Anti-SR kook primer (a resource for newbies)
Just A. Friend
Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of myself,
but....
Recently I got an E-mail "offline". It was kind of disturbing
because it was what we always
worry about; namely, someone who read the newsgroups to learn
about relativity, and walked away thinking there were still BIG
problems and unresolved questions with it. After setting him right
and giving him the usual list of experimental evidence, I put
together the following list, which others might find useful:
Keith Stein - He makes a big deal out of the fact that
Maxwell believed EM waves propagate through
a medium - which nobody disputes! As many
people have pointed out, that was the most reasonable
conclusion to come to with the evidence Maxwell had
in hand. What Mr. Stein doesn't seem to realize is
that Maxwell died (1879) before any evidence refuting
this belief existed (Michelson, 1881, Michelson &
Morely, 1887), and long before Special Relativity
(Einstein, 1905). This is his only real
"evidence". Beyond that, he continually demands
explanations, clarifications, experimental evidence,
and mathematical tutelage, all of which have been
given to him. He then comes up with amazingly stupid
reasons to ignore it all. He believes, for example,
that relativity experiments involving the GPS system
are invalid because no one knows how to correct for
the signal propagation delay, apparently not
realizing that knowing the signal propagation delay
is HOW GPS WORKS!!!
Ken Seto - This guy wrote an entire book about his theory
(http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html), which
is yet another modified aether theory. It's part
of a broad class of "I can explain all the results
of SR tests with my theory and about a million
unjustified assumptions". Entertaining on the group
because he will usually come up with the most "out
there" explanation for something.
Henry Wilson - Has some silly algebraic argument involving
"one way light speed" and "two way light speed"
(OWLS and TWLS), which he repeats over and over
and over - like a mantra, no matter how many times
others point out the fallacies. Firmly believes
that because everyone was so impressed by Einstein,
no one has EVER done an experiment to test his
predictions, even a really easy one (like measuring
the speed of cosmic rays). Essentially believes there is
a "broad conspiracy" to protect Einstein's good name,
which is hard to reconcile with the fact that everybody
agrees that Einstein appears to have been wrong in some
of his strong opinions about quantum mechanics.
Claims to have spent "30+ years as a
research physicist", but never gives any details.
Likes to quote very precise yet unreferenced and
erroneous numbers.
"androcles" - Agrees with Wilson on all the particulars (or maybe
Wilson agrees with him, I'm not sure which came first).
Always refers you to his website
(http://members.home.net/androcles/)
wherein he tries to claim that he has astronomical
evidence that light propagates at C relative to
the source. Wants you to download and run a program
to prove it (but not me, no way!). Claims to be the
reference for some of Wilson's numbers, but I was
unable to find them at his website (actually, there's
very little there).
H.E.Retic - (ya get it, ya get it?!?!) Has written a manifesto called
"The Einstein Hoax"
(http://members.home.net/retiche/hoax.htm),
in which he claims to topple Einstein in favor of
a modified aether theory. Remarkable in its
depth, level of mathematical detail - and total
misinterpretation of experimental evidence and conceptual
arguments - also lacks
any references as far as I can tell. Another "conspiracy
theorist", he claims evidence for tachyons has been
"suppressed". He's less fun than the others because he is
harder to engage on the newsgroup (says he's "too busy").
He just regularly publishes his manifesto, and then steps
back.
"spaceman" - Repeatedly asserts that SR effects are "optical
illusions", exposing a complete lack of understanding
of their derivation and experimental evidence of their
existence. Ignores the fact that this has been explained
to him many times. Beyond that, doesn't have a particular
stand; I think he just likes to "stir things up". When
pushed, he fights back with .... really bad poetry!
Did I miss anyone?
Patrick Reany
"Just A. Friend" wrote:
> Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of myself,
> but....
>
It's no worse than the rest of the stuff on this NG.
The only salvation for this NG is to moderate it
and remove 99% of this ether stuff from it. The
etherists can then find their right to free expression
satisfied by starting their own NGs, such as
alt.ether or alt.relativity.
Patrick
and...@attglobal.net
Ether is going to keep coming up here even if that happens.
A lot of people posting legitimate questions here think that
SR IS ether theory. They don't understand the differences
between the two interpretations of the same experiments.
Having said that, it would be nice to get rid of the people
who really advocate ether theory.
John Anderson
Uncle Al
>
> Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of myself,
> but....
>
> Recently I got an E-mail "offline". It was kind of disturbing
> because it was what we always
> worry about; namely, someone who read the newsgroups to learn
> about relativity, and walked away thinking there were still BIG
> problems and unresolved questions with it. After setting him right
> and giving him the usual list of experimental evidence, I put
> together the following list, which others might find useful:
For Relativity,
http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/node3.html
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/Class_Archive/Fall00/Physics_250/Phys250_00_4_GR.pdf
For a nicely put universe in general
http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~flournoy/baryogenesis.html
The first test of a a crackpot is simple enough for an American
zero-goal education graduate to successfully perform: Crackpots
don't have literature citations (footnotes). That is 95% of the
battle right there. You can tell a jackass by its profile long
before you suffer its content. Then, we have the spec sheets,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Dramar Ankalle
Just A. Friend <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3B85A563...@nowhere.net...
>
> Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of myself,
> but....
>
> Recently I got an E-mail "offline". It was kind of disturbing
> because it was what we always
> worry about; namely, someone who read the newsgroups to learn
> about relativity, and walked away thinking there were still BIG
Naw, hell, its so squared away everyone has time to focus on all the kooks,
instead of science.
Good luck.
Stephen Speicher
>
> I put
> together the following list, which others might find useful:
>
> Keith Stein - He makes a big deal out of the fact that...
> Ken Seto - This guy wrote an entire book about his theory...
> Henry Wilson - Has some silly algebraic argument involving...
> "androcles" - Agrees with Wilson on all the particulars...
> H.E.Retic - (ya get it, ya get it?!?!) Has written a manifesto...
> "spaceman" - Repeatedly asserts that SR effects are "optical...
>
>
> Did I miss anyone?
>
Ryker (rry...@fuse.net)
McCarthy (djm...@aol.com)
Nemesis (Nem...@nospam.com) (really Louis savain)
Winn (rbw...@mindspring.com)
Higginbotham (dwhi...@aol.com)
Orton (dorto...@aol.com)
G=EMC^2 Glazier (herbert...@webtv.net)
Vergon (VVe...@prodigy.net)
O'Barr (glo...@aol.com)
Eleaticus (Thnk...@concentric.net)
Stuckless (bast...@avalon.nf.ca)
Vind (si...@west.net)
That should keep you busy for a while. :)
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Pertti Lounesto
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Just A. Friend wrote:
>
> > I put
> > together the following list, which others might find useful:
> >
> > Keith Stein - He makes a big deal out of the fact that...
> > Ken Seto - This guy wrote an entire book about his theory...
> > Henry Wilson - Has some silly algebraic argument involving...
> > "androcles" - Agrees with Wilson on all the particulars...
> > H.E.Retic - (ya get it, ya get it?!?!) Has written a manifesto...
> > "spaceman" - Repeatedly asserts that SR effects are "optical...
> >
> > Did I miss anyone?
>
> Ryker (rry...@fuse.net)
> McCarthy (djm...@aol.com)
> Nemesis (Nem...@nospam.com) (really Louis savain)
> Winn (rbw...@mindspring.com)
> Higginbotham (dwhi...@aol.com)
> Orton (dorto...@aol.com)
> G=EMC^2 Glazier (herbert...@webtv.net)
> Vergon (VVe...@prodigy.net)
> O'Barr (glo...@aol.com)
> Eleaticus (Thnk...@concentric.net)
> Stuckless (bast...@avalon.nf.ca)
> Vind (si...@west.net)
David Rutherford (druth...@softcom.net)
Patrick Reany
and...@attglobal.net wrote:
Besides that fact that the ether fanatics here don't let
anyone not a regular here get a word in edgewise, thus
making their "contributions" to this NG complete
noise, to make matters worse, these people tend
to be ignorant, dogmatic, crude, crass, intolerant,
unrelenting, egotistical, and mean. There are few
exceptions. I want to see this NG finally be what I
wanted it to be when it broke off from sci.physics,
and that is to meet the needs of sincere students of
relativity. These ether people here are like a grumpy
neighbor who finds out that you're having a party
and he invites himself over to your party without an
invitation and then refuses to leave when the party
is over. He just doesn't seem to get it. He doesn't
belong there. Would sci.chemistry put up with nearly
80+% of the posts on it being dedicated to "proving"
that alchemy was right afterall?
This is the appropriate way to deal with the
ether theories on THIS NG: Just allow posters
to advertise their website that has some ether
stuff on it. Take the ether posts to alt.ether.
Patrick
Stephen Speicher
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
>
Thank you for this fascinating paper. I do not completely agree
with all that is said, but it has given me a great deal to think
about. Considering how well they have pegged some who post here,
you might think they actually read this newsgroup! :)
The funny thing is that, based on the paper's premise, those
incompetents here who most need to see themelves for what they
are, are precisely the ones who will not see themselves in the
paper.
franz heymann
If you regard a chronic inability to understand the meaning of the
sign of a speed or a velocity as being very little, I agree with you.
Even after he claimed to fix it, it is still there, hidden in another
place.
Yes
Ralph Sansbury - Who has observed that light propagates
instantaneously.
Refuses to understands that certain orbits which
he has calculated with
a very primitive algorithm are unstable
G Hammond MS - Who has found a scientific proof of the existence of
God
Donald Shead - Who insists on repetitively advertising his total lack
of understanding of
the simplest conceivable bits of classical physics
The list could be extended, but it is now surely long enough to stir
things up a bit.
I propose to lurk in the background for a while to see what happens.
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
That's right everyone,
take in this dufus's trojan horse.
A present from Troy.
<LOL>
dave orton
ahhhhh, bye bye pal:
Subj: unlawfull public slander
Date: 8/24/01 8:08:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DOrton3853
To: use...@cnn.Princeton.EDU
From: "Just A. Friend" <nob...@nowhere.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
Subject: Anti-SR kook primer (a resource for newbies)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:52:51 -0400
Organization: Erehwon
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <3B85A563...@nowhere.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: prebys00.princeton.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: cnn.Princeton.EDU 998614358 14018 128.112.86.26 (24 Aug 2001 00:52:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@cnn.Princeton.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Aug 2001 00:52:38 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
Did I miss anyone?
*******************************************************
think your clever?
you have shamed your school and country.
dave orton
dave orton
Date: 8/24/01 8:22:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: DOrton3853
To: Jerry Solomon; je...@compbio.caltech.edu
CC: s...@compbio.caltech.edu
From: Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Anti-SR kook primer (a resource for newbies)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:23:56 -0700
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.101082...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>
References: <3B85A563...@nowhere.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: photon.compbio.caltech.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <3B85A563...@nowhere.net>
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.10.101082...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>...
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Just A. Friend wrote:
>
> >
> > I put
> > together the following list, which others might find useful:
> >
> > Keith Stein - He makes a big deal out of the fact that...
> > Ken Seto - This guy wrote an entire book about his theory...
> > Henry Wilson - Has some silly algebraic argument involving...
> > "androcles" - Agrees with Wilson on all the particulars...
> > H.E.Retic - (ya get it, ya get it?!?!) Has written a manifesto...
> > "spaceman" - Repeatedly asserts that SR effects are "optical...
> >
> >
> > Did I miss anyone?
> >
>
> Ryker (rry...@fuse.net)
> McCarthy (djm...@aol.com)
> Nemesis (Nem...@nospam.com) (really Louis savain)
> Winn (rbw...@mindspring.com)
> Higginbotham (dwhi...@aol.com)
> Orton (dorto...@aol.com)
> G=EMC^2 Glazier (herbert...@webtv.net)
> Vergon (VVe...@prodigy.net)
> O'Barr (glo...@aol.com)
> Eleaticus (Thnk...@concentric.net)
> Stuckless (bast...@avalon.nf.ca)
> Vind (si...@west.net)
>
> That should keep you busy for a while. :) heh heh
Just A. Friend
dave orton wrote:
>> (snip)
> *******************************************************
>
> think your clever?
>
Not necessarily, but at least I can spell :)
Tom Potter
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101082...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
> >
>
> Thank you for this fascinating paper. I do not completely agree
> with all that is said, but it has given me a great deal to think
> about. Considering how well they have pegged some who post here,
> you might think they actually read this newsgroup! :)
>
> The funny thing is that, based on the paper's premise, those
> incompetents here who most need to see themelves for what they
> are, are precisely the ones who will not see themselves in the
> paper.
They?
Sounds paranoiac to me.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 90,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tom Potter
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:3B85AD3A...@asu.edu...
> It's no worse than the rest of the stuff on this NG.
> The only salvation for this NG is to moderate it
> and remove 99% of this ether stuff from it. The
> etherists can then find their right to free expression
> satisfied by starting their own NGs, such as
> alt.ether or alt.relativity.
The folks who like to be confined to conventional physics
already have their moderated newsgroup. (sci.physics.research)
This particular newsgroup has no censorship.
If you want to reinforce what you learned in school about physics,
and you don't want to be exposed to non-conventional ideas,
and if you like your posts, and the posts of others censored,
I suggest that you read sci.physics.research.
If you have a specific adversion to "ether stuff ",
or some other subject, use your filters.
Donald Shead
> but....
>
> Did I miss anyone?
"Just A. Friend" <nob...@nowhere.net>!
Etherman
> but....
>
> Recently I got an E-mail "offline". It was kind of disturbing
> because it was what we always
> worry about; namely, someone who read the newsgroups to learn
> about relativity, and walked away thinking there were still BIG
> problems and unresolved questions with it. After setting him right
> and giving him the usual list of experimental evidence, I put
> together the following list, which others might find useful:
>
Damn, I didn't rank a mention :-( I reject SR and GR because the
physicists supporting these theories fall all over themselves trying
to explain away all the observations that don't agree with the
theories (the biggest are probably galactic rotation curves and
electromagnetic radiation back-reaction).
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
"I tasted poison, when I drank the wine of fate."--Blind Guardian
dave orton
in your face dim wit.
i think you need a haircut.
ahhhhh, bye bye pal:
Did I miss anyone?
*******************************************************
think your clever?
you have shamed your school and country.
dave orton
clev·er (klvr)
adj. clev·er·er, clev·er·est
Mentally quick and original; bright.
dorto...@aol.com
Eric Prebys
Etherman wrote:
>
> "Just A. Friend" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:3B85A563...@nowhere.net...
> >
> > Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of myself,
> > but....
> >
> > Recently I got an E-mail "offline". It was kind of disturbing
> > because it was what we always
> > worry about; namely, someone who read the newsgroups to learn
> > about relativity, and walked away thinking there were still BIG
> > problems and unresolved questions with it. After setting him right
> > and giving him the usual list of experimental evidence, I put
> > together the following list, which others might find useful:
> >
> > Did I miss anyone?
>
> Damn, I didn't rank a mention :-( I reject SR and GR because the
> physicists supporting these theories fall all over themselves trying
> to explain away all the observations that don't agree with the
> theories (the biggest are probably galactic rotation curves and
> electromagnetic radiation back-reaction).
>
OK, I'll bite.
Actually, the disagreement with galactic curves comes straight
from Newtonian mechanics. It's not a test of SR or GR at all.
It merely shows there's a great deal of nonluminous matter out there.
As for "electromagnetic radiation back-reaction", the only place
on the entire web I could find that phrase was in an extremely
speculative string theory paper
http://jhep.cern.ch/archive/papers/jhep112000019/jhep112000019.pdf
where it's used to describe a very non-controversial inductive
coupling. I strongly suspect you haven't the slightest idea
what you're talking about.
'fraid you'll have to do better than that.
>
> --
> Etherman
>
> AA # pi
>
> EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
>
> "I tasted poison, when I drank the wine of fate."--Blind Guardian
--
---------------------------------------------------------
* Eric Prebys, Physics Department, Princeton University *
* 609-258-4910, FAX: -6360, Email: pre...@princeton.edu *
* WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~prebys/ *
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Speicher
>
>
> dave orton wrote:
> >> (snip)
> > *******************************************************
> >
> > think your clever?
> >
> Not necessarily, but at least I can spell :)
>
Poor spelling and poor grammar is often a hallmark of many of the
kooks on newsgroups, but much more important is the quality of
their thought, or lack thereof. Before you add him to your list,
you should check out
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/%7Ephysik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm
and judge for yourself.
Personally, I found "The True Laws of Real Gravitation" and the
"27 Postulates" were only outdone by "The First Quantum Theory of
Gravitation," which in my judgment is a classic.
More generally, I think all should read the paper from the
_Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_, for which "Uncle
Al" provided a URL. The title of the paper is "Unskilled and
Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." The authors, two
professors in the Department of Psychology at Cornell University,
make fascinating insights into the character and cognitive
competence of a certain type of individual, the traits of which
should be easily recognizable amongst some of the more bizarre
posters on newsgroups.
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Just A. Friend" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:3B85A563...@nowhere.net...
> >
> > Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of myself,
> > but....
> >
> > Recently I got an E-mail "offline". It was kind of disturbing
> > because it was what we always
> > worry about; namely, someone who read the newsgroups to learn
> > about relativity, and walked away thinking there were still BIG
> > problems and unresolved questions with it. After setting him right
> > and giving him the usual list of experimental evidence, I put
> > together the following list, which others might find useful:
> >
> > Did I miss anyone?
>
> Damn, I didn't rank a mention :-( I reject SR and GR because the
> physicists supporting these theories fall all over themselves trying
> to explain away all the observations that don't agree with the
> theories (the biggest are probably galactic rotation curves and
> electromagnetic radiation back-reaction).
>
I doubt you will find many who will assert that disagreement with
the standard theories of relativity is a sufficient condition to
label one a kook. I think the key element for kookhood is not
disagreement per se, but rather a person's self-induced ignorance
-- one who is impervious to reason and fact. Reasonable people
can argue over the significance and meaning of various facts, but
those who deny facts outright, and those who lack any basic skill
with logic, those are the ones who most would say that they
qualify as kooks.
Etherman
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:3B86A6A1...@princeton.edu...
In that limit GR and NG agree. It's certainly a viable test of GR.
So far no one has been able to provide a theory of nonluminous matter.
If you know of one, then let me know.
> As for "electromagnetic radiation back-reaction", the only place
> on the entire web I could find that phrase was in an extremely
> speculative string theory paper
> http://jhep.cern.ch/archive/papers/jhep112000019/jhep112000019.pdf
> where it's used to describe a very non-controversial inductive
> coupling. I strongly suspect you haven't the slightest idea
> what you're talking about.
Well, rather than doing a web search you might take a course in
electromagnetism. Most good textbooks should discuss the problem and
its equally troublesome "resolution."
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>"Eric Prebys" <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
>news:3B86A6A1...@princeton.edu...
>>
>> on the entire web I could find that phrase was in an extremely
>> speculative string theory paper
>> http://jhep.cern.ch/archive/papers/jhep112000019/jhep112000019.pdf
>> where it's used to describe a very non-controversial inductive
>> coupling. I strongly suspect you haven't the slightest idea
>> what you're talking about.
>
>Well, rather than doing a web search you might take a course in
>electromagnetism. Most good textbooks should discuss the problem and
>its equally troublesome "resolution."
>
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Stephen Speicher
>
> Etherman wrote:
> >
> > Damn, I didn't rank a mention :-( I reject SR and GR because the
> > physicists supporting these theories fall all over themselves trying
> > to explain away all the observations that don't agree with the
> > theories (the biggest are probably galactic rotation curves and
> > electromagnetic radiation back-reaction).
> >
>
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> Actually, the disagreement with galactic curves comes straight
> from Newtonian mechanics. It's not a test of SR or GR at all.
> It merely shows there's a great deal of nonluminous matter out there.
>
> As for "electromagnetic radiation back-reaction", the only place
> on the entire web I could find that phrase was in an extremely
> speculative string theory paper
> http://jhep.cern.ch/archive/papers/jhep112000019/jhep112000019.pdf
> where it's used to describe a very non-controversial inductive
> coupling. I strongly suspect you haven't the slightest idea
> what you're talking about.
>
I do not know whether or not "Etherman" knows what he is talking
about, but in standard theory a traveling particle actually
creates an electromagnetic field, and that field can then affect
the motion of the particle. This would be called a back-reaction,
and it is usually ignored as a simplifying assumption. Likewise
the back-reaction of radiation on the geometry of spacetime is
mostly ignored. There is some discussion of back-reaction by
Wald in his book _General Relativity_.
Tom Roberts
> Having said that, it would be nice to get rid of the people
> who really advocate ether theory.
No! Don't do it that way. rather just eliminate the people who
1) cannot read ordinary english.
2) cannot perform elementary algebra.
or
3) are impervious to arguments.
This would remove probably 90% of the "junk", leaving _rational_
discussions about ether theories intact. There are, admittedly, precious
few of the latter....
Note that none of those criteria are related to physics, or to the
content of someone's articles. They are about the attitudes and
abilities of posters, not their ideas. Admittedly there is a large
correlation between ether advocates and people who fail the above
criteria.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> The funny thing is that, based on the paper's premise, those
> incompetents here who most need to see themelves for what they
> are, are precisely the ones who will not see themselves in the
> paper.
The world is full of self-fulfilling prophecies. Idiots are too stupid
to realize they are idiots.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Eric Prebys
Etherman wrote:
>
> "Eric Prebys" <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
> news:3B86A6A1...@princeton.edu...
> >
> >
> > Etherman wrote:
> > >
> > > "Just A. Friend" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3B85A563...@nowhere.net...
> > > >
> > > > Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of
> myself,
> > > > but....
> > Actually, the disagreement with galactic curves comes straight
> > from Newtonian mechanics. It's not a test of SR or GR at all.
> > It merely shows there's a great deal of nonluminous matter out
> there.
>
> In that limit GR and NG agree. It's certainly a viable test of GR.
OK, I misunderstood. I didn't realize that you rejected Newtonian
gravitaion as well.
> So far no one has been able to provide a theory of nonluminous matter.
> If you know of one, then let me know.
Actually, there are many, MACHO's, massive neutrinos, stable
supersymmetric particles, et al, some flavor of all of which are still
allowed
by experiment, and all of which would be easier to accept than that
Newtonian gravitaion doesn't work.
>
> > As for "electromagnetic radiation back-reaction", the only place
> > on the entire web I could find that phrase was in an extremely
> > speculative string theory paper
> > http://jhep.cern.ch/archive/papers/jhep112000019/jhep112000019.pdf
> > where it's used to describe a very non-controversial inductive
> > coupling. I strongly suspect you haven't the slightest idea
> > what you're talking about.
>
> Well, rather than doing a web search you might take a course in
> electromagnetism. Most good textbooks should discuss the problem and
> its equally troublesome "resolution."
>
Now I understand. You're talking about conservation of 4-momentum
in EM radiation. True, this is an ugly calculation, and historically
one that people put a lot of time into. I've just never heard it
used as an argument *against* SR before.
While I guess the derivation could be labeled "troublesome" in some
respects, I have a hard time understanding why you see this as
an indictment of SR. Indeed, the non-relativistic
treatment (the Abraham-Lorentz model) had its problems, and in
particular
gave rise to the famous 4/3 problem in the electron mass. This only
went away with proper covariant treatment of the 4-momentum.
I suppose that you don't like the Poincare self-stress tensor, but its
details go away in the calculation, and at the end of the day, it's
probably just a manifestation of the fact that you're applying a purely
classical description to the electron, which is in fact something that
is
is a bit more exotic.
But again, I find it strange that you see this as an indictment of
SR. To turn the argument around, the fact that EM radiation obeys
relativistic kinematics has been well verified experimentally, so
what's really being tested in this calculation is our conceptual
understanding of the interaction of an electron with the classical
EM field.
-Eric
> --
> Etherman
>
> AA # pi
>
> EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
>
> "I tasted poison, when I drank the wine of fate."--Blind Guardian
--
Etherman
>
>
> Etherman wrote:
> >
> > "Eric Prebys" <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3B86A6A1...@princeton.edu...
> > >
> > >
> > > Etherman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Just A. Friend" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3B85A563...@nowhere.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of
> > myself,
> > > > > but....
> > > Actually, the disagreement with galactic curves comes straight
> > > from Newtonian mechanics. It's not a test of SR or GR at all.
> > > It merely shows there's a great deal of nonluminous matter out
> > there.
> >
> > In that limit GR and NG agree. It's certainly a viable test of
GR.
>
> OK, I misunderstood. I didn't realize that you rejected Newtonian
> gravitaion as well.
Of course I do. It's a failure as far as Mercury's orbit and the
gravitational deflection of light is concerned. I should hardly be
surprised that it fails elsewhere.
> > So far no one has been able to provide a theory of nonluminous
matter.
> > If you know of one, then let me know.
>
> Actually, there are many, MACHO's, massive neutrinos, stable
> supersymmetric particles, et al, some flavor of all of which are
still
> allowed
> by experiment, and all of which would be easier to accept than that
> Newtonian gravitaion doesn't work.
These theories posit particles that have never been observed and whose
properties and interactions are arbitrary. None explain the origin
and distribution of the particles. They fail to make correct
predictions. After they're forced to fit with galactic data they
don't agree with cosmological data.
> > Well, rather than doing a web search you might take a course in
> > electromagnetism. Most good textbooks should discuss the problem
and
> > its equally troublesome "resolution."
> >
>
> Now I understand. You're talking about conservation of 4-momentum
> in EM radiation. True, this is an ugly calculation, and
historically
> one that people put a lot of time into. I've just never heard it
> used as an argument *against* SR before.
I'm talking about the calculation of the motion of a charged particle.
An accelerating charge radiates so this must be factored in. The
result is a third order differential equation. This allows for a
particle to spontaneously accelerate to the speed of light
(asymptotically of course). This is only a slightly better result
that classical theory (which doesn't limit the speed). The classic
solution is to write the solution as an integral. This gets rid of
the troublesome solution, but requires that the acceleration now
depend on the past and future velocity. Leigh Page showed that
Coulomb's Law plus SR allows one to derive Maxwell's equations. So if
Maxwell's equations are wrong then either SR or Coulomb's Law (or
both) are also wrong.
Eric Prebys
dave orton wrote:
>
> "Just A. Friend" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<3B86537A...@nowhere.net>...
> > dave orton wrote:
> > >> (snip)
> > > *******************************************************
> > >
> > > think your clever?
> > >
> > Not necessarily, but at least I can spell :)
> >
> > > you have shamed your school and country.
> > >
> > > dave orton
>
> in your face dim wit.
>
Now *that*'s certainly a clever comeback!
-Eric
Charles Francis
together with advice to killfile or not respond to them, with the
purpose of reducing noise to acceptible levels.
In article <3B85A563...@nowhere.net>, Just A. Friend
<nob...@nowhere.net> writes
>
>Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of myself,
>but....
>
>Recently I got an E-mail "offline". It was kind of disturbing
>because it was what we always
>worry about; namely, someone who read the newsgroups to learn
>about relativity, and walked away thinking there were still BIG
>problems and unresolved questions with it. After setting him right
>and giving him the usual list of experimental evidence, I put
>together the following list, which others might find useful:
>
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Eric Prebys
Charles Francis wrote:
>
> I should like to see you maintain and regularly post this list of shame,
> together with advice to killfile or not respond to them, with the
> purpose of reducing noise to acceptible levels.
>
Such a list would ultimately get pretty long. In the SR case, these
people seem to fall into three generic classes, with some overlap:
"blissfully ignorant" - those who believe that SR still exists
primarily in the realm of gedanken experiments or as *tiny*
corrections to things like satellite frequency. Totally
unaware of the number of things that fall apart (by orders
and orders of magnitude) without SR. Some of these don't
know enough about scientific technique to know what tests
are possible or (even weirder) believe that everyone was
so convinced by Einstein that no one has bothered to do them-
even easy ones.
"conspiracy theorists" - these agree with the first group in
principle, but are aware of at least some of the experimental
evidence. Since contemplation of their navels has convinced
them that SR just *must* be wrong, the only solution is
that all positive results are fudged or totally fabricated,
and that abundant evidence for things like tachyons is
routinely suppressed. This has a lot in common with the
"lunar landing hoax" theory - except that it makes even
less sense. No one can explain why, with all the theories
that have come and gone over the years, everyone would agree
to "circle the wagons" around SR. Like all great conspiracy
theories, this one is very cosmopolitan, as it would have
to have involved at various times the complicity of Americans
and Soviets, Nazis and Jews, and even English and French, just
to mention a few.
"baroque tinkerers" - these ones are at least aware of the
experimental
evidence, but still know in their hearts that SR must be wrong,
so they invent elaborate "theories". These usually start with
Lorentz Ether Theory (LET), which Lorentz himself admitted was
totally ad hoc. They then go on to add a new effect to explain
each and every experimental result. In the end, you get something
is mathematically equivalent to SR, but "makes more sense". It's
a lot like throwing out Newtonian gravitation in favor of
a Ptolemaic solar system with lots and lots of epicycles.
Good to look out for, but hard to put in a killfile :)
-Eric
keith stein
> Keith Stein - He makes a big deal out of the fact that
> Maxwell believed EM waves propagate through
> a medium - which nobody disputes! As many
> people have pointed out, that was the most reasonable
> conclusion to come to with the evidence Maxwell had
> in hand. What Mr. Stein doesn't seem to realize is
> that Maxwell died (1879) before any evidence refuting
> this belief existed (Michelson, 1881, Michelson &
> Morely, 1887),
HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD eh?
THE NULL RESULT OF THE MICHELSON MORLEY EXPERIMENT
IS EXACTLY WHAT STEIN (AND MAXWELL) WOULD PREDICT !!!
Since a meter is the same length whether it points N-S or E-W, and light
travels relative to the air in the laboratory, there is no reason for the
fringes
to shift eh! The fact that so many idiots offer the MMX as evidence against
what Maxwell and me have been telling you, shows that you haven't got
a clue, and it certainly doesn't make me think that maybe Maxwell got it
wrong.
and long before Special Relativity
> (Einstein, 1905). This is his only real
> "evidence". Beyond that, he continually demands
> explanations, clarifications, experimental evidence,
> and mathematical tutelage, all of which have been
> given to him. He then comes up with amazingly stupid
> reasons to ignore it all. He believes, for example,
> that relativity experiments involving the GPS system
> are invalid because no one knows how to correct for
> the signal propagation delay, apparently not
> realizing that knowing the signal propagation delay
> is HOW GPS WORKS!!!
Keith Stein wrote:
"ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCRONISED CLOCKS,
WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE VELOCITY OF
THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER
THE CLOCKS ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION"
Please don't anyone tell me about the 'GPS'. Those clocks being compared
on GPS tests are 20,000 km apart. That's a long way from a "COMMON
LOCATION"
And if the best evidence you have that the SR twin effect is real is by
comparing clocks that are 20,000 km apart, then that does absolutely
nothing to convince me that previously syncronised clocks could really
register different times when reunited. In fact i'm damn sure they don't,
'cos there would have been overwhelming evidence by now if they did,
and you wouldn't have be offering this GPS nonsence were the clocks
are compared when TWENTY THOUSAND KILOMETERS apart eh!
keith stein
Ed Green
<snip>
> "baroque tinkerers" - these ones are at least aware of the
>experimental
> evidence, but still know in their hearts that SR must be wrong,
> so they invent elaborate "theories". These usually start with
> Lorentz Ether Theory (LET), which Lorentz himself admitted was
> totally ad hoc.
Hi Eric. I myself think that so-called
"Lorentz Ether Theory" is more of a
pole or a neglected antithesis in our
understanding than a distinct "theory";
it merely adopts the point of view that
all SR phenomena must be explainable
by calculation in a particular frame of
reference; or at least down to some
nub where we can't calculate anymore.
It doesn't fully "explain" SR, but it does
create a continuity between SR and
our ordinary understanding, and neglect
of this pole damages our understanding.
But don't listen to me: Bell said
essentially the same thing. And he
had the experience of asking the
theorists at CERN to answer a
simple question involving spaceships
and strings, and not quite receiving
the easy grace one would expect in
his answer.
By the way, I find the subject line
of this thread offensive. The only
thing worse than a net-kook is a
net-kook baiter. I am sure you
do not want to become a net-kook
baiter. Like druggies and narcs,
they may look like natural enemies,
but are really closer to symbiots.
Eric Prebys
Ed Green wrote:
>
> From: Eric Prebys pre...@princeton.edu
>
> <snip>
>
> > "baroque tinkerers" - these ones are at least aware of the
> >experimental
> > evidence, but still know in their hearts that SR must be wrong,
> > so they invent elaborate "theories". These usually start with
> > Lorentz Ether Theory (LET), which Lorentz himself admitted was
> > totally ad hoc.
>
> Hi Eric. I myself think that so-called
> "Lorentz Ether Theory" is more of a
> pole or a neglected antithesis in our
> understanding than a distinct "theory";
> it merely adopts the point of view that
> all SR phenomena must be explainable
> by calculation in a particular frame of
> reference; or at least down to some
> nub where we can't calculate anymore.
>
LET was originally conceived to apply ONLY
to Maxwell's equations. To be consistent
with experiment, it would have to be generalized
to all observed forces. This is perhaps not out
of line with the general concept of gauge theories, but
once you have done this, you have something which
is mathematically indistinguishable from SR, but adds the
assumption of an as-yet-unobserved medium or
at least an absolute rest frame. If we see evidence of
such a frame, then some form of LET will have to be applied.
> It doesn't fully "explain" SR, but it does
> create a continuity between SR and
> our ordinary understanding, and neglect
> of this pole damages our understanding.
>
> But don't listen to me: Bell said
> essentially the same thing. And he
> had the experience of asking the
> theorists at CERN to answer a
> simple question involving spaceships
> and strings, and not quite receiving
> the easy grace one would expect in
> his answer.
>
To fill in those not familiar with the question...
You have two spaceships tied together by a string.
They accelerate at the same rate along the direction
of the string with the same acceleration. Does the
string:
(a) Go slack?
(b) Break?
(c) Remain at the same tension?
It's a deceptively simple question. When you really look at the
details, it's quite a bitch. The accepted answer is that
the string breaks. The reasoning goes like this:
(1) In the lab frame, the spaceships are accelerating at exactly
the same rate, so their separation remains constant, yet the
length of the string contracts, so it must break.
(2) In the accelerating frame of the spaceships, the rear spaceship
is slightly deeper in an effective "gravitational well" so time
ticks slightly slower and the front spaceship steadily pulls
away,
and the string breaks.
You then have to reconcile this with the contraction of an extended
body,
which is a bit subtle. Basically, whenever you start dealing with
extended
bodies in SR, you have to bring in the fact that they are not "rigid",
but
rather held together by EM forces, all of which respect SR.
Now if you surprise someone - particularly someone really smart -
with this question, they're likely
to get defensive, and likely come up with a different answer (I know I
did).
We put it on our general's exam and in the end I think we accepted
any answer that was well thought out.
Of course this doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of
simple-sounding,
yet diabolically nasty problems, even in classical EM and ordinary
freshman mechanics.
BTW, how does LET get around this, since the transformations are exactly
the same?
> By the way, I find the subject line
> of this thread offensive. The only
> thing worse than a net-kook is a
> net-kook baiter. I am sure you
> do not want to become a net-kook
> baiter. Like druggies and narcs,
> they may look like natural enemies,
> but are really closer to symbiots.
Maybe a bit childish, yes, but believe it or not the motivation was
sincere (OK, up to a point). I really do worry that people look to
this group to get answers to honest questions and at first glance, they
get the idea that all this stuff is still really up in the air and
that people are still arguing about things that were laid to rest 100
years
ago. Of course the regular posters know who these guys are and, if
they engage them at all, it's usually strictly for fun.
As an educational tool, I think it's perfectly appropriate to gather
these arguments together and point out their fallacies.
Offensive? Perhaps, but personally I find it offensive for these
guys to get belligerent about subjects they clearly know nothing
about, and to consistently ignore any evidence or counterarguments
put in front of them.
If I started posting to a medical group my opinions about the
details of surgical procedures, and a doctor took it upon himself
to point out to the rest of the group that I didn't know
what the hell I was talking about, which of the two of us would
you describe as more "offensive"?
Robert J. Kolker
Lou Verdon wrote:
>
> If anyone believes that spacetime is not an aether, then now is
> the time to support that premise.
What physical-mechanical properties does space possess?
What is space made of, if it is a real substance, or is space
the primordial stuff of which everything else is made?
What experimental proof do you have that space is
substantial or is composed of some substance?
If a cannon ball does not need an elastic medium to get
from the muzzle to its target, why should photons need
a medium to get from their source to their target?
>
>
> Spacetime is positively an aether mediator. All of the
> attributes of spacetime are assigned and not one is measurable
> except by the attributes _assumed_ to be mediated by this
> aether.
Nice theory. When and where has this aether been postively
detected and identified. And please, quote me no metaphysical
proofs. I would like some honest to god verified experiment done
by human beings, not some metaphysical clap trap and swamp gas.
Bob Kolker
keith stein
> and...@attglobal.net wrote:
> > Patrick Reany wrote:
> > > The only salvation for this NG is to moderate it
> > > and remove 99% of this ether stuff from it. The
> > > etherists can then find their right to free expression
> > > satisfied by starting their own NGs, such as
> > > alt.ether or alt.relativity.
I do want to point out that i myself do NOT advocate "ether theory".
I ty to avoid the e word myself, because i think the word has been
used in so many different ways as to be meaningless. However i
do have another candidate for you to add to your list of crackpots
who DO believe in "ether".....
ALBERT EINSTEIN
"ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY"
".....According to the general theory of relativity space without ether
is unthinkable...... "
keith stein
> > Ether is going to keep coming up here even if that happens.
> > A lot of people posting legitimate questions here think that
> > SR IS ether theory. They don't understand the differences
> > between the two interpretations of the same experiments.
> >
> > Having said that, it would be nice to get rid of the people
> > who really advocate ether theory.
> >
> > John Anderson
>
> Besides that fact that the ether fanatics here don't let
> anyone not a regular here get a word in edgewise, thus
> making their "contributions" to this NG complete
> noise, to make matters worse, these people tend
> to be ignorant, dogmatic, crude, crass, intolerant,
> unrelenting, egotistical, and mean. There are few
> exceptions. I want to see this NG finally be what I
> wanted it to be when it broke off from sci.physics,
> and that is to meet the needs of sincere students of
> relativity. These ether people here are like a grumpy
> neighbor who finds out that you're having a party
> and he invites himself over to your party without an
> invitation and then refuses to leave when the party
> is over. He just doesn't seem to get it. He doesn't
> belong there. Would sci.chemistry put up with nearly
> 80+% of the posts on it being dedicated to "proving"
> that alchemy was right afterall?
>
> This is the appropriate way to deal with the
> ether theories on THIS NG: Just allow posters
> to advertise their website that has some ether
> stuff on it. Take the ether posts to alt.ether.
>
> Patrick
>
Gerry Quinn
>
>If a cannon ball does not need an elastic medium to get
>from the muzzle to its target, why should photons need
>a medium to get from their source to their target?
I always have to laugh at this fallacy.
If photons require an aether, obviously cannon balls do also.
- Gerry Quinn
Etherman
>
> > But don't listen to me: Bell said
> > essentially the same thing. And he
> > had the experience of asking the
> > theorists at CERN to answer a
> > simple question involving spaceships
> > and strings, and not quite receiving
> > the easy grace one would expect in
> > his answer.
> >
>
> To fill in those not familiar with the question...
> You have two spaceships tied together by a string.
> They accelerate at the same rate along the direction
> of the string with the same acceleration. Does the
> string:
> (a) Go slack?
> (b) Break?
> (c) Remain at the same tension?
> It's a deceptively simple question. When you really look at the
> details, it's quite a bitch. The accepted answer is that
> the string breaks. The reasoning goes like this:
> (1) In the lab frame, the spaceships are accelerating at exactly
> the same rate, so their separation remains constant, yet the
> length of the string contracts, so it must break.
Don't the ships contract as well?
Eric Prebys
Yes, they do, but if they are both accelerating at the same rate in
your reference frame, then clearly the distance between them remains
consant in your reference frame as well. Nevertheless, the length
of the rope must contract in your reference frame, so it evenually
breaks, or at least starts to exert a force pulling the rockets
together.
The next, seemingly paradoxical, question that arises is "Why then
does a single rocket ship (or any extended object) contract as it.
accelerates? Aren't the two ends accelerating at the same rate?"
The somewhat counterintuitive answer is "no". This is ultimately
because
there really are no fundamental,
extended objects, at least not above the Planck scale. If there were,
you could get all sorts of paradoxes very trivially. When you
accelerate
a rocket with a motor at one end, the force is conveyed to the rest of
the rocket via the interaction of the constituent particles, all of
which are bound by forces which respect relativity, so their overall
longitudinal scale will contract when viewed from the lab frame. If
you turn that around, you'll see that this means that in the lab frame,
the two ends of an extended object do NOT accelerate at the same rate,
otherwise it would not get shorter.
Weird, huh?
-Eric
> --
> Etherman
>
> AA # pi
>
> EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
>
> "I tasted poison, when I drank the wine of fate."--Blind Guardian
--
Robert J. Kolker
Gerry Quinn wrote:
You have it backwards. Photons do NOT require an aether
to go from here to there and cannon balls do not require
air to carry them. They would work just as well as in empty
space.
Bob Kolker
Dale A Trynor
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> Lou Verdon wrote:
>
> >
> > If anyone believes that spacetime is not an aether, then now is
> > the time to support that premise.
Most of the stuff I have seen concerning the aether involved the idea
that space itself could be used as a reference or preferred frame and I
haven't seen anything that would make me think that this could be
possible. I have to wonder if many of the people that talk about aether
might just be describing zero point energy, that is at least
acknowledged to exist and could also turn out to be the actual medium of
space itself. However without them pointing this out, forces one to
question their logic even more so.
>
>
> What physical-mechanical properties does space possess?
>
> What is space made of, if it is a real substance, or is space
> the primordial stuff of which everything else is made?
>
> What experimental proof do you have that space is
> substantial or is composed of some substance?
>
> If a cannon ball does not need an elastic medium to get
> from the muzzle to its target, why should photons need
> a medium to get from their source to their target?
Anyone that has seen my site will know that I have been arguing that
zero point energy is what determines the rate of time itself and if one
were to change it within small areas of space both time and the speed of
light would change within that area relative to us. For example the
hypothesis works well to also show the most likely properties of worm
holes and even examines how a very poor one just good enough for testing
might also be made and tested. It also goes on to look at how matter
should change in volume and if this were so then it could be said that
the zero point energy of a universe, also serves to put matter in its
place so that space can exist.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Spacetime is positively an aether mediator. All of the
> > attributes of spacetime are assigned and not one is measurable
> > except by the attributes _assumed_ to be mediated by this
> > aether.
>
> Nice theory. When and where has this aether been postively
> detected and identified. And please, quote me no metaphysical
> proofs. I would like some honest to god verified experiment done
> by human beings, not some metaphysical clap trap and swamp gas.
>
> Bob Kolker
You probably know all this already but for those who don't, look up also
Casimer plates, Lambs shifts and cosmological constant, plus lots of
other related stuff.
Space might not be empty after all.
Site needs a re write when I find time, at least its up.
www.alternatescience.com
Charles Francis
<pre...@princeton.edu> writes
>
>
>Charles Francis wrote:
>>
>> I should like to see you maintain and regularly post this list of shame,
>> together with advice to killfile or not respond to them, with the
>> purpose of reducing noise to acceptible levels.
>>
>
>Such a list would ultimately get pretty long. In the SR case, these
>people seem to fall into three generic classes, with some overlap:
>
> "blissfully ignorant" - those who believe that SR still exists
> primarily in the realm of gedanken experiments or as *tiny*
> corrections to things like satellite frequency. Totally
> unaware of the number of things that fall apart (by orders
> and orders of magnitude) without SR. Some of these don't
> know enough about scientific technique to know what tests
> are possible or (even weirder) believe that everyone was
> so convinced by Einstein that no one has bothered to do them-
> even easy ones.
We should not object to these, provided they will listen. People also
come on the newsgroup to explain to the less knowledgeable. It is the
ones who make the same false statements over and over again, and who
have it explained again and again why they are wrong, and are incapable
of accepting sense or fact and moving on. The trouble is well
intentioned posters respond, and try to get through to them, and it does
not work. All it leads to is exponentially increasing noise.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> >
>> >If a cannon ball does not need an elastic medium to get
>> >from the muzzle to its target, why should photons need
>> >a medium to get from their source to their target?
>>
>> I always have to laugh at this fallacy.
>>
>> If photons require an aether, obviously cannon balls do also.
>
>You have it backwards. Photons do NOT require an aether
>to go from here to there and cannon balls do not require
>air to carry them. They would work just as well as in empty
>space.
>
You don't seem to get it. If there is an aether, there is no empty
space, and your naive assumption that cannon-balls don't need a medium
is false. You are engaging in pure circular logic by assuming exactly
what you intend to prove.
- Gerry Quinn
josX
Stephen Speicher wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Just A. Friend wrote:
>> I put
>> together the following list, which others might find useful:
>>
>> Ken Seto - This guy wrote an entire book about his theory...
>> Henry Wilson - Has some silly algebraic argument involving...
>> "androcles" - Agrees with Wilson on all the particulars...
>> H.E.Retic - (ya get it, ya get it?!?!) Has written a manifesto...
>> "spaceman" - Repeatedly asserts that SR effects are "optical...
>> Did I miss anyone?
>
>Ryker (rry...@fuse.net)
>McCarthy (djm...@aol.com)
>Nemesis (Nem...@nospam.com) (really Louis savain)
>Winn (rbw...@mindspring.com)
>Higginbotham (dwhi...@aol.com)
>Orton (dorto...@aol.com)
>G=EMC^2 Glazier (herbert...@webtv.net)
>Vergon (VVe...@prodigy.net)
>O'Barr (glo...@aol.com)
>Eleaticus (Thnk...@concentric.net)
>Stuckless (bast...@avalon.nf.ca)
>Vind (si...@west.net)
<snip>
I wonder how much time it is going to take, before this list is not
the shitlist anymore, but the list of those who dared defy the esthablished
lies, half-truth's and outright debunking/intimidation.
Just like some old astronomers were once placed on don't-read, don't-believe,
ignore, hate, reject and/or even (litteral) kill lists, but are now elevated
to the status of heroes for that same reason alone.
So guys, how long is it going to take you to learn how to be an honest
scientist; and that an honest thought, and an honest string of logic, is
worth more than 10.000 books, all the colleges and self-proclaimed
universities in this world, and names of ppl long dead ?
Let me know when you've figured it out, because YOU are the problem on
this NG, not those that dare think for themselves and even dare post
it on the internet and discuss it, right or wrong.
...and yes, "special-relativity" is wrong. Not in the sense that it
has a slight error, but in the sense of failing to prove the premise
unto which it is build (making it an excersize in hallucionatory
logic).
Before you begin to study SR, make sure you agree with the premise
(which is: `Every light particle/wave travels with AN EQUAL speed, for
EVERY observer in the universe, (however they are moving with regard to
one another)').
regards,
Jos
--
Charles Francis
<da...@nbnet.nb.ca> writes
> I have to wonder if many of the people that talk about aether
>might just be describing zero point energy, that is at least
>acknowledged to exist and could also turn out to be the actual medium of
>space itself.
>Space might not be empty after all.
>Site needs a re write when I find time, at least its up.
>www.alternatescience.com
It is certainly the view of many field theorists that the vaccuum is
teaming with activity. But there is no rigorous version of field theory
on which this can be said in a definite precise way, and in fact there
is a great deal to say this does not make sense. Rather than thinking of
space as being empty, having nothing in it, think that if it is really
empty it must have no properties, and that having no properties it
cannot even be said to exist. Vacuum fluctuation diagrams are then just
a trick in the maths, not physical reality.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Charles Francis
<ger...@indigo.ie> writes
Bob's position was strictly logical and consistent. I can see no fallacy
for you to laugh at. Circular argument is necessary to understand the
motions of objects, be it photons or cannon balls, when the concept of
empty space is denied. In this case the circular argument leads to the
interference effects that we see in quantum mechanics, not to
inconsistency.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Robert J. Kolker
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> You don't seem to get it. If there is an aether, there is no empty
> space, and your naive assumption that cannon-balls don't need a medium
> is false. You are engaging in pure circular logic by assuming exactly
> what you intend to prove.
What aether? Where aether? Can you detect it? No? Then why do you
* assume * it?
Cannon balls can go thru air or empty space. They don't need no
steeeeenking aether.
Bob Kolker
Ed Green
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> I always have to laugh at this fallacy.
>>
>> If photons require an aether, obviously cannon balls do also.
>
>You have it backwards. Photons do NOT require an aether
>to go from here to there and cannon balls do not require
>air to carry them. They would work just as well as in empty
>space.
You miss Gerry's point entirely.
If photons required an aether, then
cannonballs would also because
cannonballs are made of matter
bound together by the electromagnetic
field.
Ed Green
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
Sigh. I see my 2001 version of the
screed "have we logically constrained
a second degree of freedom in the
Lorentz transformations" is likely
to fall on deaf ears, though some
utterance of yours or another gave
me a glimmer that you were not
among the logic blindered.
But here you show the handidcap in
pure form. Gerry Quinn did not even
assign a truth value to any statement
involving "aether". But he has expressed
himself much more clearly than I am
able to gloss him, so I am unlikely
to succeed where he failed.
dave orton
go provoke trouble elsewhere.
the shadow knows...
Eric Prebys <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote in message news:<3B86EAE2...@princeton.edu>...
Charles Francis
<null...@aol.com> writes
>>From: "Robert J. Kolker" bobk...@mediaone.net
>
>>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>>> You don't seem to get it. If there is an aether, there is no empty
>>> space, and your naive assumption that cannon-balls don't need a medium
>>> is false. You are engaging in pure circular logic by assuming exactly
>>> what you intend to prove.
>>
>>What aether? Where aether? Can you detect it? No? Then why do you
>>* assume * it?
>>
>>Cannon balls can go thru air or empty space. They don't need no
>>steeeeenking aether.
>But here you show the handidcap in
>pure form. Gerry Quinn did not even
>assign a truth value to any statement
>involving "aether".
But he did assign a false value to a true statement of Bob's, which is
what the argument was about.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
island
behind the stalemate between the "cranks" and the... "not so cranky",
(although sometimes very grouchy)... to the point that "public-enemy"
lists are being considered... while the foul stench of conspiracy weighs
heavy on the air. Personal attacks are at an all time... low, and these
newsgroups are just about three shades from being shot.
It also seems to me that there is a subtle conceptual distinction that
can be made that points out the flaw in the reasoning of both concerned
parties.
BOTH sides are equally correct, making both groups at least half wrong:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
"If a cannon ball does not need an elastic medium to get from the muzzle
to its target, why should photons need a medium to get from their source
to their target?"
You don't need an elastic medium to move particles between points in
space... BUT...
You do need a medium of water molecules, in order to wave water.
You do need a medium of cannon balls, in order to wave cannon'.
You do need a medium of mass, in order to wave massive particles.
You do need a medium of space-time, in order to wave mass-less
particles.
Bet ya'll extremists never thought of it quite that way, huh?
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
"What physical-mechanical properties does space possess?"
Space doesn't possess any properties.
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
"What is space made of, if it is a real substance, or is space the
primordial stuff of which everything else is made?"
Space is not made of anything, space is a void, or the lack of
some-thing.
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
"What experimental proof do you have that space is substantial or is
composed of some substance?"
What we have derived proof for, is that light will move at c in "space",
but what we have acutal measure for, is light that is being affected to
express massive characteristics over some minimal, null, level, of
geodesic curvature, even in deep RELATIVE "space".
We cannot directly measure light that is moving through "space". In
order to derive the speed of light in a vacuum, it is always necessary
to remove whatever interaction from the direct measurement, i.e.,
refraction, absorption/re-emission, local curvature... "G".
Light that is moving through "space" will not experience any such
interaction, and will not express massive and gravitational
characteristics.
There is no background interaction in "space".
Virtual particles don't "pop" into, and out of, tangible existence in
"space".
"Space" is an idealization.
island
Geez!
Etherman
"keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_6Uh7.390$zX1....@news1.cableinet.net...
> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote
> > and...@attglobal.net wrote:
> > > Patrick Reany wrote:
> > > > The only salvation for this NG is to moderate it
> > > > and remove 99% of this ether stuff from it. The
> > > > etherists can then find their right to free expression
> > > > satisfied by starting their own NGs, such as
> > > > alt.ether or alt.relativity.
>
> I do want to point out that i myself do NOT advocate "ether theory".
But you do advocate the hypothesis that one molecule of air can be a
medium for light waves.
Eric Prebys
josX wrote:
>
> I wonder how much time it is going to take, before this list is not
> the shitlist anymore, but the list of those who dared defy the esthablished
> lies, half-truth's and outright debunking/intimidation.
>
Now if you'd like to place a *wager* on that, we can talk.
It's one thing to "defy" the establishment. It's quite another to
"defy" experimental results, basic algebra, and simple logic.
> Just like some old astronomers were once placed on don't-read, don't-believe,
> ignore, hate, reject and/or even (litteral) kill lists, but are now elevated
> to the status of heroes for that same reason alone.
>
> So guys, how long is it going to take you to learn how to be an honest
> scientist; and that an honest thought, and an honest string of logic, is
> worth more than 10.000 books, all the colleges and self-proclaimed
> universities in this world, and names of ppl long dead ?
>
> Let me know when you've figured it out, because YOU are the problem on
> this NG, not those that dare think for themselves and even dare post
> it on the internet and discuss it, right or wrong.
>
> ...and yes, "special-relativity" is wrong. Not in the sense that it
> has a slight error, but in the sense of failing to prove the premise
> unto which it is build (making it an excersize in hallucionatory
> logic).
Basically, scientific theories NEVER "prove the premises onto which
they are built". The "premises" are either experimental results,
predictions of other theories, or even wild-ass guesses. The
new theories start from there and build. That's not "hallucinatory
logic". It's the way science works.
The point is, you choose the theory which has the fewest assumptions
or parameters to explain or predict the largest number of experimental
results. This is known as "Occam's Razor".
SR has one parameter: c, and really two assumption: the constancy of
c in all inertial frames, and the relativity of all inertial frames.
OK, you can add a third: the correspondence with Newton's laws at
small velocities. All the rest follows from pretty simple math.
For general relativity, add the equivalence of gravitational and
inertial mass and one more parameter: G. There the math is not
so simple.
Since it is based on these things, it can never *prove* them. As
such, relativity can be proven wrong, or at least not universally
applicable, if
(1) One of the premises is shown by experiment to be false.
(2) Relativity is found to have internal mathematical inconsistencies.
(3) Another theory comes along with even fewer assumptions (which is
hard to believe).
Since none of these have happened yet, relativity is still the
best theory on the block.
> Before you begin to study SR, make sure you agree with the premise
> (which is: `Every light particle/wave travels with AN EQUAL speed, for
> EVERY observer in the universe, (however they are moving with regard to
> one another)').
>
Nature isn't there to be liked or disliked, agreed with or disagreed
with. It is what it is. The fact is the ONLY test of scientific
truth is experiment.
Find a contradictory experiment, or a better theory. Then you can
talk. Just saying you don't like something is not refuting it.
-Eric
> regards,
> Jos
> --
Etherman
Why should it? Everything is getting shorter so that must include the
distance between the rockets.
> Nevertheless, the length
> of the rope must contract in your reference frame, so it evenually
> breaks, or at least starts to exert a force pulling the rockets
> together.
I'm skeptical :)
> The next, seemingly paradoxical, question that arises is "Why then
> does a single rocket ship (or any extended object) contract as it.
> accelerates? Aren't the two ends accelerating at the same rate?"
> The somewhat counterintuitive answer is "no". This is ultimately
> because there really are no fundamental,
> extended objects, at least not above the Planck scale. If there
were,
> you could get all sorts of paradoxes very trivially. When you
accelerate
> a rocket with a motor at one end, the force is conveyed to the rest
of
> the rocket via the interaction of the constituent particles, all of
> which are bound by forces which respect relativity, so their overall
> longitudinal scale will contract when viewed from the lab frame. If
> you turn that around, you'll see that this means that in the lab
frame,
> the two ends of an extended object do NOT accelerate at the same
rate,
> otherwise it would not get shorter.
>
> Weird, huh?
What I always thought was weird was that Einstein starts out with
rigid rods and then goes on to prove that rigid rods cannot exist.
Reductio absurdum?
Eric Prebys
Nope!! Think of the problem this way (all measurements in my frame)...
I have one rocket that starts at the origin and accelerates for a time
"t".
It is now a distance "L" from the origin. If I now start the rocket
at a point +"d" and let it accelerate for the same time, then clearly
by translational invariance it will be at a point "L"+"d". Now start
with two identical rockets at 0 and "d", accelerating in an identical
way, after a time "t" they will end up at "L" and "L+d", still
a distance "d" apart.
The fact is that when length contracts, it implies that in
the stationary frame, the two ends are NOT accelerating at the same
rate.
I *think* you can understand this in terms of the fact that it
takes the force at the back of the rocket a finite time to propagate
to the front of the rod or rocket. Someday I'll wade through the
details.
But, since the structure of matter is governed by Maxwell's eqs,
and these are manifestly Lorentz invariant, it has to work out
somehow.
Ultimately, this brings up the fact that standard SR problems deal
with frames or objects moving at a particular velocity relative
to one another, not the details of how they got to those velocities.
The details of accelerating frames are more advanced and ultimately
easier understood in terms of GR concepts.
> > Nevertheless, the length
> > of the rope must contract in your reference frame, so it evenually
> > breaks, or at least starts to exert a force pulling the rockets
> > together.
>
> I'm skeptical :)
>
I was pretty skeptical too, but I've discussed this one over enough
beers
that I think I'm pretty convinced.
Still, I'm not beyond being persuaded by a good counterargument (or
more beers).
> > The next, seemingly paradoxical, question that arises is "Why then
> > does a single rocket ship (or any extended object) contract as it.
> > accelerates? Aren't the two ends accelerating at the same rate?"
> > The somewhat counterintuitive answer is "no". This is ultimately
> > because there really are no fundamental,
> > extended objects, at least not above the Planck scale. If there
> were,
> > you could get all sorts of paradoxes very trivially. When you
> accelerate
> > a rocket with a motor at one end, the force is conveyed to the rest
> of
> > the rocket via the interaction of the constituent particles, all of
> > which are bound by forces which respect relativity, so their overall
> > longitudinal scale will contract when viewed from the lab frame. If
> > you turn that around, you'll see that this means that in the lab
> frame,
> > the two ends of an extended object do NOT accelerate at the same
> rate,
> > otherwise it would not get shorter.
> >
> > Weird, huh?
>
> What I always thought was weird was that Einstein starts out with
> rigid rods and then goes on to prove that rigid rods cannot exist.
> Reductio absurdum?
>
Well, the "length of rigid rod" is just a conceptual tool for the
separation of two 4-D points at a particular time in a particular
frame. Certainly, none of the math actually relies on their existence,
and in fact, the existence of a truly rigid rod - one where you
pushed on one end and the other end immediately moved - would cause all
sorts of problems and irreconcilable paradoxes.
> --
> Etherman
>
> AA # pi
>
> EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
>
> "I tasted poison, when I drank the wine of fate."--Blind Guardian
--
Uncle Al
>
> josX wrote:
[snip]
> SR has one parameter: c, and really two assumption: the constancy of
> c in all inertial frames, and the relativity of all inertial frames.
> OK, you can add a third: the correspondence with Newton's laws at
> small velocities. All the rest follows from pretty simple math.
>
> For general relativity, add the equivalence of gravitational and
> inertial mass and one more parameter: G. There the math is not
> so simple.
>
> Since it is based on these things, it can never *prove* them. As
> such, relativity can be proven wrong, or at least not universally
> applicable, if
> (1) One of the premises is shown by experiment to be false.
> (2) Relativity is found to have internal mathematical inconsistencies.
> (3) Another theory comes along with even fewer assumptions (which is
> hard to believe).
> Since none of these have happened yet, relativity is still the
> best theory on the block.
[snip]
That inertial and gravitational masses are indistinguishable is
subject to empirical falsification. One need only find two
masses that fall differently (within the rules of engagement).
Folks have seriously sought such for 400+ years, now accurate to
one in 10^13 and still unsuccessful. The postulate is in part
"regardless of composition, regardless of configuration (internal
structure)." NOBODY has looked at configuration. Physicists
lack the vocabulary to even talk about it. Chemists do
configuration. Not of our class, dearie.
So look at incommensurable test mass configurations already,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
What is the worst it can do, null to one in 10^13?
There is experimental evidence, Table VI, that an Equivalence
Principle chiral anomaly measurably exists. You'd think Eric
Adelberger, Riley Newman, Ramanath Cowsik, and Wei-Tou Ni would
be falling over themselves pushing enantiomeric lithium iodate
crystals into their Eotvos balances.
You would be wrong.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Etherman
>
>
> Etherman wrote:
> >
> > Why should it? Everything is getting shorter so that must include
the
> > distance between the rockets.
> >
>
> Nope!! Think of the problem this way (all measurements in my
frame)...
> I have one rocket that starts at the origin and accelerates for a
time
> "t".
> It is now a distance "L" from the origin. If I now start the rocket
> at a point +"d" and let it accelerate for the same time, then
clearly
> by translational invariance it will be at a point "L"+"d". Now
start
> with two identical rockets at 0 and "d", accelerating in an
identical
> way, after a time "t" they will end up at "L" and "L+d", still
> a distance "d" apart.
The same would be said of the thread. Each end must also move a
distance d.
> I *think* you can understand this in terms of the fact that it
> takes the force at the back of the rocket a finite time to propagate
> to the front of the rod or rocket. Someday I'll wade through the
> details.
Actually this does makes sense. Of course this is because of the
mechanics of the situation. So let's alter this a bit. Let's suppose
each molecule in the thread and ships has a little demon who guides
it. They each have a clock and initially they are all at rest. They
synchronize clocks and decide that at a predetermined time they will
all accelerate in the same manner. This eliminates the finite
propagation time that would clearly cause the thread to break. Since
there is no relative motion between any of the demons then they can
observe neither length contractions nor time dilations. The thread
cannot break because there is no contraction to cause a break.
Clearly the observer in the lab frame is observing the same situation.
If the thread doesn't break in the demons' frame it can't break in the
lab frame.
> Ultimately, this brings up the fact that standard SR problems deal
> with frames or objects moving at a particular velocity relative
> to one another, not the details of how they got to those velocities.
Unfortunately. But then again it is a kinematical theory.
> The details of accelerating frames are more advanced and ultimately
> easier understood in terms of GR concepts.
Actually, I always thought that GR made much more sense than SR.
> > > Nevertheless, the length
> > > of the rope must contract in your reference frame, so it
evenually
> > > breaks, or at least starts to exert a force pulling the rockets
> > > together.
> >
> > I'm skeptical :)
> >
>
> I was pretty skeptical too, but I've discussed this one over enough
> beers that I think I'm pretty convinced.
>
> Still, I'm not beyond being persuaded by a good counterargument (or
> more beers).
Hopefully I've supplied the former. If not then have a beer on me.
> > What I always thought was weird was that Einstein starts out with
> > rigid rods and then goes on to prove that rigid rods cannot exist.
> > Reductio absurdum?
> >
>
> Well, the "length of rigid rod" is just a conceptual tool for the
> separation of two 4-D points at a particular time in a particular
> frame. Certainly, none of the math actually relies on their
existence,
> and in fact, the existence of a truly rigid rod - one where you
> pushed on one end and the other end immediately moved - would cause
all
> sorts of problems and irreconcilable paradoxes.
This makes sense, but if you read Einstein's original paper he makes a
big deal about having real rigid rods and clocks.
Etherman
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3B893DFB...@hate.spam.net...
> Eric Prebys wrote:
> > Since it is based on these things, it can never *prove* them. As
> > such, relativity can be proven wrong, or at least not universally
> > applicable, if
> > (1) One of the premises is shown by experiment to be false.
> > (2) Relativity is found to have internal mathematical
inconsistencies.
> > (3) Another theory comes along with even fewer assumptions
(which is
> > hard to believe).
> > Since none of these have happened yet, relativity is still the
> > best theory on the block.
> [snip]
>
> That inertial and gravitational masses are indistinguishable is
> subject to empirical falsification. One need only find two
> masses that fall differently (within the rules of engagement).
The rules of engagment being that it's only true locally and that no
local experiment can exist.
> Folks have seriously sought such for 400+ years, now accurate to
> one in 10^13 and still unsuccessful. The postulate is in part
> "regardless of composition, regardless of configuration (internal
> structure)." NOBODY has looked at configuration. Physicists
> lack the vocabulary to even talk about it. Chemists do
> configuration. Not of our class, dearie.
>
> So look at incommensurable test mass configurations already,
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> What is the worst it can do, null to one in 10^13?
>
> There is experimental evidence, Table VI, that an Equivalence
> Principle chiral anomaly measurably exists. You'd think Eric
> Adelberger, Riley Newman, Ramanath Cowsik, and Wei-Tou Ni would
> be falling over themselves pushing enantiomeric lithium iodate
> crystals into their Eotvos balances.
>
> You would be wrong.
Why doesn't Uncle Al do this?
Stephen Speicher
How much time you got? Or, better yet, how much time is there?
Therein lies the answer to your question.
> Just like some old astronomers were once placed on don't-read,
> don't-believe, ignore, hate, reject and/or even (litteral) kill
> lists, but are now elevated to the status of heroes for that
> same reason alone.
>
Yes, these are warriors of science, all. Just like the great
scientists of the past who were suppressed by the church,
likewise the great warriors on this list are being suppressed by
the...er...suppressed...er...supp...
>
> So guys, how long is it going to take you to learn how to be an
> honest scientist; and that an honest thought, and an honest
> string of logic, is worth more than 10.000 books, all the
> colleges and self-proclaimed universities in this world, and
> names of ppl long dead ?
>
Very nicely put. "[M]ore than 10.000 books." I like people who
speak with great precision! Three decimal places, no less.
> Let me know when you've figured it out, because YOU are the
> problem on this NG, not those that dare think for themselves
> and even dare post it on the internet and discuss it, right or
> wrong.
>
No. Let me know when _you_ have figured it out. It is not
criticism of the standard theories which makes one rise to
kookhood; were that so I would step to the head of the line and
proclaim the title for myself. No, it is not criticism per se
which makes one a kook, but rather criticism based on
self-imposed ignorance, coupled with disregard for reason and
fact.
> ...and yes, "special-relativity" is wrong. Not in the sense
> that it has a slight error, but in the sense of failing to
> prove the premise unto which it is build (making it an
> excersize in hallucionatory logic).
Whatever that means. [Question: Why is it that almost every kook
lacks facility with both spelling and grammar? [Answer]
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
> Before you begin to study SR, make sure you agree with the
> premise (which is: `Every light particle/wave travels with AN
> EQUAL speed, for EVERY observer in the universe, (however
> they are moving with regard to one another)').
>
Ok, thanks for the tip.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregory L. Hansen
If there is an aether, it's perfectly possible for there to be no empty
space and cannonballs travel despite the medium, not because of it.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Gregory L. Hansen
Actually, I've often thought static forces were an interesting case for
aether theories. The lure of the aether is that if there are waves, then
"something must be waving"! Like sound waves in air, or water waves on
the ocean. But there is no static force of sound that can reach out and
hold an object stationary. An air current could, but that's another
matter that involves transfer and dissipation of energy, sources and sinks
of matter and a method to transport air from one to the other.
What of the aether? It could explain electromagnetic radiation, but the
aether theorist would have to do some gymnastics to explain the electric
and magnetic forces that electromagnetic radiation is suposed to be
composed. Maxwell's theory involved vortex tubes spinning through the
aether, with little balls rolling around in beteen the tubes.
Henry Wilson
You don't still believe that stuff do you?
Henry Wilson
>
>
>and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
>> Patrick Reany wrote:
>> >
>> > "Just A. Friend" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of myself,
>> > > but....
>> > >
>> >
>> > It's no worse than the rest of the stuff on this NG.
>> > The only salvation for this NG is to moderate it
>> > and remove 99% of this ether stuff from it. The
>> > etherists can then find their right to free expression
>> > satisfied by starting their own NGs, such as
>> > alt.ether or alt.relativity.
>> >
>>
>> Ether is going to keep coming up here even if that happens.
>> A lot of people posting legitimate questions here think that
>> SR IS ether theory. They don't understand the differences
>> between the two interpretations of the same experiments.
>>
>> Having said that, it would be nice to get rid of the people
>> who really advocate ether theory.
>>
>> John Anderson
>
>Besides that fact that the ether fanatics here don't let
>anyone not a regular here get a word in edgewise, thus
>making their "contributions" to this NG complete
>noise, to make matters worse, these people tend
>to be ignorant, dogmatic, crude, crass, intolerant,
>unrelenting, egotistical, and mean. There are few
>exceptions. I want to see this NG finally be what I
>wanted it to be when it broke off from sci.physics,
>and that is to meet the needs of sincere students of
>relativity. These ether people here are like a grumpy
>neighbor who finds out that you're having a party
>and he invites himself over to your party without an
>invitation and then refuses to leave when the party
>is over. He just doesn't seem to get it. He doesn't
>belong there. Would sci.chemistry put up with nearly
>80+% of the posts on it being dedicated to "proving"
>that alchemy was right afterall?
It certainly taught us a lot.
We leant that SR is a complete hoax.
>
>This is the appropriate way to deal with the
>ether theories on THIS NG: Just allow posters
>to advertise their website that has some ether
>stuff on it. Take the ether posts to alt.ether.
>
>Patrick
>
Henry Wilson
>and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>> Having said that, it would be nice to get rid of the people
>> who really advocate ether theory.
>
>No! Don't do it that way. rather just eliminate the people who
> 1) cannot read ordinary english.
> 2) cannot perform elementary algebra.
>or
> 3) are impervious to arguments.
that would only leave the anti-relativists.
>
>This would remove probably 90% of the "junk", leaving _rational_
>discussions about ether theories intact. There are, admittedly, precious
>few of the latter....
>
> Note that none of those criteria are related to physics, or to the
> content of someone's articles. They are about the attitudes and
> abilities of posters, not their ideas. Admittedly there is a large
> correlation between ether advocates and people who fail the above
> criteria.
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henry Wilson
>Subj: unlawfull usenet public slander
>Date: 8/24/01 8:22:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>From: DOrton3853
>To: Jerry Solomon; je...@compbio.caltech.edu
>CC: s...@compbio.caltech.edu
>
>From: Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu>
>
>On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Just A. Friend wrote:
>
>>
>> I put
>> together the following list, which others might find useful:
>>
>> Keith Stein - He makes a big deal out of the fact that...
>> Ken Seto - This guy wrote an entire book about his theory...
>> Henry Wilson - Has some silly algebraic argument involving...
>> "androcles" - Agrees with Wilson on all the particulars...
>> H.E.Retic - (ya get it, ya get it?!?!) Has written a manifesto...
>> "spaceman" - Repeatedly asserts that SR effects are "optical...
>>
>>
>> Did I miss anyone?
>>
Having been insulted thus, would the alternative thinkers on this NG like to
form an official union? As a united group we can really go places.
Thanks to our friends above, we already have the following names:
>
Keith Stein - He makes a big deal out of the fact that...
Ken Seto - This guy wrote an entire book about his theory...
Henry Wilson - Has some silly algebraic argument involving...
"androcles" - Agrees with Wilson on all the particulars...
H.E.Retic - (ya get it, ya get it?!?!) Has written a manifesto...
"spaceman" - Repeatedly asserts that SR effects are "optical...
Ryker (rry...@fuse.net)
McCarthy (djm...@aol.com)
Nemesis (Nem...@nospam.com) (really Louis savain)
Winn (rbw...@mindspring.com)
Higginbotham (dwhi...@aol.com)
Orton (dorto...@aol.com)
G=EMC^2 Glazier (herbert...@webtv.net)
Vergon (VVe...@prodigy.net)
O'Barr (glo...@aol.com)
Eleaticus (Thnk...@concentric.net)
Stuckless (bast...@avalon.nf.ca)
Vind (si...@west.net)
John Reid
David Rutherford.
Tom Potter.
(Others wishing to join, please advise)
Note: some of the above might not pass the entry exam.
One thing is certain. Without us, this NG would collapse under its own boredom.
Can you imagine the messages?
"
>Wasn't Einstein great?
>yes
>>yes. very great.
>probably even greater than that. A superior being perhaps.
>
>I want to go off in a spaceship at .99c so I can come back in 1000 years to see what has happened.
>>so do I.
>>>Can I come too? I'm very sexy.
or
>Isn't the big bang a wonderful explanation of everything?
>>Yes. Everything!
>There was nothing before it. Absolutely nothing.
>>Just nothing!
or
>I wish I was a photon. then I wouldn't grow old.
>>I'd rather be a neutrino.
or
>Einstein Statues for sale.
>Bronze, 1 metre, $100.
>Plastic blow up, nude, lifesize. With repetitive voice message, "c is constant".
>Ideal indoctrination tool. Batteries, clothes included. $200
>>>
or
>Can we have a debate?
>>No we all agree on everything.
>>>Oh, all right. Can we list all the things we agree on, then?
>Yes, that would be nice!
>what if we disagree about what we agree about?
>>we wont.
>>but we are already diagreeing about whether or not we might disagree on what we might agree on.
>When?
>>just then.
or
>can we turn relativity into a religion and get the tax breaks?
>well, Einstein was definitely a god.
>> definitely!
"
Henry Wilson
>
>
>Charles Francis wrote:
>>
>> I should like to see you maintain and regularly post this list of shame,
>> together with advice to killfile or not respond to them, with the
>> purpose of reducing noise to acceptible levels.
>>
>
>Such a list would ultimately get pretty long. In the SR case, these
>people seem to fall into three generic classes, with some overlap:
>
> "blissfully ignorant" - those who believe that SR still exists
> primarily in the realm of gedanken experiments or as *tiny*
> corrections to things like satellite frequency. Totally
> unaware of the number of things that fall apart (by orders
> and orders of magnitude) without SR. Some of these don't
> know enough about scientific technique to know what tests
> are possible or (even weirder) believe that everyone was
> so convinced by Einstein that no one has bothered to do them-
> even easy ones.
> "conspiracy theorists" - these agree with the first group in
> principle, but are aware of at least some of the experimental
> evidence. Since contemplation of their navels has convinced
> them that SR just *must* be wrong, the only solution is
> that all positive results are fudged or totally fabricated,
> and that abundant evidence for things like tachyons is
> routinely suppressed. This has a lot in common with the
> "lunar landing hoax" theory - except that it makes even
> less sense. No one can explain why, with all the theories
> that have come and gone over the years, everyone would agree
> to "circle the wagons" around SR. Like all great conspiracy
> theories, this one is very cosmopolitan, as it would have
> to have involved at various times the complicity of Americans
> and Soviets, Nazis and Jews, and even English and French, just
> to mention a few.
> "baroque tinkerers" - these ones are at least aware of the
>experimental
> evidence, but still know in their hearts that SR must be wrong,
> so they invent elaborate "theories". These usually start with
> Lorentz Ether Theory (LET), which Lorentz himself admitted was
> totally ad hoc. They then go on to add a new effect to explain
> each and every experimental result. In the end, you get something
> is mathematically equivalent to SR, but "makes more sense". It's
> a lot like throwing out Newtonian gravitation in favor of
> a Ptolemaic solar system with lots and lots of epicycles.
>
>
>Good to look out for, but hard to put in a killfile :)
>
>
> -Eric
But I have recently provided a simple proof that, for SR to be correct, there
must be absolute space. (call it an aether if you like - but I wouldn't).
In fact, SR is only correct for systems which are at rest in that absolute
space. That is when v=0
Only then does its definition of clock synching correspond with physical
reality. For systems not at rest, SR is only an approximation.
Eric Prebys
And this proof would be.... where, exactly? I have yet to see it.
Eric Prebys
Etherman wrote:
>
> "Eric Prebys" <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
> news:3B893B31...@princeton.edu...
> >
> >
> > Etherman wrote:
> > >
> > > Why should it? Everything is getting shorter so that must include
> the
> > > distance between the rockets.
> > >
> >
> > Nope!! Think of the problem this way (all measurements in my
> frame)...
> > I have one rocket that starts at the origin and accelerates for a
> time
> > "t".
> > It is now a distance "L" from the origin. If I now start the rocket
> > at a point +"d" and let it accelerate for the same time, then
> clearly
> > by translational invariance it will be at a point "L"+"d". Now
> start
> > with two identical rockets at 0 and "d", accelerating in an
> identical
> > way, after a time "t" they will end up at "L" and "L+d", still
> > a distance "d" apart.
>
> The same would be said of the thread. Each end must also move a
> distance d.
>
Not really. In the first case you're shifting an identical ship by
"d". In the second case case, you're talking about the motion of the
thread under the influence of a force at one end, which must, at the
very least be delayed by a time d/c before reaching the other end of the
thread.
> > I *think* you can understand this in terms of the fact that it
> > takes the force at the back of the rocket a finite time to propagate
> > to the front of the rod or rocket. Someday I'll wade through the
> > details.
>
> Actually this does makes sense. Of course this is because of the
> mechanics of the situation. So let's alter this a bit. Let's suppose
> each molecule in the thread and ships has a little demon who guides
> it. They each have a clock and initially they are all at rest. They
> synchronize clocks and decide that at a predetermined time they will
> all accelerate in the same manner. This eliminates the finite
> propagation time that would clearly cause the thread to break. Since
> there is no relative motion between any of the demons then they can
> observe neither length contractions nor time dilations. The thread
> cannot break because there is no contraction to cause a break.
> Clearly the observer in the lab frame is observing the same situation.
> If the thread doesn't break in the demons' frame it can't break in the
> lab frame.
>
Except that each molecule is being accelerated by the molecule next to
it,
subject to the rules of Maxwell's equations and Lorentz transformations.
> > Ultimately, this brings up the fact that standard SR problems deal
> > with frames or objects moving at a particular velocity relative
> > to one another, not the details of how they got to those velocities.
>
> Unfortunately. But then again it is a kinematical theory.
>
> > The details of accelerating frames are more advanced and ultimately
> > easier understood in terms of GR concepts.
>
> Actually, I always thought that GR made much more sense than SR.
>
The whole rocket/string problem *does* make more sense if you bring
SR into the problem. In that case, the clock on the rear rocket is
ticking at a different rate because it is in a deeper "gravitaional"
well, so the front rocket steadily pulls away.
--
Eric Baird
>Patrick Reany wrote:
>>
>> "Just A. Friend" wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe this is just flame-bait, and I should be ashamed of myself,
>> > but....
>>
>> It's no worse than the rest of the stuff on this NG.
>> The only salvation for this NG is to moderate it
>> and remove 99% of this ether stuff from it. The
>> etherists can then find their right to free expression
>> satisfied by starting their own NGs, such as
>> alt.ether or alt.relativity.
>>
>
>Ether is going to keep coming up here even if that happens.
>A lot of people posting legitimate questions here think that
>SR IS ether theory. They don't understand the differences
>between the two interpretations of the same experiments.
>
>Having said that, it would be nice to get rid of the people
>who really advocate ether theory.
>John Anderson
A small suggestion:
If the aetherist is a newbie, tell them that if they are talking about
_NON-particulate_ aether theory, that their objections have probably
already been been dealt with in depth by Einstein under general
relativity, and by other similar models, where the g[mu][nu]
effectively acts as an immersive signal-transmission medium.
("the medium is the metric"). That should shut them up <grin>
Tell them that Einstein recognised a philosophical problem with SR
whereby the metric controls without experiencing a back-reaction, and
that GR was devised partly with this in mind
("space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to bend")
Then give them a reference to the 1920 Leyden lecture where Einy talks
about "the aether of general relativity" ... but also tell them that
people who work on these problems /seriously/ avoid the word aether
like the plague because it just stirs up too much confusion and too
many futile historical arguments.
Chances are, they'll then go away feeling mollified, with the
impression that these scientist types actually do know what they are
talking about and they will probably never post on the subject again.
<grin>
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
PS: I don't think even our regulars could sustain a thread on the
subject of "Does the metric exist" or "Has the metric been disproved".
:-)
Eric Baird
wrote:
>Stephen Speicher wrote:
>> The funny thing is that, based on the paper's premise, those
>> incompetents here who most need to see themelves for what they
>> are, are precisely the ones who will not see themselves in the
>> paper.
>
>The world is full of self-fulfilling prophecies. Idiots are too stupid
>to realize they are idiots.
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
um ... this just works on so many levels
Eric Baird
wrote:
>...
>Besides that fact that the ether fanatics here don't let
>anyone not a regular here get a word in edgewise, thus
>making their "contributions" to this NG complete
>noise, to make matters worse, these people tend
>to be ignorant, dogmatic, crude, crass, intolerant,
>unrelenting, egotistical, and mean.
>... These ether people here are like a grumpy
>neighbor
Please assess previous passage for "grumpiness" ;-)
>who finds out that you're having a party
>and he invites himself over to your party without an
>invitation and then refuses to leave when the party
>is over. He just doesn't seem to get it. He doesn't
>belong there. Would sci.chemistry put up with nearly
>80+% of the posts on it being dedicated to "proving"
>that alchemy was right afterall?
The good bits of alchemy _are_ now what we call chemistry.
The bad bits have withered away.
People mock Newton's dabbling with "alchemy", but they forget that he
was in charge of the Royal Mint, and had to keep up to date on
possible gold-faking techniques that might be doing the rounds.
And Newton also produced some nice doodly diagrams on the possible
quantum structure of the atom, where its volume was divided up into a
fixed number of cells that could be inhabited or uninhabited to give
different chemical elements.
Newton risked a possible death sentence to work on this stuff, IMO its
not the sort of thing that deserves to be laughed at.
When people make disparaging comments about "magic", they tend to
forget that magic (in the european tradition) was actually
mathematics, physics, chemistry and herbalism as seen by ignorant
outsiders and the church (who were dead against people passing on any
knowledge that they didn't control) -- I think that "occult" bit with
the pentangle in the circle is a corrupted version of a motif used by
the old Pythagorean brotherhood.
If you imagine a 1920's mathematician working through Euclid, with a
bookshelf full of old tomes, wearing a professorial cloak and funny
hat, scratching circles and lines in the sand with a stick (or in
chalk on a stone floor) and muttering greek letters and arabic words
and names of long-dead predecessors to try to summon up the answer to
a problem then that's the old cliched magician image, isn't it?
A.. B.. C.. D.. abraCADabra ...
This is the stuff that the Church used to execute people for doing, so
I think its a bit depressing that so many science folk have been
conned into taking up the old church view of alchemy and suchlike.
Remember, this was the religious people talking about US.
=Erk= (eric baird)
Eric Baird
wrote:
>"Just A. Friend" wrote:
>>
>The first test of a a crackpot is simple enough for an American
>zero-goal education graduate to successfully perform: Crackpots
>don't have literature citations (footnotes). That is 95% of the
>battle right there. You can tell a jackass by its profile long
>before you suffer its content.
Point: Einstein's 1905 "electrodynamics" paper doesn't have literature
citations.
=Erk= Eric Baird
Eric Baird
>> >
>> >If a cannon ball does not need an elastic medium to get
>> >from the muzzle to its target, why should photons need
>> >a medium to get from their source to their target?
>>
>>
>> If photons require an aether, obviously cannon balls do also.
>
>You have it backwards. Photons do NOT require an aether
>to go from here to there and cannon balls do not require
>air to carry them. They would work just as well as in empty
>space.
... except that under GR, one can argue that "empty space" is a
contradiction.
If the region contains gravitational parameters that relate to the
cannonball, then it isn't empty. On the other hand, if the
cannonball's field parameters can't enter the region, the cannonball
can't either.
If a field path does not exist, then arguably the correponding spatial
path can't exist either, and how do we know if a field path exists
unless it is already occupied by a field ...
If a "direction" isn't already carrying information, then how can we
say that the direction exists? How can you throw a cannonball in a
direction that nobody has seen and nobody can point to?
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
Eric Baird
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Lou Verdon wrote:
>> If anyone believes that spacetime is not an aether, then now is
>> the time to support that premise.
>
>What physical-mechanical properties does space possess?
Density, and the ability to support various physical distortions.
Transmission of acceleration forces between bodies (frame-dragging).
>What is space made of, if it is a real substance, or is space
>the primordial stuff of which everything else is made?
fairly primordial.
>What experimental proof do you have that space is
>substantial or is composed of some substance?
The word "substance" would have to be carefully defined.
>If a cannon ball does not need an elastic medium to get
>from the muzzle to its target, why should photons need
>a medium to get from their source to their target?
"Medium" is literally "that which is between".
According to Einstein, the gravitational field does not just describe
spacetime, it /is/ spacetime. Without the field (said AE), space
itself does not exist.
>> Spacetime is positively an aether mediator. All of the
>> attributes of spacetime are assigned and not one is measurable
>> except by the attributes _assumed_ to be mediated by this
>> aether.
>
>Nice theory. When and where has this aether been postively
>detected and identified.
>And please, quote me no metaphysical
>proofs. I would like some honest to god verified experiment done
>by human beings, not some metaphysical clap trap and swamp gas.
>Bob Kolker
Well, gravity-wave experiments have been a bit problematic, but i
think that's the class of experiment that you are looking for.
Gravity Probe B is designed to demonstrate the effect where a rotating
body "drags space" around with it.
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
Dramar Ankalle
Eric Baird <eric_...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3b89ae1b...@news.beta.compuserve.com...
<snip>
>
> This is the stuff that the Church used to execute people for doing, so
> I think its a bit depressing that so many science folk have been
> conned into taking up the old church view of alchemy and suchlike.
>
> Remember, this was the religious people talking about US.
>
> =Erk= (eric baird)
Jerks.
They should be run over by Hammonds HARLEY while trying to line up their
SIGHTS on POINTS while in a GRAVITY situation and I am sure an AUDIENCE
would CHEER wildly if you recorded such an event.
Uncle Al
Neither did Newton's 1687 "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia
Mathematica." Check your wristwatch - it's the year 2001.
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Baird wrote:
>
> Point: Einstein's 1905 "electrodynamics" paper doesn't have literature
> citations.
But it wasn't written in all Caps either.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Baird wrote:
>
> ... except that under GR, one can argue that "empty space" is a
> contradiction.
As in molecules and atoms. Strictly speaking space is not
empty, but the density of material between planets and
other massive bodies is extremely low.
Bob Kolker
Gerry Quinn
>In article <pi3i7.4714$s5.5...@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn
>>
>>space, and your naive assumption that cannon-balls don't need a medium
>>is false. You are engaging in pure circular logic by assuming exactly
>>what you intend to prove.
>
>for you to laugh at. Circular argument is necessary to understand the
>motions of objects, be it photons or cannon balls, when the concept of
>empty space is denied. In this case the circular argument leads to the
>interference effects that we see in quantum mechanics, not to
>inconsistency.
>
A circle of mutually consistent statements is fine, but "circular
argument" means the fallacy involved in believing that the mutual
consistency of such a circle proves the truth of terms in the circle.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>In article <pi3i7.4714$s5.5...@news.indigo.ie>,
>Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>>In article <3B8842EF...@mediaone.net>, "Robert J. Kolker"
>>You don't seem to get it. If there is an aether, there is no empty
>>space, and your naive assumption that cannon-balls don't need a medium
>>is false. You are engaging in pure circular logic by assuming exactly
>>what you intend to prove.
>
>If there is an aether, it's perfectly possible for there to be no empty
>space and cannonballs travel despite the medium, not because of it.
Not really. Any viable (at least classically) aether theory requires
that all so-far measurable phenomena reduce to vibration in the aether.
Cannon-balls, after all, are made - at least in part - out of photons.
- Gerry Quinn
Charles Francis
<ger...@indigo.ie> writes
I think this distinguishes a consistent circular argument in mathematics
from one in physics. In mathematics a consistent circular argument fails
to prove its own truth. In physics we also have empirical evidence, and
that can, and does in the case of qm, establish the truth of the circle.
The interference effects clearly come from somewhere, the notion of
physical waves and instantaneous collapse is untenable. But the
circularity involved in the fact that the only definition of distance is
by comparison of other distance (not to absolute space) leads directly
to the interference effects which we observe, and to me that does
establish its truth.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Charles Francis
<HWilson@?.?.?> writes
>>>
>Having been insulted thus, would the alternative thinkers on this NG like to
>form an official union? As a united group we can really go places.
Actually it would be a very good thing if you did form a separate
newsgroup, since you do not wish to discuss physics as physicists
understand it, and since this is the main physics ng. I believe
alt.sci.physics.new-theories was introduced precisely for alternate
thinkers such as yourselves. And if you don't like it there, why not, do
exactly as you say, form a new group. There are enough of you.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Ken Seto
>
>
> josX wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how much time it is going to take, before this list is not
> > the shitlist anymore, but the list of those who dared defy the
esthablished
> > lies, half-truth's and outright debunking/intimidation.
> >
>
>
> It's one thing to "defy" the establishment. It's quite another to
> "defy" experimental results, basic algebra, and simple logic.
>
>
> > Just like some old astronomers were once placed on don't-read,
don't-believe,
> > ignore, hate, reject and/or even (litteral) kill lists, but are now
elevated
> > to the status of heroes for that same reason alone.
> >
> > scientist; and that an honest thought, and an honest string of logic, is
> > worth more than 10.000 books, all the colleges and self-proclaimed
> > universities in this world, and names of ppl long dead ?
> >
> > this NG, not those that dare think for themselves and even dare post
> > it on the internet and discuss it, right or wrong.
> >
> > has a slight error, but in the sense of failing to prove the premise
> > unto which it is build (making it an excersize in hallucionatory
> > logic).
>
> they are built". The "premises" are either experimental results,
> predictions of other theories, or even wild-ass guesses. The
> new theories start from there and build. That's not "hallucinatory
> logic". It's the way science works.
>
> The point is, you choose the theory which has the fewest assumptions
> or parameters to explain or predict the largest number of experimental
> results. This is known as "Occam's Razor".
>
> SR has one parameter: c, and really two assumption: the constancy of
> c in all inertial frames, and the relativity of all inertial frames.
> OK, you can add a third: the correspondence with Newton's laws at
> small velocities. All the rest follows from pretty simple math.
>
> For general relativity, add the equivalence of gravitational and
> inertial mass and one more parameter: G. There the math is not
> so simple.
>
> Since it is based on these things, it can never *prove* them. As
> such, relativity can be proven wrong, or at least not universally
> applicable, if
> (1) One of the premises is shown by experiment to be false.
> (2) Relativity is found to have internal mathematical inconsistencies.
> (3) Another theory comes along with even fewer assumptions (which is
> hard to believe).
> Since none of these have happened yet, relativity is still the
> best theory on the block.
>
> > (which is: `Every light particle/wave travels with AN EQUAL speed, for
> > EVERY observer in the universe, (however they are moving with regard to
> > one another)').
> >
>
> with. It is what it is. The fact is the ONLY test of scientific
> truth is experiment.
>
> Find a contradictory experiment, or a better theory. Then you can
> talk. Just saying you don't like something is not refuting it.
I did find such a theory. It's called "Doppler Relativity Theory" (DRT). aA
full description of DRT is in my website
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
DRT includes SR as a subset. It's equations are valid in all enviroments. It
gives the same valid predictions as GR but without the following problematic
prediction of GR:
1. GR predicts a lower than observed expansion rate of the universe.
2. GR predicts simgularities.
3. GR predicts the wrong galactic motion
4. Pioneer deviated from the predicted path of GR.
5. Young age of the universe compared to its oldest stars.
BTW DRT is approved for publication in the peer reviewed journal "Galilean
Electrodynamics"---in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue.
BTW I also have two proposed experiments that are capable of detecting
absolute motion. These experiment will confirm the existence of a light
medium and thus refute the bogus claim of SR that the ether doesn't exist.
These two experiments are published in the Peer review journal
"Episteme"---the April, 2001 issue.
Ken Seto
dave orton
y'all have a right to contact the entire staff of cal tech about this.
keep at it til you are fully compensated for damages.
some of you should have endless court cases for reasons that are quite evident.
only act thru a good and very legal attorney.
HWilson@.. (Henry Wilson) wrote in message news:<3b89856...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>...
> On 24 Aug 2001 05:24:04 -0700, dorto...@aol.com (dave orton) wrote:
>
> >Subj: unlawful usenet public slander
haaaaaa, the forum is also a good joke page. why be glum. physics is fun.
the work-a-day types aren't smiling though. their isp's time them out.
those flunkies each and all have supervisors you can contact.
they have acted out of fear and professional jealousy.
time to show em who the bosses are.
i do it by laughing at em. they don't realize how backward they are.
my grandson owns a successful lab.
Ed Green
Luckily, Jim Carr is away, so we
can continue this discussion in
sci.physics. Shhhh...... ;)
>"Eric Prebys" <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote in message...
>> Etherman wrote:
>> > "Eric Prebys" <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote in ...
>> > > To fill in those not familiar with the question...
>> > > You have two spaceships tied together by a string.
>> > > They accelerate at the same rate along the direction
>> > > of the string with the same acceleration. Does the
>> > > string:
>> > > (a) Go slack?
>> > > (b) Break?
>> > > (c) Remain at the same tension?
>> > > It's a deceptively simple question. When you really look at the
>> > > details, it's quite a bitch.
It's simple if you know what you
are doing.
>>>> The accepted answer is that
>> > > the string breaks.
More than the "accepted" answer,
it also happens to be the correct
answer. I see there is still some
doubt about this in the hallowed
precincts...
>>>>The reasoning goes like this:
>> > > (1) In the lab frame, the spaceships are accelerating at
>exactly
>> > > the same rate,
Yes. Right so far.
>>>>>so their separation remains constant, yet
>the
>> > > length of the string contracts, so it must break.
Er... not quite, or at least not presented
clearly enough to compell belief.
In the lab frame the space ships light
off simultaneously and accelerate at
identical rates. Hence by simple
integration of the kinematic equations
of motion their separation remains
constant in the lab frame.
Obviously true.
Now therefore the length of the string,
again as seen in the lab frame, must
remain constant, say "L".
Obviously true.
However, we know that at some
velocity in the lab frame, the unmolested
string flying through space should really
be measured to have length .9L, though
in its rest frame the length is still L.
OK. If an object of length L in its rest
frame is measured to have length .9L
in the lab frame, what must be the
rest length of an object moving
at the same velocity measured to
have length L in the lab frame?
("Jeopardy" clock noises).
Final answers... (1/.9)L ~ 1.1L !
Well, there you have it, the string is
streched. Eventually it will break.
>> > Don't the ships contract as well?
Irrelevant. Can be considered point
masses here..
>>
>> Yes, they do, but if they are both accelerating at the same rate in
>> your reference frame, then clearly the distance between them remains
>> consant in your reference frame as well.
>
>Why should it? Everything is getting shorter so that must include the
>distance between the rockets.
The distance is measured in the lab
frame. The distance is between two
points taking trajectories as described
by kinematic equations in the lab frame.
I use "kinematic" for a reason: it means
determined solely by the velocity and
acceleration of these points in the lab
frame. We are entitled to integrate
equations of motion in a fixed frame.
There is no further "correction" needed
to measure the distance between two
points tracked in a given frame.
>> Nevertheless, the length
>> of the rope must contract in your reference frame, so it evenually
>> breaks, or at least starts to exert a force pulling the rockets
>> together.
>
>I'm skeptical :)
The only mysterious question here,
he said magisterially, is why the
simple analysis seems mysterious.
It must be that a rich history of
speaking words like "perspective"
and a tradition that relativistic
length contractions are not "real"
in an unspecified sense leads us
to doubt any real consequence of
length contraction. Yet the thing is
blindingly simple: If an object of instrinsic
length L is measured to be of length
aL under some conditions, a < 1, and
if the factor "a" is the same for all objects,
then if we measure an object to be of
length L _under those same conditions_
it must in fact be of intrinsic length L/a.
Simple ratios. No relativity needed.
In particular this simple reasoning
applies to that same object of intrinsic
length L which we _should_ measure
to be of length aL, and if we mechanically
constrain it to be meausred of length L,
then we must be stretching it.
>> The next, seemingly paradoxical, question that arises is "Why then
>> does a single rocket ship (or any extended object) contract as it.
>> accelerates? Aren't the two ends accelerating at the same rate?"
>> The somewhat counterintuitive answer is "no". This is ultimately
>> because there really are no fundamental,
>> extended objects, at least not above the Planck scale.
Oh, we don't have to get that fancy.
And why "at the Planck scale"? Does
relativity break down?
I realize this is a typical tack to wonder
about the details of acceleration, and
maybe we have to go that road to
complete our understanding, but a
simpler first level is to forget acceleration
altogether and simply consider uniform
states of motion. No matter how an
object was accelerated left to itself
at velocity v in the lab frame it _wants_
to be seen as suitably length contracted.
And if we mechanically thwart this then
we must be stressing it in its own rest
frame. If we do not mechanically thwart
it, say by only pushing on one end,
then eventually it will settle down to the
appropriate rest configuration at its new
velocity in the lab frame.
The same reasoning applies to the
Ehrenfest disk, which is sort of a
continuum mechanics version of the
Bell spaceship problem.
Crank cap on: It should be a source
of embarrassment to the community
that simple problems in relativistic
dynamics admit of fundamental
conceptual doubt on levels several
steps removed from the freshman.
Whenever we punt on understanding
we damage our understanding, and
the gradual tolerance of incongruity
deforms it. It is wisdom not to deform
the world to meet our understanding,
but it is not therefore widsom to deform
our understanding to meet the world
when we have not figured out a
correct mapping; so that it eventually
snaps like a string and we are left
inspecting the broken ends, saying
we have made it fit.
If we can't put together the puzzle, a
simple "I don't know" will suffice.
Ed Green
>I have one rocket that starts at the origin and accelerates for a time
>"t".
>It is now a distance "L" from the origin. If I now start the rocket
>at a point +"d" and let it accelerate for the same time, then clearly
>by translational invariance it will be at a point "L"+"d". Now start
>with two identical rockets at 0 and "d", accelerating in an identical
>way, after a time "t" they will end up at "L" and "L+d", still
>a distance "d" apart.
Dead on.
>The fact is that when length contracts, it implies that in
>the stationary frame, the two ends are NOT accelerating at the same
>rate.
If we insist on asking how the body
got to that state of motion from some
other state of motion, yes.
>I *think* you can understand this in terms of the fact that it
>takes the force at the back of the rocket a finite time to propagate
>to the front of the rod or rocket.
I admit I don't fully understand this point.
>Someday I'll wade through the
>details.
>
>But, since the structure of matter is governed by Maxwell's eqs,
>and these are manifestly Lorentz invariant, it has to work out
>somehow.
Careful. You will become a dreaded
"Lorentz Etherist".
>Ultimately, this brings up the fact that standard SR problems deal
>with frames or objects moving at a particular velocity relative
>to one another, not the details of how they got to those velocities.
Dead on.
>The details of accelerating frames are more advanced and ultimately
>easier understood in terms of GR concepts.
A few clicks off, I think.
GR deals with gravity. SR is quite able
to handle accelerated objects and even
accelerated frames, if we cared to
reformulate the equations to deal with
them. SR deals with the physics of
flat spacetime, and that certainly
includes objects subject to forces and
accelerated within flat space time.
>> > Nevertheless, the length
>> > of the rope must contract in your reference frame, so it evenually
>> > breaks, or at least starts to exert a force pulling the rockets
>> > together.
>>
>> I'm skeptical :)
>>
>
>I was pretty skeptical too, but I've discussed this one over enough
>beers
>that I think I'm pretty convinced.
>
>Still, I'm not beyond being persuaded by a good counterargument (or
>more beers).
This merely illustrated my point:
vaguely embarrasing understanding
is shared over beers. And yet this
is a simple problem is relativistic
kinematics. It should be no more
mysterious than conservation of
momentum, and completely mainstream
>
>> > The next, seemingly paradoxical, question that arises is "Why then
>> > does a single rocket ship (or any extended object) contract as it.
>> > accelerates? Aren't the two ends accelerating at the same rate?"
>> > The somewhat counterintuitive answer is "no". This is ultimately
>> > because there really are no fundamental,
>> > extended objects, at least not above the Planck scale. If there
>> were,
>> > you could get all sorts of paradoxes very trivially. When you
>> accelerate
>> > a rocket with a motor at one end, the force is conveyed to the rest
>> of
>> > the rocket via the interaction of the constituent particles, all of
>> > which are bound by forces which respect relativity, so their overall
>> > longitudinal scale will contract when viewed from the lab frame. If
>> > you turn that around, you'll see that this means that in the lab
>> frame,
>> > the two ends of an extended object do NOT accelerate at the same
>> rate,
>> > otherwise it would not get shorter.
>> >
>> > Weird, huh?
>>
>> What I always thought was weird was that Einstein starts out with
>> rigid rods and then goes on to prove that rigid rods cannot exist.
>> Reductio absurdum?
>>
>
>Well, the "length of rigid rod" is just a conceptual tool for the
>separation of two 4-D points at a particular time in a particular
>frame. Certainly, none of the math actually relies on their existence,
>and in fact, the existence of a truly rigid rod - one where you
>pushed on one end and the other end immediately moved - would cause all
>sorts of problems and irreconcilable paradoxes.
>
Tom Potter
"Eric Baird" <eric_...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3b899b65...@news.beta.compuserve.com...
I wonder if the people who call or imply
that folks are idiots, kooks, crackpots, and incompetents,
realize that they are idiots,
or if they "are too stupid to realize they are idiots"?
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 90,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tom Potter
"Just A. Friend" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3B85A563...@nowhere.net...
>
> Did I miss anyone?
It seems to me,
that people who post anonymously,
and think that "they" (Kooks)
are broadcasting bad information,
which is harming them,
and perform antisocial acts (Name calling)
against these "theys",
need professional help.
As Shakespeare said,
"I think the man protests too much."
Tom Potter
I was going to make up a list of the people who
identify themselves with the establishment,
and use the security they gain with this identification,
as a pulpit from which to attack good folks,
( A sort of anti-anti-kook primer. )
but
when I couldn't come up with names, I realized,
that whereas I concentrate on looking for ideas,
humor, and new information in the newsgroups,
that some people look for things they can ego trip on.
One has to wonder,
if the people who see "kooks" in the newsgroups,
rather than ideas and humor, and information,
have psychological problems,
and should seek professional help?
It may be that math, physics, and the Internet
is causing a pandemic of nut cases.
Look at the symptoms.
The anti-kooks are obsessed with "they",
putting bad information into their heads.
Sounds like paranoia to me.
Tom Potter
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:3B892BEC...@princeton.edu...
>
>
> josX wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how much time it is going to take, before this list is not
> > the shitlist anymore, but the list of those who dared defy the esthablished
> > lies, half-truth's and outright debunking/intimidation.
> >
>
> Now if you'd like to place a *wager* on that, we can talk.
>
> It's one thing to "defy" the establishment. It's quite another to
> "defy" experimental results, basic algebra, and simple logic.
1. An experimental result, or a number of experimental results
over some interval of time, is no guarantee that you will obtain the same
results
from time zero to time infinity.
The validity of experimental results depends upon many factors,
including the degree to which an experimenter's welfare
depends upon the experimental results.
2. Kurt Goedel proved, no system of math or logic can stand alone.
All logical systems are based on assumptions.
Eric Prebys
Ed Green wrote:
>
>
> >The details of accelerating frames are more advanced and ultimately
> >easier understood in terms of GR concepts.
>
> A few clicks off, I think.
>
> GR deals with gravity. SR is quite able
> to handle accelerated objects and even
> accelerated frames, if we cared to
> reformulate the equations to deal with
> them. SR deals with the physics of
> flat spacetime, and that certainly
> includes objects subject to forces and
> accelerated within flat space time.
>
Of course that's true. You can solve the whole problem with SR.
The problem is that the transformations to accelerated frames are
a bitch which few can deal of off the top of their head.
I know I can't.
On the other hand, GR tells us that an accelerating frame is like
a uniform graviational field, and we all know that clocks tick
at a different rate depending on their position in a gravitational
well. If you think of it that way, then in the frame of the
rear spaceship, the forward one will pull away because it's burning
fuel slightly faster.
Of course this is ass-backwards because accelerated SR can be
used to calculate this shift in the first place, but still most
of us are more used to thinking of this in terms GR and gravity, and as
such it makes the problem more intuitive.
> >> > Nevertheless, the length
> >> > of the rope must contract in your reference frame, so it evenually
> >> > breaks, or at least starts to exert a force pulling the rockets
> >> > together.
> >>
> >> I'm skeptical :)
> >>
> >
> >I was pretty skeptical too, but I've discussed this one over enough
> >beers
> >that I think I'm pretty convinced.
> >
> >Still, I'm not beyond being persuaded by a good counterargument (or
> >more beers).
>
> This merely illustrated my point:
> vaguely embarrasing understanding
> is shared over beers. And yet this
> is a simple problem is relativistic
> kinematics. It should be no more
> mysterious than conservation of
> momentum, and completely mainstream
>
It's not really all that simple, in that it ultimately involves the
details of how an extended body behaves as it accelerates to
relativistic speed.
There are plenty of simple sounding, yet confusing problems even
in classical mechanics. I suggest you pick up a copy of Kleppner and
Kolenkov - world's most diabolical freshman mechanics textbook - to
see a few :)
Henry Wilson
sci.physics.relativity. :"simple proof that physical properties don't change
with velocity"
Colin Winfrey
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/specularium/images/binder.gif
> SOLIDARITY wrote:
>
> "Bio-tech" spreads to general use.
>
> ********************
> Man-beast hybrid beyond talking stage.
> Human DNA in cow egg.
> August 22, 2001
>
> Scott Foster
> The Edmonton Journal
>
> Melding man and beast may sound like the stuff of
> science fiction, but it's not.
>
> Amid all the advances in genetic manipulation,
> the idea of combining the DNA of animals and humans has
> gone beyond the talking stage -- it's been attempted.
>
> Indeed, many scientists and academics are wondering
> how far it might go and what the ethical implications
> would be. If a human were crossed with a chimpanzee,
> for example, would it still be human? And if not, then
> what would it be?
>
> The first publicized case of animal-human hybrids took
> place in 1996 when Jose Cibelli, a scientist at the
> University of Massachusetts, took DNA from his white
> blood cells by swabbing the inside of his cheek. He
> then inserted the DNA sample into a hollowed-out cow
> egg.
>
> Cibelli's experiment came to an end after a week of
> growing the cell mass, he told scientists earlier this
> month at a panel meeting of the National Academy of
> Sciences in Washington, D.C.
>
> This raised the question of what might have emerged
> had the cell mass continued to develop.
>
> "As far as we know, it would still look like a human
> being, but some of the characteristics of individual
> cells might be slightly different," said James Cross,
> a molecular biologist at the University of Calgary who
> attended the meeting.
>
> If such an embryo could develop, he said, the result
> would resemble a human being but carry bovine
> mitochondria, the energy-producing component of every
> cell. This is because the cow's egg shell, or
> cytoplasm, contains genetic materials known as
> mitochondrial DNA.
>
> "This suggests that we can create new human-animal
> species," said Jeremy Rifkin, biotechnology critic and
> president of the Washington-based Foundation on
> Economic Trends.
>
> Rifkin called the experiment "the most extraordinary
> single development in the history of biotechnology."
>
> Such experiments have become public only when the
> makers of hybrids, who fund their operations through
> investor capital, apply to patent their inventions.
>
> In partnership with Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell
> Technology, Cibelli came out from under a shroud of
> secrecy in 1998 when the firm applied to patent the
> alleged invention.
>
> Last October, Greenpeace Germany dug up a patent claim
> for a similar human-animal hybrid, only this time it
> involved a pig. U.S.-based Biotransplant and
> Australia-based Stem Cell Sciences grew a pig-human
> embryo to 32 cells before ending its life.
>
> "If the embryo had lived, it would be 95% human," said
> Michael Khoo, a genetic engineering campaigner for
> Greenpeace's Toronto branch. "The possibilities are
> not only frightening, but it's unknown just how many
> other similar patent applications are out there."
>
> Meanwhile, critics and futurists are having a field
> day speculating on the future of biotechnology.
>
> "Chimpanzees share between 95% and 98% of our genes,
> so the prospect of creating a human-chimpanzee hybrid
> are highly probable," Rifkin said. "The question
> becomes: What percentage of human genes will it take
> before human rights kick in? Would a hybrid have to
> look and talk like a human before it can get human
> rights?"
>
> While the concept of making and owning such a creation
> for 20 years under patent law is controversial to say
> the least, the science behind combining animal eggs
> and human DNA could be useful, said Cross. "In the
> case of Dolly, it took 277 eggs to get the sheep. In
> normal IVF programs, the number of eggs you get
> usually ranges between five and 10. So, to solve a
> potential shortage, some scientists have considered
> using an egg from a different species to house human
> DNA."
<> http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/kursk.htm
<>
<>
<> M a j e s t i c (14 Falls)
Nuclear Engines
http://www.marsacademy.com/propul/propul6.htm
[] http://www.generalsemantics.org/
General Semantics - A Definition
1. an ongoing field of study,
in large part based upon the seminal work
of Alfred Korzybski, which focuses on understanding
the processes of human evaluation, communication, and
behavior; and 2., an evolving discipline and system of
training that applies the findings of this research to
the optimization of the processes of human evaluation,
communication, and behavior.
[] http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/specularium/images/binder.gif
[] Time and Mind
[] May 26/27, 1990 - New Mexico
[] The Tykes... http://deoxy.org/timemind.htm
[]
[] [] "...Your current civilization does not know anything
[] [] about your real origin, about your real past, about
[] [] your real world and universe, and you know very little
[] [] about us and our past. And you know nothing about the
[] [] things to come in near future."
[]
[] www.google.com/search?q=The+Lacerta+File
[]
[] [] Need Hybrid Reptoid Endocrine Extractions?
[] [] No Prescription? No Problemo!
[] [] No appointments, no waiting rooms, no doctors?! No Problemo!
[] [] Click here-[] http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/biggestsecret.html
[] [] DAVID ICKE, a sorta-psychotic, inner-earth, reptilian spy, with JUICE?!
[]
[] * * *
[] Fly Agaric (Amanita Muscaria) --
[] Siberian Shamans, and just plain volks tending to the raindeer
[] and looking for a bit of transcendental "do-wha" now and then,
[] would consume the fungi, "fly agaric" (Amanita Muscaria) - not the
[] white one which kills, but the other one which is only effective
[] from regions far above the great white north. [That'd be your Red
[] cap w/ white specks variety, (bad news though, internal organs are
[] up for grabs on this sort of toxic enterprise)].
[] As the participants "celebrated", their urine would be collected.
[] The urine from those who had eaten the fungi would then be passed
[] around for the other celebrants to drink. The urine containing the
[] "recycled" Amanita Muscaria was thought to provide an experience
[] as intense, if not stronger, than the divine intoxicant itself...
[] Praise Be! Urine Siberia!!
[]
[] See also:
[] CSP - 'SOMA: Divine Mushroom of Immortality'
[] by R. Gordon Wasson
[] http://www.csp.org/chrestomathy/soma.html
[]
[] Entering The Circle: Ancient Secrets Of Siberian Wisdom
[] Discovered by a Russian Psychiatrist, Olga Kharitidi
[] http://www.sokaren.se/INDEX9.HTML
[]
[] Selected Bibliography of Siberia
[] http://www.koryaks.net/biblio-siberia.html
[]
[] DMT (N,N-dimethyltryptamine) and 5-Methoxy-DMT (aka bufotenine)
[] <http://www.booklist.com/DMT.html>
[] <http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt_info2.shtml>
[]
[] Marie Osmond, the drug of a generation:
[] http://www.osmond.com/marie/images/marie-purple-bg2.jpg
[]
[] Shamanism encoded in world Religion
[] http://www.sirius.com/~holy/mushroom.html
[]
[] Franchising EGYPT in the Year of the Reptoid
[] http://www.primenet.com/~subru/Ancient_wisdom.html
[] http://www.tradeport.org/ts/countries/egypt/isa/isar0013.html
[]
[]
[] Lizard Head wrote:
[]
[] -----------------
[] The Tri-une Brain
[]
[] "This ordering and examination of three
[] broad functions of the human brain has
[] been crucial to recent understanding of
[] personality, culture and human motivation.
[] It is pretty much taken for granted as a
[] foundation for research and practice in
[] the helping professions today, although it
[] may not be so well known to the general
[] population.
[]
[] "The first scientific paper on the tri-une
[] brain was written by Paul D. MacLean and
[] published in 1952, but it took about thirty
[] years for this knowledge to inform thinking
[] about human behavior and motivation.
[]
[] "The overall structure of the perspective is
[] that there are three seats of knowledge in
[] the brain: (1) the neo-cortex with its right
[] and left hemispheres which is the seat of the
[] 'higher functions' such as language, imagery
[] and reasoning, (2) the limbic cortex which
[] includes the amygdala and septem and governs
[] fight-flight responses and other emotional
[] functions, and (3) a group of elements at the
[] base of the brain clustered around the brain
[] stem which process time and space awareness
[] and other sensori-motor functions of the body.
[] MacLean called this area 'the R-Complex.' The
[] neo-cortex is a late evolutionary development
[] and found only in the primates. The limbic
[] cortex is common to all mammals. The R-Complex
[] is shared by reptiles, and hence is sometimes
[] referred to as 'the reptilian brain.'"
[]
[] /|\
[]
[] VACUUM SPIN FIELDS http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/tors/
[]
[] Mars Polar Lander Mission data:
[]
[] The Planetary Society
[] http://planetary.org
[]
[] Jet Propulsion Lab
[] http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/lander
[] http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/marsnews
[] http://marslander.jpl.nasa.gov
[]
[] NASA/Ames Research Center
[] http://www.quest.arc.nasa.gov/ltc/mars/polar.html
[]
[] The Labeled Release (LR) life detection experiment
[] aboard NASA's 1976 Viking Mission
[] http://www.biospherics.com/mars/spie/spiehtml.htm
[]
[] Engineered bacterium eats toxic waste:
[] "A bacterium that researchers hope will help humans
[] colonize Mars has been genetically modified to serve
[] a more immediate purpose on Earth..."
[] http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1999/12/123099/bug_8637.asp
[]
[] Deinococcus radiodurans:
[] Humble microbe could become
[] "The Accidental (Space) Tourist"
[] http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14dec99_1.htm
"Interspecies Global Mind
by Howard Bloom 08.12.1999
"...It is said that we have enraged nature by tearing at
the pattern of her tracery, and for this transgression we
shall be punished mightily. But we are nature incarnate.
We are made up of her molecules and cells.
We are tools of her probings and if, indeed, we suffer and
we fail, from our lessons she will learn which way in the
future not to turn. For all that lives and all that ever has
is part of a collective brain, a neural net of the most
sprawling kind...an evolution-driven, worldwide,
multi-billion-year-old interspecies mind."
From: The History of the Global Brain XX
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/glob/6556/1.html
O[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]O
100 Tetrahertz Atomic Precision
Silicon Crystal Switches Produced
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20000410S0057
- - - --==|o)!
NASA's 'Snakebots' Slither to Life
http://www.space.com/news/snakebots_000504.html
- - - --==|o)!
MEMS tie the knot with nanotechnology
http://www.eetimes.com/story/technology/OEG20000418S0019
O[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]o[]O
Bayesian methods are often used for training neural networks.
See: ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/FAQ3.html#A_bayes
FROM ANIMALS TO ANIMATS
THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
THE SIMULATION OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR (SAB2000)
11 - 16 September 2000, Paris, France
http://www-poleia.lip6.fr/ANIMATLAB/SAB2000/
-o0~[]~0o-
Machine Learning Archives:
http://www.egroups.com/messages/machine-learning/
-o0~[]~0o-
Towards a Jungian Psychology of Technology
http://www.cgjung.com/
Erik Davis' - Techgnosis
http://www.levity.com/techgnosis/techgnosis.html
Robot-for-President
http://www.egroups.com/group/Robot-for-President
NetFuture - Technology and Human Responsibility
http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/
-o0~[]~0o-
The Ten Ox-Herding Pictures
1.Looking for the Ox
2.Noticing the Footprints
3.Catching Sight
4.Getting Hold of the Ox
5.Taming the Ox
6.Riding home
7.Ox vanished, herdsman remaining
8.Ox and herdsman vanished
9.Returning to the Source
10.Entering the Marketplace
<http://www.iijnet.or.jp/iriz/irizhtml/zenart/10ox.htm>
-o0~[]~0o-
Cornell University nano-researchers have built and tested a
nanofabricated device that can separate DNA fragments by
length. (Cornell press release May 15, 00)
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May00/DNAseparator.ws.html
***
Researchers at the Department of Energy's Sandia National
Laboratories have created a new microchip processing
technique that creates raised, microscopic canals on chips,
through which liquids or gases can flow from one chip
feature to another. (Sandia release May 25, 00)
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2000/canals.htm
||||--~^~^~o0~O~0o~^~^~--||||
May-June, Volume 88, No. 3
www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/
Biomolecules and Nanotechnology
Evolution has forced innovative solutions to biomolecular
problems. Some may inform the growing field of nanotechnology
David S. Goodsell
Abstract:
Engineers attempting to build atomic-scale machines often
start with the methods and materials for building full-scale
machines and then miniaturize them. Our author, however,
reminds readers that nature solved the problem of small
machines three billion years ago, with the emergence of
first cells and biomolecules. The innovative solutions
wrought by evolution, says the author, may well serve as
a guide in the construction of artifical nano-machines.
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/00articles/Goodsell.html
||||--~^~^~o0~O~0o~^~^~--||||
8th FORESIGHT CONFERENCE ON MOLECULAR NANOTECHNOLOGY
http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT8
Tutorial on Foundations of Nanotechnology
http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT8/Tutorial.html
November 2, 2000
2000 FEYNMAN PRIZE IN NANOTECHNOLOGY
Two annual $5000 Feynman Prizes in Molecular
Nanotechnology, one each for experimental and
theoretical work, will be presented.
Sponsored by Foresight Institute
http://www.foresight.org/FI/2000Feynman.html
||||--~^~^~o0~O~0o~^~^~--||||
NYU chemist develops molecule with switchable chirality
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/nyu-ncd052200.html
A New York University team led by chemist James W. Canary
has developed a molecule with switchable chirality*.
[...] Canary said, "We know chirality is tremendously
significant in biology, and there are certain areas of
material science where it has played a role -- liquid
crystal displays and non-linear optics, for example.
Discoveries like this one may provide new applications
for chiral materials applications."
*[FOOTNOTE: Nearly all biomolecules are chiral compounds.
That is, they exist in two forms (enantiomers) which are
non-superimposable mirror images of each other. While
otherwise identical, enantiomers typically have key
differences. For example, they may rotate the plane of
polarized light in opposite directions.]
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/nyu-ncd052200.html
||||--~^~^~o0~O~0o~^~^~--||||
***
Study finds amphibians declining worldwide since 1960s
http://www.boston.com/globe/offbeat/daily/12/amphibians_declining.shtml
***
Research in the Chiao Group...
http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/research.html
***
NEC Research Institute - Physical Science Research Activities
http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/neci-website/research-ps.html#Optics
***
Quantum Physics, abstract quant-ph/9805040
Optical Tachyons in Parametric Amplifiers:
How Fast Can Quantum Information Travel?
http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9805040
***
Light and Shadow in the Carina Nebula
<http://hubble.stsci.edu/[] The diameter of the Keyhole
ring structure shown here is about 7 light-years.
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2000/06/pr-photos.html
|[]-=-=-=-X-=-=-=-Y-=-=-=-X-=-=-=-Y-=-=-=-X-=-=-=-Y-=-=-=-[]|
Phenethylamines I Have Known And Loved:
A Chemical Love Story By Alexander and Ann Shulgin
http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal.shtml
|[]-=-=-=-X-=-=-=-Y-=-=-=-X-=-=-=-Y-=-=-=-X-=-=-=-Y-=-=-=-[]|
http://deoxy.org/omega.htm
"It ain't over 'til it's over." Yogi Berra
"In The Next World, You're On Your Own"
-- Firesign Theatre
http://www.doctechnical.com/fst/img/itnw/itnw-b-l.jpg
1946 John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Donates $8 million to UN
for a site in New York.
1947 Rockefellers
"Foundation for Economic
Education" (FEE) establishes the Mont Pelerin
Society, which consisted of high-level Anglo-Venetian
financial barons. Milton Friedman was a member.
1947 National Security
Act established in the United
States in order to permit the extension and
continuation of Nazi efforts in the United
States under cover of "national
security", setting the stage
for chemical, biological and electronic
sensitization of the population
for the remainder of the 20th century.
Efforts begin to convince the American public that
their "enemy" is Communism, not fascism, setting the
stage for the upcoming McCarthy period and the sham
known as "the cold war" which
would extend and continue the military
industrial/pharmaceutical complex.
1947 National Security Council founded
under CIA charter. Formed by Hoover and
Reinhard Gehlen, the function of the
NSC was to "tell Congress what is needed
for "national security" to prevent Congress
from forming opinions about the matter.
The term "national security" is a catch-all cover
to permit Nazification of the United States.
Over the years the CIA would run an estimated
3,000 major and 10,000 minor operations that would
result in the death of over 6 million people in the
Third World, according to John Stockwell,
an ex-CIA agent. (Silent Holocaust).
1947 Aleister Crowley dies.
1947 Central Intellgence Agency created
from OSS.
1947 Early men-in-black
events just before
Arnold sighting at Rainier.
1947 Kenneth Arnold sees
winged craft over Mr. Rainier.
http://www.trufax.org/w3.html
<[] Excerpt:
<[] "Social Impact of Access to Space"
<[] by Marc G. Millis
<[] 2000-July-10
<[]
<[] "...Drawing on genetic engineering and biomechanical
<[] technology, it became chic to 'reinvent yourself.'
<[] The ultra-geeks now had the resources and will to
<[] modify their own bodies to be better suited to their
<[] new space environment: rad hard, micro-g adapted,
<[] power boosted, and so forth. Some even went as far
<[] as to mutate themselves into having insect-like
<[] exoskeletons to endure the space vacuum, complete
<[] with eyes in the back of their heads and appendages
<[] armed with automatic targeting weapons.
<[]
<[] "Even though life on Earth remained pretty much the
<[] same, this engineered biodiversity flourished in
<[] space beyond terrestrial imagination.
<[]
<[] "Survival of the fittest eventually ran its course.
<[] What remained to dominate the space frontier no longer
<[] looked quite human, but still retained all the instincts
<[] for territorial and conquest of their human origins.
<[]
<[] "The face of humanity had literally changed."
Marc G. Millis
Project Manager, Breakthrough
Propulsion Physics Project
Aerospace Engineer
NASA Glenn Research Center
at Lewis Field
21000 Brookpark Rd. MS 86-2
Cleveland, OH 44135
Marc.G...@grc.nasa.gov
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/index.htm
Jack Parsons: a Pasadena kid
who turned his enthusiasm for
experimental rockets into patents for Jet-Assisted-Takeoff,
and became a co-founder of Aerojet (Aerojet-General) and the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He was also the head of an occult
lodge based on the teachings of Aleister Crowley, whose
magic rituals incorporated sex as an essential ingredient.
http://www.zolatimes.com/JparArt/JackParsons.html
King of the Rocket Men Profiling Jack Parsons,
occultist and rocket Pioneer
http://www.forteantimes.com/artic/132/parsons.html
Liar! Liar!
Church of the Subgenius!
http://www.subgenius.com/
Robert Anton Wilson
http://www.rawilson.com/main.html
Aleister Crowley (decked out in his Frater Perdurabo suit)
once penned:
...
: The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General
: at the Expense of the Particular,
: quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed.
: But those disciples nearest to him wept,
: seeing the Universal Sorrow.
: Those next to them laughed, seeing the Universal Joke.
: Below these certain disciples wept.
: Then certain laughed.
: Others next wept.
: Others next laughed.
: Next others wept.
: Next others laughed.
: Last came those that wept because they could not
: see the Joke,
: and those that laughed lest they should be thought
: not to see the Joke,
: and thought it safe to act like Frater Perdurabo.
: But though Frater Perdurabo laughed openly,
: he also at the same time wept secretly;
: and in himself he neither laughed nor wept.
: Nor did he mean what he said.
...
O.T.O. http://www.otohq.org/
Ordo Templi Orientis
U.S. Grand Lodge: Introduction
http://otohq.org/oto/otohq.html
Marcelo Ramos Motta
(a late competitor to the OTO title who lost in court):
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~realoto/nclr.html
From The Book of Lies - LIBER CCCXXXIII
by Frater Perdurabo:
THE SORCERER
A Sorcerer by the power of his
magick had subdued all things to
himself.
Would he travel? He could fly
through space more swiftly than
the stars.
Would he eat, drink, and take
his pleasure? There was none
that did not instantly obey his
bidding.
In the whole system of ten
million times ten million spheres
upon the two and twenty million
planes he had his desire.
And with all this he was but
himself.
Alas!
Frater Perdurabo on His Ass:
http://faust.irb.hr/~tust/Penta/BookOfLies.html
Temple of Set: http://www.xeper.org
F r a t e r n i t a s S a t u r n i
http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/saturn.htm
THE ILLUMINATI DO NOT EXIST
*Do Not Believe Everything You Read*
http://www.majesticdocuments.com/documents/1970-present.html
Discordianism
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/discordians.html
Norton's Imperium -- Enochian Magick Papers
http://w3.one.net/~browe/
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
National Reconnaissance Office - N. R. O.
http://www.nro.gov/
Etc.... etc..... etc..........
Ommmmmmmm...
"The problem of anxiety in our time is about
being in our bodies, or not.
The old system
for emotional stability was to traumatize
our children
and take sedatives as adults.
(Religion has been a leading sedative.)
This made an opening for an efficient
warrior class: traumatized,
out-of-their-bodies (and hence insensitive)
performers of violence. And it gave a deep
legitimacy to the occurrence of violence in
society, whatever the surface inconvenience.
However, now that efficient violence depends
on extremely complex technology,
the old warrior class is obsolete.
So, we are now engaged in the task
of reversing the cultural
practice of traumatizing our children and
sedating ourselves, and the 'deep
legitimacy'
of violence is eroding, ever so slowly."
--M.H. Ducey
www.kerygma101.com
Jacques Vallee!! Jacques Vallee!!
Jacques Vallee http://www.conspire.com/val.html
[...] www.conspire.com/val.html
Dissociation Dynamics, the Alice Miller Finding and the Social
Organization of Torture: http://www.kerygma101.com/text/torture.html
Save The Children, http://www.savethechildren.org
.
. .
. .
.
Authentic Alien Contact High in Langley, Virginia
http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/index.shtml
Case closed.
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/answers/articles/X0030_I_Was_Abducted_By_Al.html
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Etherman
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3b8a137b$0$1530$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > talk. Just saying you don't like something is not refuting it.
>
> I did find such a theory. It's called "Doppler Relativity Theory"
(DRT). aA
> full description of DRT is in my website
> http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
That's not a full description. It's an ad for your book.
> DRT includes SR as a subset.
False.
> It's equations are valid in all enviroments.
False again.
> It gives the same valid predictions as GR but without the following
problematic
> prediction of GR:
> 1. GR predicts a lower than observed expansion rate of the universe.
> 2. GR predicts simgularities.
> 3. GR predicts the wrong galactic motion
> 4. Pioneer deviated from the predicted path of GR.
> 5. Young age of the universe compared to its oldest stars.
You have yet to address several important problems in your theory.
1) The force of gravity points in the wrong direction.
2) It involes a redshift term, but you're unable to write it in terms
of gravitational potential and/or velocity.
3) Instead of using instantaneous measurements, it uses time averaged
measurements (and you don't tell us the time interval to use).
4) It involves a bizzare dot product whose sign depends on aboslute
velocity (which is not measureable).
5) You admit that you're unable to solve the equation for any
situation.
> BTW DRT is approved for publication in the peer reviewed journal
"Galilean
> Electrodynamics"---in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue.
I guess they'll publish anything.
Etherman
>
>
> Etherman wrote:
> >
> > The same would be said of the thread. Each end must also move a
> > distance d.
> >
>
> Not really. In the first case you're shifting an identical ship by
> "d". In the second case case, you're talking about the motion of
the
> thread under the influence of a force at one end, which must, at the
> very least be delayed by a time d/c before reaching the other end of
the
> thread.
The breaking of the thread has nothing to do with length contraction.
It breaks because it's being pulled in opposite directions.
Dez Akin
original posters comments, some are mine.
gham...@mediaone.net George Hammond
The crackpot's crackpot. Has a 'scientific proof of god.' He's nutso,
and aggro. His posts are a source of vast entertainment on a slow day.
He loves profanity. His posts aren't aggravating so much as funny, but
he does take up a lot of bandwidth.
http://users.cnmnetwork.com/~anglicus/hammond.htm for his fan club. A
real fun read.
plut...@willinet.net Archimedes Plutonium
Crackpottery on the other end of the religeous scale. Physics is god,
and god is plutonium or something like that. Totally incomprehensible
gibberish. Denies quantum chromodynamics and the existance of quarks.
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/ For his
site.
Nem...@nospam.com Nemesis (really Louis savain)
Idiot crackpot that thinks that there is a great conspiracy of the
physisist priesthood to do philosophical mastrubation rather than real
physics. What he really takes exception to is the concept of 4
dimensional space-time. He hates Hawking, Penrose, Kip Thorne, John
Wheeler you name em...
He's a nasty little man.
Sample Quote:
"There is no way we are going to get to the really interesting stuff
as
long as self-important charlatans like Hawking, Sarfatti and Thorne
are still regarded as scientists. Or as long as science education
continues to produce fascist and racist morons like Uncle Adolph
whose
idea of fun is to brag about their education and how superior they
are. So what is my point? My point is this: fuck you and everyone
else
who finds entertainment in Uncle Adolph's verbal vomit, his
insufferable pomposity and his inferiority complex."
his sig: Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://home1.gte.net/res02khr/crackpots/notorious.htm
He...@the.edge Henry Wilson
Has some silly algebraic argument involving "one way light speed" and
"two way light speed" (OWLS and TWLS), which he repeats over and over
and over - like a mantra, no matter how many times others point out
the fallacies. Firmly believes that because everyone was so impressed
by Einstein, no one has EVER done an experiment to test his
predictions, even a really easy one (like measuring the speed of
cosmic rays). Essentially believes there is a "broad conspiracy" to
protect Einstein's good name, which is hard to reconcile with the fact
that everybody agrees that Einstein appears to have been wrong in some
of his strong opinions about quantum mechanics. Claims to have spent
"30+ years as a research physicist", but never gives any details.
Likes to quote very precise yet unreferenced and erroneous numbers.
djm...@aol.com Dennis McCarthy
He believes in ether. He goes on about it. Special Relativity is
garbage, or something to that effect.
sans...@bestweb.net ralph sansbury
He argues that 'Gravity is a form of magnetism and that magnetism is a
form of electrostatic force.' He claims to have unified gravity,
electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces with his
'electrostatic force.' He also argues that light propogates
instantaneously. He's another 'end of relativity and physics is in
sight' kind of guy.
http://users.bestweb.net/~sansbury/Index.htm
rbw...@mindspring.com Robert B. Winn
Robert Winn is another 'Einstein was wrong about SR' guy, implying
distance contraction doesn't happen under relatavistic circumstances.
Minorly crackpotty.
dwhi...@aol.com Dwaine W. Higginbotham
Another aether fan. Steady state universe with a center of expansion
or something like that is what I can glean from his website. He mostly
doesn't like dealing with more than 3 dimensions, and physics that are
hard to wrap your mind around. His worldview is pleasantly ptolemic; I
think if crystal spheres were a little more viable he'd buy into them.
http://hometown.aol.com/dwhig265/index.htm
andr...@home.com Androcles
Another 'Einstein was really wrong' guy, in the Wilson camp. He claims
that the propogation velocity of light is relative to the source. His
webpage has some exe that he wants you to run and some cheap calculus
where he illustrates 'Einsteins fumble.'
http://members.home.net/androcles/
dorto...@aol.com David Orton
This guy has a theory of 'Quantum Inertial Dynamics.' He seems to be
implying that the cause of gravity is because everything is expanding
at some rate, gravity is the result of expansive acceleration rather
than an attractive force, and some other stuff. He has a web page that
describes his 27 postulates and his unified force equasion. He was
very touchy about being listed in a list of crackpots, and started
shouting slander. (which is totally incorrect. Slander laws only apply
for oral communication, anything on usenet would fall under libel, if
it was grossly untrue or severely damaged a reputation. Since he is a
crackpot and he has no reputation to damage, any libel suit is
frivolous)
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm
si...@west.net Charles Vind
His theories read like a Robert McElwaine article. with A GOOD DEAL of
capitalization for EMPHASIS. A lot of kooky articles. He writes about
aliens and conciousness containers and... You get the idea. He thinks
that his name relating to quark charges are special for some reason.
Just some uneducated sod that wishes he had something to say.
http://www.west.net/~simon/index.html
VVe...@prodigy.net Vertner Vergon
Yet another 'einstein was wrong' guy. He disputes time dilation rather
than length contraction, and that length contraction accounts for any
apparent time dilation effects. (which is fairly ludicrous in
explaining lengthened lifetimes of accelerated muons, and other point
particles) He has a fairly nasty attitude which does nothing for his
credibility. Seems to aggree with Louis in his 'bash the
establishment' mission.
glo...@aol.com Gerald L O'Barr
He claims that there is an absolute reference frame. Another ether
junkie. He, like many of the crackpots listed before, has his own
website. Oh, his theory: God gave it to him.
http://www.uc-online.com/absolute/
Thnk...@concentric.net Eleaticus
Spammed the sci.physics org, along with news.answers, with his
Einstein was wrong about a bunch of stuff faq: Einstein (1905)
Absurdities. Basically believes wholeheartedly that all of special
realitivity is bunk.
bast...@avalon.nf.ca Brian Stuckless
He's another nasty one who claims that General Relativity is wrong. He
likes to call it GR-tivity. Goes on about Einstein worship, etcetera.
Just another unintelligent sod who cant wrap his mind around it.
silve...@4learning.com John Reid
He seriously doesnt understand special relativity, yet criticises it.
He's an idiot. Ken Seto said John's were somewhat similar to his.
ken...@erinet.com Ken H. Seto
This guy wrote an entire book about his theory
(http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html), which is yet another
modified aether theory. It's part of a broad class of "I can explain
all the results of SR tests with my theory and about a million
unjustified assumptions". Entertaining on the group because he will
usually come up with the most "out there" explanation for something.
ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk Keith Stein
He makes a big deal out of the fact that Maxwell believed EM waves
propagate through a medium - which nobody disputes! As many people
have pointed out, that was the most reasonable conclusion to come to
with the evidence Maxwell had in hand. What Mr. Stein doesn't seem to
realize is that Maxwell died (1879) before any evidence refuting this
belief existed (Michelson, 1881, Michelson & Morely, 1887), and long
before Special elativity (Einstein, 1905). This is his only real
"evidence". Beyond that, he continually demands explanations,
clarifications, experimental evidence, and mathematical tutelage, all
of which have been given to him. He then comes up with amazingly
stupid reasons to ignore it all. He believes, for example, that
relativity experiments involving the GPS system are invalid because
no one knows how to correct for the signal propagation delay,
apparently not realizing that knowing the signal propagation delay is
HOW GPS WORKS!!!
re...@viconet.com H. E. Retic
Has written a manifesto called "The Einstein Hoax"
(http://members.home.net/retiche/hoax.htm), in which he claims to
topple Einstein in favor of a modified aether theory. Remarkable in
its depth, level of mathematical detail - and total misinterpretation
of experimental evidence and conceptual arguments - also lacks any
references as far as I can tell. Another "conspiracy theorist", he
claims evidence for tachyons has been "suppressed". He's less fun
than the others because he is harder to engage on the newsgroup (says
he's "too busy"). He just regularly publishes his manifesto, and then
steps back.
druth...@softcom.net David Rutherford
He thinks that by replacing the Minkowskian metric with a Euclidean
metric that he manages to unify the fields. He thinks he found the
origin of the electrons mass as being tied up in its magnetic field.
In short, he did some cheap calculus, found an answer he liked and
decided he solved a bunch of grand problems in physics.
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/
t...@earthlink.net Tom Potter
He thinks that quarks aren't real. He mostly just spouts gibberish
that is loosely corrolated with contemporary physics. He seems to like
fields and standing waves a lot. He doesn't seem to truck much with
the current model of particles, as quarks and leptons. Not as outright
wrong as HE Retic or the like, but certainly not a reliable source of
information. His website is equally vague.
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Spac...@resistanceisfutile.com Spaceman
Repeatedly asserts that SR effects are "optical illusions", exposing a
complete lack of understanding of their derivation and experimental
evidence of their existence. Ignores the fact that this has been
explained to him many times. Beyond that, doesn't have a particular
stand. ; I think he just likes to "stir things up". When pushed, he
fights back with .... really bad poetry! Another time dilation doesn't
happen guy.
Ed Green
>Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>>You don't seem to get it. If there is an aether, there is no empty
>>space, and your naive assumption that cannon-balls don't need a medium
>>is false. You are engaging in pure circular logic by assuming exactly
>>what you intend to prove.
>
>If there is an aether, it's perfectly possible for there to be no empty
>space and cannonballs travel despite the medium, not because of it.
I would prefer to think that cannonballs,
along with photons, you and me, are
manifestations of "space" or the medium.