satellites were put in
place was partly to test GR. And like the GPB fiasco later on, the
non-positive result was brushed underneath the carpet. Luckily for
'GPS', there was a secondary application, hence its current name.
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
Yup, I know you are a flunkie who is being diverted by his school
advisor from physics to IT. So stop the daydreaming.
As I said, if you know what I am talking about, you would not ask for
calculations. In fact, you would not ask. You would realize the
answer to the question.
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
Eric? References? You've got to be lying.
koobee...@gmail.com
useless blog --- full of hatred on the ones who actually have
understood physics. After all, after spending almost 20 years in
there newsgroups, you don’t even understand SR. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
All you have to say is "I don't know how". The bluster is transparent,
Dave.
You slept through your high school physics courses, and none of those
covered QM. You don't know how to do the calculation so you are trying
to bait me into doing it for you which is not going to happen.
I'll continue to be happy to call you out on your silly little games.
Eric Gisse
> On 3 Áðñ, 13:03, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 9:55 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > The <shrug> always means koobee knows he is wrong and hopes no one
> > > will notice.
>
> > Kooby stopped responding to me as soon as I made it a habit of
> > including references to the last time he said <stupid thing>.
>
>
>
> Eric? References? You've got to be lying.
Is this a "takes one to know one" type of thing, or are you just
throwing out accusations?
You can't even read what is written on a web page, so detecting a lie
is somewhat beyond your abilities.
doug
Dorn.Strich wrote:
> On 3 Απρ, 12:44, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 3, 11:40 am, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Apr 3, 7:47 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>So Dave...how do you resolve the fact that the t obtained from wooby's
>>>>method is different from the t on the ground by nearly 50,000 ns/day?
>>
>>>I am adopting Uncle Al’s style.
>>
>>>1) 50usec/day between ground and satellite even if exist can be
>>>circumvented using clever engineering know-how.
>>
>>This is Tom Potter's recommendation too. In his mind, it is FAR better
>>to make an ad-hoc timing correction -- because it is easy -- without
>>bothering to ask the reason for needing to make the correction in the
>>first place, than it is to make the same correction because a
>>successful theory tells you should expect to have to, if that theory
>>makes you gag uncontrollably.
>>
>>PD
>
>
> You talk of this GR correction as if it were a straightforward derived
> equation.
Exactly. If you have been awake during high school, you would know that.
>
> You forget that the original reason the 'GPS' satellites were put in
> place was partly to test GR.\
Well no, the military had a use for it.
And like the GPB fiasco later on, the
> non-positive result was brushed underneath the carpet.
More lies from strich.
Luckily for
> 'GPS', there was a secondary application, hence its current name.
More delusions from strich. Strich has been channelling Hammond.
koobee...@gmail.com
college drop-out, a troll, and a liar.
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Apr 3, 11:49 am, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > As I said, you are not an engineer.
>
> This is true. My training is as a physicist, which profession
> generated the principle that explained why a correction will be
> needed.
Your service is not needed. There is no need to bog down
technological development with your bull$hit conjectures. <shrug>
> > Leave the project to experts.
>
> And the experts decided to include the correction, as that correction
> was suggested to them by physicists as needed.
You need to stop daydreaming for a change. <shrug>
> > GPS is proving to be a working system. <shrug>
>
> Yes, indeed.
That is because there is no bull$hit conjectures of SR and GR in the
design of GPS. Thank God for that one. Amen.
> > There is no GR correction required.
>
> There is a correction needed. [rest of whining nonsense snipped]
We should have all agreed on that the satellite clocks must be
synchronized. There are two ways to do so: Satellite-to-satellite
and Satellite-to-ground. Basically, when each satellite receives a
command, it will reset its clock counter to zero after a few counts
depending on its position. Satellite-to-ground signals are subject to
uncertainty due to earth’s atmosphere and ionosphere, etc. Satellite-
to-satellite signals are not handicapped by this. Thus, it is more
accurate.
The next issue is the clock frequencies especially the chipping rate
to convert the 50-bit/sec almanac streaming data into broadbands. Why
don’t you then answer the following two questions:
** If satellite chipping rate of 10.23MHz is not corrected for SR or
GR on 450 parts in a trillion, would a GPS receiver using the same
chipping rate work?
Gisse’s answer = no
Professor Andersen = yes
** If the chipping rate is not corrected for that 450 parts in a
trillion, would this error (say it exists) accumulate over time?
Gisse’s answer = yes
Gisse’s answers represent his gross ignorance. After all, Gisse is a
college drop-out, a troll, and a liar.
What are your answers? Avoiding these questions is to be construed as
answering with Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar.
Dorn.Strich
> You slept through your high school physics courses
You keep forgetting to add that I had the highest test scores.
> and none of those covered QM.
They did.
> You don't know how to do the calculation so you are trying
> to bait me...
You've already been baited. Nobody does calculations in QM with
close to an infinite number of particles. Only a moron like you would
claim they can do it. It's like a weakling claiming he can lift the
Empire State Building. The comic absurdity is obvious at once.
Gotcha!
Dorn.Strich
> On Apr 3, 10:13 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Áðñ, 13:03, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 9:55 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > The <shrug> always means koobee knows he is wrong and hopes no one
> > > > will notice.
>
> > > Kooby stopped responding to me as soon as I made it a habit of
> > > including references to the last time he said <stupid thing>.
>
> > > - Áðüêñõøç êåéìÝíïõ óå ðáñÜèåóç -
>
> > > - ÅìöÜíéóç êåéìÝíïõ óå ðáñÜèåóç -
>
> > Eric? References? You've got to be lying.
>
> Is this a "takes one to know one" type of thing
Nope. It's called a rap sheet, meaning, you are a known liar.
Dirk Van de moortel
> Only the bottom rung of Einstein Dingleberries would even read your
> useless blog --- full of hatred on the ones who actually have
> understood physics.
Hatred?
Nice case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
You are mistaken.
I LOVE you crackpots.
If it weren't for you, I wouldn't even be here :-)
Imbecile.
> After all, after spending almost 20 years in
> there newsgroups, you don’t even understand SR. <shrug>
20 years?
You can't even count :-)
Dirk Vdm
koobee...@gmail.com
you would like to throw into these newsgroups.
koobee...@gmail.com
manufacturing distractions to continue your lies. I guess that is too
much to ask from a so-called professor. <shrug>
PD
> You need to learn to address the issues head on instead of
> manufacturing distractions to continue your lies.
What lie?
> I guess that is too
> much to ask from a so-called professor. <shrug>
What issues that Strich9 has brought up need to be addressed head-on?
Is it your opinion that physicists owe heads-on addressing of issues
raised by any park-bench mutterer that comes along? Why?
PD
Dorn.Strich
> On Apr 3, 1:44 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You need to learn to address the issues head on instead of
> > manufacturing distractions to continue your lies.
>
> What lie?
That's one.
Eric Gisse
> On 3 Απρ, 14:25, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You slept through your high school physics courses
>
> You keep forgetting to add that I had the highest test scores.
>
> > and none of those covered QM.
>
> They did.
Name the textbook you used.
[...]
Eric Gisse
> You don’t understand what you are reading. After all, you are only a
> college drop-out, a troll, and a liar.
I win.
Thanks for playing.
Dorn.Strich
Why? It's not gonna be easier than what you have.
PD
> On Apr 3, 9:56 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 11:49 am, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > As I said, you are not an engineer.
>
> > This is true. My training is as a physicist, which profession
> > generated the principle that explained why a correction will be
> > needed.
>
> Your service is not needed. There is no need to bog down
> technological development with your bull$hit conjectures. <shrug>
I don't know why you think the accurate prediction of a correction
that will be needed in the GPS system would be construed as bogging
down technological development, unless there is time lost due to
engineers gagging uncontrollably at the thought of taking a
recommendation from physicists.
>
> > > Leave the project to experts.
>
> > And the experts decided to include the correction, as that correction
> > was suggested to them by physicists as needed.
>
> You need to stop daydreaming for a change. <shrug>
>
> > > GPS is proving to be a working system. <shrug>
>
> > Yes, indeed.
>
> That is because there is no bull$hit conjectures of SR and GR in the
> design of GPS. Thank God for that one. Amen.
That doesn't seem to be accurate.
I believe that section 3.3.1.1 of this document (http://
www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf) has already been
pointed out to you.
>
> > > There is no GR correction required.
>
> > There is a correction needed. [rest of whining nonsense snipped]
>
> We should have all agreed on that the satellite clocks must be
> synchronized. There are two ways to do so: Satellite-to-satellite
> and Satellite-to-ground. Basically, when each satellite receives a
> command, it will reset its clock counter to zero after a few counts
> depending on its position. Satellite-to-ground signals are subject to
> uncertainty due to earth’s atmosphere and ionosphere, etc. Satellite-
> to-satellite signals are not handicapped by this. Thus, it is more
> accurate.
As I said, you are happy to leave the entire correction to an ad-hoc
procedure, as long as it studiously avoids having to include any
predictable offsets that might come from a recommendation by
physicists.
>
> The next issue is the clock frequencies especially the chipping rate
> to convert the 50-bit/sec almanac streaming data into broadbands. Why
> don’t you then answer the following two questions:
>
> ** If satellite chipping rate of 10.23MHz is not corrected for SR or
> GR on 450 parts in a trillion, would a GPS receiver using the same
> chipping rate work?
>
> Gisse’s answer = no
> Professor Andersen = yes
>
> ** If the chipping rate is not corrected for that 450 parts in a
> trillion, would this error (say it exists) accumulate over time?
>
> Gisse’s answer = yes
>
> Gisse’s answers represent his gross ignorance. After all, Gisse is a
> college drop-out, a troll, and a liar.
>
> What are your answers? Avoiding these questions is to be construed as
> answering with Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar.
Why do you consider not getting people to jump at your impertinent
manipulations to be fair grounds to call them whatever you want?
I will consider your refusal to recount your entire educational and
professional background to be construed as admission of fraud.
PD
PD
Hey, I know this game! It's Strich9's famous "I will say one stupid
thing and demand that it be refuted. And when you do, I will say three
more stupid things and demand that you refute those, too, because my
sole purpose here is to keep you really busy refuting as many stupid
things as I can dream up."
PD
OK, let's recap:
Eric: ...how do you resolve the fact that the t obtained from wooby's
method is different from the t on the ground by nearly 50,000 ns/day?
Strich9: Another easy question from Eric. Eric, have you heard of
quantum mechanics?
Eric: I have an open mind - let's see your calculations.
Strich9: Well, if you knew what I was talking about, you would not ask
for calculations. You have been proven clueless once again.
Eric: You don't know how to do the calculation so you are trying to
bait me...
Strich9: You've already been baited. Nobody does calculations in QM
with
close to an infinite number of particles. Only a moron like you would
claim they can do it.
===========
So Strich9 says QM provides an easy answer to the nearly 50,000 ns/day
time lag. When asked for the calculation, Strich9 says nobody does
calculations in QM with close to an infinite number of particles, and
that only a moron would claim they can do it. Thus, in a very short
span of time, Strich9 has provided his own proof that he is a moron.
Well done.
But now that you're on fire, feel free to scramble.
PD
PD
I asked which one he was referring to. It was a question. Questions
are not assertions. Let's see what assertion KW will make in answer to
the question.
PD
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Apr 3, 1:32 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Your service is not needed. There is no need to bog down
> > technological development with your bull$hit conjectures. <shrug>
>
> I don't know why you think the accurate prediction of a correction
> that will be needed in the GPS system would be construed as bogging
> down technological development,
What accurate predictions? Try not to lie for a change.
> unless there is time lost due to
> engineers gagging uncontrollably at the thought of taking a
> recommendation from physicists.
Hmmm... Why would any engineers consult with ignorant?
> > That is because there is no bull$hit conjectures of SR and GR in the
> > design of GPS. Thank God for that one. Amen.
>
> That doesn't seem to be accurate.
> I believe that section 3.3.1.1 of this document (http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf) has already been
> pointed out to you.
Why do you think that is a spec to design the GPS? Have you seen an
actual spec? Do you know what a spec look like?
Hint: In an actual spec, you don’t see the droppings of Einstein
Dingleberries all over it. <shrug>
> > We should have all agreed on that the satellite clocks must be
> > synchronized. There are two ways to do so: Satellite-to-satellite
> > and Satellite-to-ground. Basically, when each satellite receives a
> > command, it will reset its clock counter to zero after a few counts
> > depending on its position. Satellite-to-ground signals are subject to
> > uncertainty due to earth’s atmosphere and ionosphere, etc. Satellite-
> > to-satellite signals are not handicapped by this. Thus, it is more
> > accurate.
>
> As I said, you are happy to leave the entire correction to an ad-hoc
> procedure, as long as it studiously avoids having to include any
> predictable offsets that might come from a recommendation by
> physicists.
What predictable offsets? Again, try not to lie for a change.
> > The next issue is the clock frequencies especially the chipping rate
> > to convert the 50-bit/sec almanac streaming data into broadbands. Why
> > don’t you then answer the following two questions:
>
> > ** If satellite chipping rate of 10.23MHz is not corrected for SR or
> > GR on 450 parts in a trillion, would a GPS receiver using the same
> > chipping rate work?
>
> > Gisse’s answer = no
> > Professor Andersen = yes
>
> > ** If the chipping rate is not corrected for that 450 parts in a
> > trillion, would this error (say it exists) accumulate over time?
>
> > Gisse’s answer = yes
>
> > Gisse’s answers represent his gross ignorance. After all, Gisse is a
> > college drop-out, a troll, and a liar.
>
> > What are your answers? Avoiding these questions is to be construed as
> > answering with Gisse the college drop-out, the troll, and the liar.
>
> Why do you consider not getting people to jump at your impertinent
> manipulations to be fair grounds to call them whatever you want?
So, you refuse to answer these questions and continue to troll the
discussions. As I indicated, you and Gisse both think the offset in
these frequencies would accumulate over time, and that is the basis to
lie about GR’s involvement in the development of GPS. You don’t know
what you are talking about. You are a liar as well. <shrug>
koobee...@gmail.com
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar?
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
And I know this endgame. PD goes into another of his schizophrenic
'loosening of associations' and 'tangentiality', that his own
craziness is sufficient to refute himself.
It's late in the afternoon and late in the week. PD needs a reboot.
His programs are discombobulated.
sal
> sal skrev:
> [...]
>
> > Here's an example.
> >
> > It's a totally trivial, irrelevent error in the English version
> > of the 1905 Electrodynamics paper. See the Dover edition page
> > 52, line 11. In the paper, that's part II, section 6; second
> > block of equations, introduced with the sentence " ... by
> > referring the electromagnetic processes to the system of
> > co-ordinates there introduced, moving with the velocity v, we
> > obtain the equations".
> >
> > The second equation in that set has xi and zeta swapped; it should
> > read
> >
> > (1/c) (@/@\tau)[\beta(Y-(v/c)N)] = @L/@\zeta -
> > (@/@\xi)[\beta(N-(v/c)Y)]
>
> Yes, an easily spotted typo - blame the translators. The equation is
> written correctly in the German original:
> http://www.pro-physik.de/Phy/pdfs/ger_890_921.pdf
Thanks for the reference! I had wondered if it was correct in the
German but didn't have link to a copy of the original when I
stumbled across this.
>
> There's, however, sort of an "incompleteness" problem here. In addition
> to the initially given (empty space) equations
>
> curl E = -(1/c)@H/@t, curl H = (1/c)@E/@t, where E = (X,Y,Z) and H
> = (L,M,N)
>
> you *also* need the remaining Maxwell equations, div E = 0 and div H =
> 0, in order to derive the transformed equations.
Right, you do.
In fact I only fully worked through the transformations for the first
and second equations (which just happened to include the one with the
typo). It was just plug and chug in the curl equations, using the
Lorentz transform and the chain rule to work out the derivatives in
the Greek coordinate system. As it happens, this was done during an
email conversation, and I happened to include the transformations as
PDF attachments in the email; so, FWIW (which isn't much!) I uploaded
them just now, and they're here:
http://physicsinsights.org/pb_response.2008-12-01-1.pdf
http://physicsinsights.org/pb_response.2008-12-02-1.pdf
Again this is *just* the derivation of the first two equations on that
page in the Greek frame from the curl equations in the Latin frame.
>
> /mel
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
S T R I C H
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
Well here's an easy question for you: Is the quantum mechanical
solution for the particles making up the atomic clock in the satellite
the same as the quantum mechanical solution for the particles making
up the atomic clock in the ground?
Well here's an easy question for you: Is the quantum mechanical
solution for the particles making up the atomic clock in the satellite
the same as the quantum mechanical solution for the particles making
up the atomic clock in the ground?
Well here's an easy question for you: Is the quantum mechanical
solution for the particles making up the atomic clock in the satellite
the same as the quantum mechanical solution for the particles making
up the atomic clock in the ground?
(Hint: The question may sound complex, but it is answerable by a
simple yes/no, and one of these will be correct).
(More hints: The answer is no.)
Followup question: Since the solutions are different, would that be
sufficient to account for 50,000ns/day differential?
Followup question: Since the solutions are different, would that be
sufficient to account for 50,000ns/day differential?
Followup question: Since the solutions are different, would that be
sufficient to account for 50,000ns/day differential?
(Hint: The question may sound complex, but it is answerable by a
simple yes/no).
PD
> solution for the particles making up the atomic clock in the satellite
> the same as the quantum mechanical solution for the particles making
> up the atomic clock in the ground?
I don't understand you, Strich9. You just proved all by yourself by an
airtight argument that you are a moron. Why would a moron ask
questions about quantum mechanics? I mean, that's sort of like a 3rd
grader asking questions about tax law.
PD
Oh, I know that you consider not getting people to jump at your
impertinent manipulations to be fair grounds to call them whatever you
want. You demonstrate that by practice. I asked you, why?
PD
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I understand that this is way beyond you, so the only way you can save
some face is to answer it tangentially, as usual. You are really
using your schizophrenia to your advantage.
[Note: PD is unable to discuss quantum mechanics at all. Even the
basic double slit experiment he is ignorant of the set-up itself. He
thinks it can be done at home with a $5 laser. Sheesh.]
Eric Gisse
How do you know, Dave? Just name the textbook.
Unless, of course, you are lying and there is no such textbook. You
wouldn't be lying to me, would you Dave?
Eric Gisse
It thinks it can be done because it can be done rather trivially. A
piece of foil, a sharp box cutter, and a cheap laser is all it takes.
Is there a reason you don't think it can be done, Dave?
koobee...@gmail.com
You have been shown that GPS needs no corrections from SR and GR in
which you have no scholarly replies besides whining crap. Why is
that?
I have asked you “if any of the frequencies utilized on board the GPS
satellites are not corrected for the SR or GR effects, would the
system continue to function?” Professor Andersen said yes. Gisse the
college drop-out, the troll, and the liar said no. What is your
answer? We really cannot go on discussing this issue if you behave
like a troll on this one. For Christ’s sake, you are a professor of
physics. So, why don’t you answer the question?
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 3, 1:00 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 2:30 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > So, you refuse to answer these questions and continue to troll the
> > > discussions. As I indicated, you and Gisse both think the offset in
> > > these frequencies would accumulate over time, and that is the basis to
> > > lie about GR’s involvement in the development of GPS. You don’t know
> > > what you are talking about. You are a liar as well. <shrug>
>
> > Oh, I know that you consider not getting people to jump at your
> > impertinent manipulations to be fair grounds to call them whatever you
> > want. You demonstrate that by practice. I asked you, why?
>
> You have been shown that GPS needs no corrections from SR and GR in
> which you have no scholarly replies besides whining crap. Why is
> that?
How do you claim to have shown this when the signal specifications
themselves say you are wrong?
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
One example: "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to
an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the
SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects."
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Apr 3, 9:35 pm, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You have been shown that GPS needs no corrections from SR and GR in
> > which you have no scholarly replies besides whining crap. Why is
> > that?
>
> How do you claim to have shown this when the signal specifications
> themselves say you are wrong?
>
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
>
> One example: "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to
> an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
> and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the
> SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects."
Ahahaha... You are still whining. Professor Andersen has already
thrown in the towel. Your anal buddy Sam Wormley refused to answer my
questions. Your other ally the so-called professor Draper is also not
willing to do so. It looks like you as a college drop-out, a troll,
and a liar are on your own. In the meantime, the higher echelon among
the Einstein Dingleberries knew this as a hopeless battle. They are
leaving you out to dry. Ahahaha...
In the meantime, keep whining. Go to sleep. You have been up for
quite some time.
Paul B. Andersen
> Well here's an easy question for you: Is the quantum mechanical
> solution for the particles making up the atomic clock in the satellite
> the same as the quantum mechanical solution for the particles making
> up the atomic clock in the ground?
>
> (Hint: The question may sound complex, but it is answerable by a
> simple yes/no, and one of these will be correct).
>
> (More hints: The answer is no.)
>
> Followup question: Since the solutions are different, would that be
> sufficient to account for 50,000ns/day differential?
I challenge you to show the two different solutions,
and calculate the differential.
What, can't you do it?
Thought so.
--
Paul
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:40:09 -0700, xxein1 wrote:
> > xxein: I can wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion --- "trying to
> > explain SR without any math...".
>
> Yes, trying to explain SR -- or LET -- without the use of math has led to
> huge amounts of confusion on the part of people attempting to understand
> it.
That is correct. Both LET and SR are merely interpretations to the
Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> You can't understand physics with JUST the math, that's true -- but you
> can't understand most physics with NO math, either.
Without math, no one can prove you right or wrong. At least with
math, you can perform experiments to prove you right. Physics without
the math is philosophy where there is no right or wrong. Math is
everything. <shrug>
If Dr. Ohanian did publish any math, I don’t suppose you would
understand it anyway since you cannot see the gross error in (E = m
c^2) of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar in his 1905
paper. <shrug>
> > you are in a complete
> > subjective mode of thought and will be short-circuited from
> > understanding the objective physic.
>
> > I feel very sorry for you.
>
> Sheesh, throw in an insult, why don't you.
Like you have not. After getting your ass kicked by yours truly in
discussing SR and GR, you’ve resorted to call me NAZI, anti-Semitic,
and all sorts of ill-words. Sheesh, you are not only a liar but a
hypocrite as well. <shrug>
PD
OK. If the clocks on board the GPS satellites where not corrected for
SR and GR effects, there would be a large regular offset introduced
which would have to be corrected by a large ad-hoc correction. This is
certainly technically possible, just like an ad-hoc correction for
long-range ballistics is possible without attributing the correction
to Coriolis effects. The question is, if the sole purpose of doing so
is to avoid attributing the correction to known effects, is this a
worthwhile and practical endeavor? Why don't YOU answer THAT question?
PD
Dorn.Strich
> On Apr 3, 11:11 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Απρ, 14:59, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 10:32 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Απρ, 14:25, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You slept through your high school physics courses
>
> > > > You keep forgetting to add that I had the highest test scores.
>
> > > > > and none of those covered QM.
>
> > > > They did.
>
> > > Name the textbook you used.
>
> > > [...]
>
> > Why? It's not gonna be easier than what you have.
>
> How do you know, Dave?
Judging from your 'over-staying time', no textbook will make it easier
for you :-)
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Εμφάνιση κειμένου σε παράθεση -
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
We're discussing quantum mechanics IDIOT. You need a detector to
confound the photon path IDIOT. When the detector is on, the
interference pattern disappears IDIOT.
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
The moron Eric is thinking about the classical DSE and not the quantum
DSE.
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Dorn.Strich
wrote:
I already said the calculations cannot be done due to complexity. Are
you deaf or something?
koobee...@gmail.com
> On Apr 4, 12:35 am, koobee.wub...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have asked you “if any of the frequencies utilized on board the GPS
> > satellites are not corrected for the SR or GR effects, would the
> > system continue to function?” Professor Andersen said yes. Gisse the
> > college drop-out, the troll, and the liar said no. What is your
> > answer? We really cannot go on discussing this issue if you behave
> > like a troll on this one. For Christ’s sake, you are a professor of
> > physics. So, why don’t you answer the question?
>
> OK. If the clocks on board the GPS satellites where not corrected for
> SR and GR effects, there would be a large regular offset introduced
> which would have to be corrected by a large ad-hoc correction.
You have to identify what this large regular offset is. <shrug>
Giving an example, look at the simple AM radio. Say a radio station
broadcasts its signal with a 750.000kHz carrier frequency. Your
receiver tunes in to 750.001kHz. What type of large regular offset is
there? The answer is none. It is part of the tolerance which every
engineer has to take into account.
Now, with the signal frequency of GPS, if GR clock effect indeed
existed, a 450 parts in a trillion of offset in frequencies between
the transmitter and the receiver would not matter at all. There is
actually no accumulated offset. Professor Andersen explained this a
few months. If you didn’t understand it, why did you not object?
The accumulated offset that you are thinking of exists when you try to
synchronize the timer counters in the satellites with the timer
counter on the ground. Then, both the satellite timer frequencies and
the ground timer frequency that drive these counters have to be all
the same. If not, the due to obvious reasons counters would not be
synchronized between the satellites and the ground. That is if the GR
effect were indeed true.
Thanks to the ingenuity of the GPS engineers. The acquisition of 4
satellites effectively eliminates the necessity to establish a timer
counter on the ground. See the post that I have explained how GPS
works exactly. GPS has been working for quite sometimes with 4
satellite acquisition while physicists are still baffled by innovative
ingenuities among engineers. <shrug>
The claim by Professor Andersen and Roberts is that there exists
something else in the GPS designs that require the same frequencies in
both the satellites and the ground. What this mysterious
functionality is remains illusive from both of the claimants. I am
willing to accept if GR is designed into the GPS if this mysterious
functionality is explained. Otherwise, the application of GR in GPS
remains a lie. <shrug>
> This is
> certainly technically possible, just like an ad-hoc correction for
> long-range ballistics is possible without attributing the correction
> to Coriolis effects. The question is, if the sole purpose of doing so
> is to avoid attributing the correction to known effects, is this a
> worthwhile and practical endeavor? Why don't YOU answer THAT question?
Do you now see that your question makes no sense?
<checkmate> Once again.
Dorn.Strich
These relativist should not be playing chess at all. They keep
losing. They should stick with checkers.
They have yet to show the equations that generate the corrections. I
bet those equations were made long after the offsets were known. It
would be interesting to see what those equations yield for say, a GPS
system in the moon, Mars or Jupiter?
Dorn.Strich
Sam Wormley
> These relativists should not be playing chess at all. They keep
> losing. They should stick with checkers.
So Gail, er I mean Strich, you think Checkers is an easy game!
>
> They have yet to show the equations that generate the corrections. I
> bet those equations were made long after the offsets were known. It
> would be interesting to see what those equations yield for say, a GPS
> system in the moon, Mars or Jupiter?
Put in the right numbers, Strich... and good luck on Jupiter--the
radiation levels are pretty high.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
Dirk Van de moortel
11a808c6-6c29-4e01...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
> On Apr 4, 6:35 pm, sal <pragmat...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:40:09 -0700, xxein1 wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Sheesh, throw in an insult, why don't you.
>
> Like you have not. After getting your ass kicked by yours truly in
> discussing SR and GR, you’ve resorted to call me NAZI, anti-Semitic,
> and all sorts of ill-words. Sheesh, you are not only a liar but a
> hypocrite as well. <shrug>
From Koobee Wublee's record, when calling himself
Scholarly Fungi, Australopithecus Afarensis"
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=bdq09.28353$Fq6.2...@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/nyc.general/msg/f9902f31b60e323d
| "Scholarly Fungi" <scholar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:bdq09.28353$Fq6.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
| > It is also unfortunate that most of the folks blindly embracing this
| > holohaux come from the white supremacists. I don't see what this would gain
| > for them other than trying to antagonize the Jews. However, this is
| > history. When I was in my early high school years, I independently came up
| > with what Butz was saying without knowing his existence. Hey, I am very
| > proud of my humble analytical skills.
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=NnI09.31007$Fq6.3...@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/nyc.general/msg/edb4425ed029c93c
| "Scholarly Fungi" <scholar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:<NnI09.31007$Fq6.3...@news2.west.cox.net>...
| > All history is written upon congruency among the historians but except one.
| > The Holocaust was born in the court rooms of Nueremberg. It is a complete
| > hoax.
| >
| > I did not know of Arthur Butz, but I independently came up with that
| > hypothesis noticing the tremendous amount of inconsistencies while studying
| > holohoax in high school.
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=fytJa.78487%24%2542.6441%40fed1read06
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.california/msg/ca444b064bee6b4c
| "Australopithecus Afarensis" <lu...@olduvaigorge.net> wrote in message
| news:fytJa.78487$%42.6441@fed1read06...
| > Thanks for posting all that and your own comments at the end. There are so
| > many lies after lies conjured up against the Nazis. I guess I'd better read
| > "Mein Kampf" to get it from the horse's mouth. It will be on my
| > things-to-do list for the near future.
Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=uMeDa.59118%24%2542.39687%40fed1read06
Reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.california/msg/1f4890aec65dbc3c
| On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:42:04 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
| <lu...@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
|
| >Thanks for answering these questions fair and square.
| >
| >Although I don't speak for all other Australopithecine, I certainly want to
| >be as less nationalistic as possible. I am an individual just trying to
| >learn as much as I can before my short life expires on this earth.
| >
| >OK, now the media and "media"-controlled educational history have painted
| >the Nazis as the most fiendish group of people ever lived through out the
| >entire history of mankind. When I was growing up, I was constantly reminded
| >that the Nazis were so genocidal, they will kill any non-Germans in a heart
| >beat. After getting constantly bombarded with Nazi atrocities, I was very
| >much like the rest. Well, until one clip of film showing mountains of hair
| >inside a giant oven, the purpose was to show how many people murdered and
| >cremated. As a young scientist-to-be, it just hit me that the whole sh*t
| >was a lie. As far as I knew, the human hair would burn first. After
| >meticulous research and reasoning, I have concluded the WWII Nazis were no
| >more atrocious than any other governments in the 20th century or beyond.
| >Many of these information mostly came out after the explosion of the
| >internet where all skeletons in the closets finally have a chance to tell
| >their side of the story. Now, what is your plan to the public to shed these
| >negative sentiments accused against your political group?
| >
Dorn.Strich
> Dorn.Strich wrote:
> > These relativists should not be playing chess at all. They keep
> > losing. They should stick with checkers.
>
> So Gail, er I mean Strich, you think Checkers is an easy game!
>
>
>
> > They have yet to show the equations that generate the corrections. I
> > bet those equations were made long after the offsets were known. It
> > would be interesting to see what those equations yield for say, a GPS
> > system in the moon, Mars or Jupiter?
>
> Put in the right numbers, Strich... and good luck on Jupiter--the
> radiation levels are pretty high.
>
> Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
>
> Relativity in the Global Positioning System
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
This is the answer of an idiot pretending he knows an answer.
Dorn.Strich
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> koobee.wub...@gmail.com <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 11a808c6-6c29-4e01-9f21-bbce9c0f9...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Apr 4, 6:35 pm, sal <pragmat...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:40:09 -0700, xxein1 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >> Sheesh, throw in an insult, why don't you.
>
> > Like you have not. After getting your ass kicked by yours truly in
> > discussing SR and GR, you’ve resorted to call me NAZI, anti-Semitic,
> > and all sorts of ill-words. Sheesh, you are not only a liar but a
> > hypocrite as well. <shrug>
>
> From Koobee Wublee's record, when calling himself
> Scholarly Fungi, Australopithecus Afarensis"
>
> Original, but removed from archives:
> |news:bdq09.28353$Fq6.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
> | > It is also unfortunate that most of the folks blindly embracing this
> | > holohaux come from the white supremacists. I don't see what this would gain
> | > for them other than trying to antagonize the Jews. However, this is
> | > history. When I was in my early high school years, I independently came up
> | > with what Butz was saying without knowing his existence. Hey, I am very
> | > proud of my humble analytical skills.
>
> Original, but removed from archives:
> | > <news:NnI09.31007$Fq6.3...@news2.west.cox.net>...
> | > All history is written upon congruency among the historians but except one.
> | > The Holocaust was born in the court rooms of Nueremberg. It is a complete
> | > hoax.
> | >
> | > I did not know of Arthur Butz, but I independently came up with that
> | > hypothesis noticing the tremendous amount of inconsistencies while studying
> | > holohoax in high school.
>
> Original, but removed from archives:
> But we still have the reply:
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.california/msg/ca444b064bee6b4c
> |news:fytJa.78487$%42.6441@fed1read06...
> | > Thanks for posting all that and your own comments at the end. There are so
> | > many lies after lies conjured up against the Nazis. I guess I'd better read
> | > "Mein Kampf" to get it from the horse's mouth. It will be on my
> | > things-to-do list for the near future.
>
> Original, but removed from archives:
> Reply:
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.california/msg/1f4890aec65dbc3c
> | On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:42:04 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
> |
> | >Thanks for answering these questions fair and square.
> | >
> | >Although I don't speak for all other Australopithecine, I certainly want to
> | >be as less nationalistic as possible. I am an individual just trying to
> | >learn as much as I can before my short life expires on this earth.
> | >
> | >OK, now the media and "media"-controlled educational history have painted
> | >the Nazis as the most fiendish group of people ever lived through out the
> | >entire history of mankind. When I was growing up, I was constantly reminded
> | >that the Nazis were so genocidal, they will kill any non-Germans in a heart
> | >beat. After getting constantly bombarded with Nazi atrocities, I was very
> | >much like the rest. Well, until one clip of film showing mountains of hair
> | >inside a giant oven, the purpose was to show how many people murdered and
> | >cremated. As a young scientist-to-be, it just hit me that the whole sh*t
> | >was a lie. As far as I knew, the human hair would burn first. After
> | >meticulous research and reasoning, I have concluded the WWII Nazis were no
> | >more atrocious than any other governments in the 20th century or beyond.
> | >Many of these information mostly came out after the explosion of the
> | >internet where all skeletons in the closets finally have a chance to tell
> | >their side of the story. Now, what is your plan to the public to shed these
> | >negative sentiments accused against your political group?
> | >
This is a moron whose sole purpose is to obfuscate. He is Eric's
alter ego.
Sam Wormley
> On 7 Απρ, 12:55, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Dorn.Strich wrote:
>>> These relativists should not be playing chess at all. They keep
>>> losing. They should stick with checkers.
>> So Gail, er I mean Strich, you think Checkers is an easy game!
>>
>>
>>
>>> They have yet to show the equations that generate the corrections. I
>>> bet those equations were made long after the offsets were known. It
>>> would be interesting to see what those equations yield for say, a GPS
>>> system in the moon, Mars or Jupiter?
>> Put in the right numbers, Strich... and good luck on Jupiter--the
>> radiation levels are pretty high.
>>
>> Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
>> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
>>
>> Relativity in the Global Positioning System
>> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
>
> This is the answer of an idiot pretending he knows an answer.
<laughing>
Strich, who posts on his employer's time, can learn from these links
something about the application of relativity to satellite clocks, but
chooses to ignore.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
Inferiority Complex most likely.
Dirk Van de moortel
600941fe-bc8b-46a9...@f19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
> On 5 οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½, 04:54, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> koobee.wub...@gmail.com <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> 11a808c6-6c29-4e01-9f21-bbce9c0f9...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> On Apr 4, 6:35 pm, sal <pragmat...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:40:09 -0700, xxein1 wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Sheesh, throw in an insult, why don't you.
>>
>>> Like you have not. After getting your ass kicked by yours truly in
These are quotes from your hero Koobee Wublee.
Dirk Vdm
koobee...@gmail.com
> Dorn.Strich <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a moron whose sole purpose is to obfuscate. He is Eric's
> > alter ego.
>
> These are quotes from your hero Koobee Wublee.
Yes, moortel is indeed the alter ego of Gisse the college drop-out,
the troll, and the liar. moortel has been calling me all sorts of
names ever since I have pointed out how shallow his understanding is
in everything. moortel is a nitwit, a troll, and a liar. moortel the
nitwit, the troll, the liar and Gisse the college drop-out, the troll,
and the liar make up an excellent team worshipping their idol
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
Notice how wooby did not deny that he used to go under those names.
koobee...@gmail.com
Why should I bother to respond to trolls?
Eric Gisse
Because you troll. All the time.
If you can dish it out but can't take it, that's too bad.
koobee...@gmail.com
You can whine, curse, lie, or even throw a fit whatever and however
you like. The fact remains that SR and GR are seriously challenged by
yours truly. Ahahaha...
Eric Gisse
Yet you only post your "challenges" on USENET. Not the most effective
use of your time.
Daryl McCullough
>Yet you only post your "challenges" on USENET. Not the most effective
>use of your time.
It's better that Koobee waste his time posting ignorance
to USENET, rather than attending neonazi rallies.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY