THE SINS OF RELATIVITY (AND MAXWELLIAN) THEORY?
nade
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
What do you make of it? Author has doctorate in nuclear physics
and has over 40 publications in physics journals.
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
from the web site:
"Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical
view that the practicalities of the measurement process
must play an unambiguously prominent role in the
theorizing process: As an example of a theory where this
was not done (with hugely significant consequences), we
need look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics.
In this case, the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors
used by (inertial) observers to measure field quantities be at
rest in the observer’s frame. Thus, if we have two observers,
each in his own inertial frame, then, since their instruments
are physical objects and unable to occupy the same place
at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
observers to make simultaneous measurements of the
same field point. In other words, certain choices made
at the theorizing level have rendered impossible a
perfectly reasonable thing—that distinct observers
can have direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a
particular place at a given time. Phipps’ answer to this
conundrum is simple: there is no reason on Earth why
the detector measuring field quantities should be fixed
in the (inertial) observer’s frame. After all, the source
currents which generate the field are not, so why should
the test particles (which comprise the detectors) be?
And since the detector need not be fixed in one observer’s
inertial frame, why should it be fixed in any inertial frame?
Following this logic, if we allow the detector to have free
motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector’s
motion. A natural candidate for this formalism already exists
in the equations of Hertz’s electromagnetic theory (the
known failure of his theory was the fault not of his equations
but of his physical interpretation) and these are easily
written down: just take Maxwell’s equations and replace all
appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective
velocity which must be interpreted, and Phipps’ solution is
to use this convective velocity to describe the motion of the
free detector. A simple and elegant idea, don’t you think? ...
but now comes the crux: by this simple process, which
is driven by the idea that there is no reason on God’s Earth
why an observer cannot use a freely moving detector,
the equations of electromagnetism become Galilean
invariant; thus, at a stroke, solving one of the great
conundrums of 19th century physics and, in removing
the primary raison d’être of Special Relativity (SRT),
putting a huge question mark over a large chunk of 20th
century theoretical physics."
---------------
I'd like to know if the above has any merit or if they are already
dealt with or counterargued. If so. What are the counterarguments?
Thanks!
nade
Androcles
"nade" <prom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f00983f4-f3e4-4617...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
What do you make of it? Author has doctorate in nuclear physics
and has over 40 publications in physics journals.
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
from the web site:
"Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical
view that the practicalities of the measurement process
must play an unambiguously prominent role in the
theorizing process: As an example of a theory where this
was not done (with hugely signi?cant consequences), we
need look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics.
In this case, the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors
used by (inertial) observers to measure ?eld quantities be at
rest in the observer's frame. Thus, if we have two observers,
each in his own inertial frame, then, since their instruments
are physical objects and unable to occupy the same place
at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
observers to make simultaneous measurements of the
same ?eld point. In other words, certain choices made
at the theorizing level have rendered impossible a
perfectly reasonable thing-that distinct observers
can have direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a
particular place at a given time. Phipps' answer to this
conundrum is simple: there is no reason on Earth why
the detector measuring ?eld quantities should be ?xed
in the (inertial) observer's frame. After all, the source
currents which generate the ?eld are not, so why should
the test particles (which comprise the detectors) be?
And since the detector need not be ?xed in one observer's
inertial frame, why should it be ?xed in any inertial frame?
---------------
| nade
Don't you know how to judge for yourself?
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.
"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.
Troll kooks such as
Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
Wanker Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
-- Sir Isaac Newton
["tj Frazir"]
If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 year.
["CWatters"]
Suppose you apply a small displacement by compressing one end with a
hammer.
Does the shock wave still travel at the speed of light?
[Androcles]
Clearly the extrapolation (increasing rigidity yields increasing speed
of sound) indicates either there is limit to rigidity or there is a limit to
the speed of sound in a material body.
Given that a material body is made of atoms then atoms are
not rigid... but we do not expect them to be anyway, the model of
an atom is that of a nucleus surrounded by a mantle of empty
space and a shell (or shells) of electrons. By compressing the
atom we force the electrons into the nucleus, the charges cancel
and we are left with a nucleus of incompressible neutrons where
the limit to rigidity has been reached; for either the neutron is totally
rigid or the speed of sound in neutrons exceeds the speed of light.
"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we
have settled what is to be understood by"[1] neutron stars and proven
black holes do not exist, the extrapolation has gone too far.
[1] Einstein's verbal diaorreah to impress neanderthals and gorillas.
nade
Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
think is the cause of gravity?
nade
Sue...
> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>
> What do you make of it? Author has doctorate in nuclear physics
> and has over 40 publications in physics journals.
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>
> from the web site:
>
> "Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical
> view that the practicalities of the measurement process
> must play an unambiguously prominent role in the
> theorizing process: As an example of a theory where this
> was not done (with hugely significant consequences), we
> need look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics.
> In this case, the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors
> used by (inertial) observers to measure field quantities be at
> rest in the observer’s frame.
The EM force which moves a positive charge north
also moves a negative force south. So the
inertial frame he is refers to is not a consideration.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended
Sue...
>
> nade
Androcles
If you use GR to calculate the time on Earth vs the time on the Moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
quote:
| While an observer on the Earth measure 1,000,000 years,
| an observer on the Moon (if we ignore the mass of the Moon)
| would measure 1000000.0006797 years.
| That is approximately 6 hours more than the observer on the Earth.
unquote. -- ASSistant professor Andersen.
It doesn't really matter much what the actual numbers are, when it's
local noon on Earth (in say London or Los Angeles or Sydney) an
observer on the moon is not going to see the day/night terminator
crossing that city; an observer on the Moon uses the Earth
as a 24 hour clock and the Moon takes exactly one year to go
around the sun just as the Earth does by definition of a year.
Travelling at 18.5 miles per second, in six hours the moon would
advance in its orbit 60*60*6 * 18.5 = 399,600 miles, more than
twice its present distance from Earth.
Hence General Relativity is wrong too. Hmmm ?
| If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
| think is the cause of gravity?
| nade
I'll answer that if you can tell me why magnets stick to my fridge door.
Hmmm?
Szczepan Białek
"nade"
>
> A natural candidate for this formalism already exists
in the equations of Hertz's electromagnetic theory (the
known failure of his theory was the fault not of his equations
but of his physical interpretation)
Could You write a little (or give a link) about the Hertz's physical
interpretation.
S*
Szczepan Bialek
"nade"
>
>Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong.
It seems that the assumptions are incorrect. Everywhere we can read that in
1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the rotation of the earth". For
me at noon and at midnight the MM and MG experiments measure without any
doubts the same. The MG result is not zero. The same is the MM. The SR is
for the case when MM gives zero. Since 1925 we know that MM must have the
same result like MG. So the SR is only a math toy or a piece to teach. It is
not wrong. It is right for the assumptions.
The only interpretation of the resuts of MM and MG is the Michelson
interpretation that aether is not solid elastic body ( how wants the lovers
of Absolute reference frame).
>It means General Relativity is wrong too? If you believe they are both
>wrong. What do you
>think is the cause of gravity?
Here is place for many theories. But at first must be made an agreement on
the both Michelson experiments.
S*
Juan R.
Phipps’ prose always has impressed me more than his physics.
Phipps has proposed many alternative theories to SR, everything he worked
has been either mathematically wrong or experimentally invalidated (e.g.
Phipps potential). Of course, Einstein also proposed many incorrect
theories (e.g. when developing GR).
However, Phipps recent neo-Hertzian approach is different.
This approach takes Maxwell equations and substitutes partial derivative
on time by absolute ones:
partial X / partial t ---> dX/dT
This convert Lorentz 'covariant' equations into Galilean 'invariant'.
An interesting aspect of this theory is that one can recover Lorentz
invariant theory (such as Maxwell electrodynamics) *from* a Galilean
invariant theory. This is just the inverse of the common relativist claim
(dogma) Galilean equations are less general.
Personally i find many "iffs" in Phipps theory and i doubt that can be a
suitable way of research. Moreover, i did *not* read that popular book
but below i notice some chapters seem to be interesting:
1.3 The problem about Faraday’s observations: d/dt 10
Or why Maxwell equations are actually under revision.
2.3 Invariance vs. covariance: The physics of it 26
2.4 Invariance or covariance: Which is physics? 28
Geometers look for covariance. Physicists for invariance.
5.2 Neo-Hertzian force law 101
Modification of Lorentz law has been tested in several
experiments since plasmas on tokamaks to longitudinal forces on Mercury.
5.3 Evidence of the Marinov motor 108
Yes, that Marinov but his motor works...
5.4 Other electrodynamic force laws 109
5.5 Sick of field theory? … (the Weber alternative) 114
Why field theory is nto fundamental
6.6 Platonic time and simultaneity 150
6.8 Clock rate as an energy state function 155
Clocks do not define time no matter how many times Einstein said the
contrary thing.
7.1 Principles governing proper time 165
7.2 Collective time and relativity principles 167
8.8 Collective time in a nutshell 233
--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
nade
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you think of the following paper written by this esteemed
physicist?
http://www.stardrive.org/Jack/PhippsEM.pdf
nad
Juan R.
> What do you think of the following paper written by this esteemed
> physicist?
>
> http://www.stardrive.org/Jack/PhippsEM.pdf
>
>
> nad
I did explicit my opinion about Phipps Hertzian approach in a previous
post.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
nade
Say, are you a normal or a crackpot? How come you have 13 stars with
one rating. Did the crackpots rate you or did the normal?
About Phipps.. do you think he is loose screw?
harry
On Mar 17, 9:12 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Say, are you a normal or a crackpot? How come you have 13 stars with
one rating. Did the crackpots rate you or did the normal?
There is at least one nutcase here who found a way to falsify the rating
counts and apparently, he finds such trickery very enjoyable.
> About Phipps.. do you think he is loose screw?
He's quite normal - and consequently he makes mistake just like everone
else. When one endeavours outside of the treaded paths, one encounters more
stumble blocks :-)
Harald
Tom Roberts
The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.
Specifically:
> if we allow the detector to have free
> motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
> must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector’s
> motion.
Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
dotted into its 4-velocity.
This isn't anything new, but Phipps seems to think it is.
> but now comes the crux: by this simple process, which
> is driven by the idea that there is no reason on God’s Earth
> why an observer cannot use a freely moving detector,
> the equations of electromagnetism become Galilean
> invariant;
This is not true (but I believe Phipps uses a nonstandard meaning of
"Galilean invariant"; I use the usual meaning). Moreover, if the
observer uses arbitrarily-moving detectors, then the measurements are
not projected onto the observer's (local) inertial frame. This is not
wrong, but is different from the usual treatment of the theory, in which
the observer does use detectors at rest in her inertial frame, and thus
does project the field quantities onto that frame. This is a GREAT
simplification: physics becomes much simpler in a (local) inertial
frame. By abandoning that simplification, Phipps became confused....
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote (possibly quoting Phipps):
> Clocks do not define time no matter how many times Einstein said the
> contrary thing.
This merely depends on how one chooses to use words (specifically
"time"). But this DOES NOT MATTER, because clocks most definitely do
represent the time coordinate used by real experimenters.
nade wrote (to Juan R. González-Álvarez):
> Say, are you a normal or a crackpot?
He often acts like a crackpot (name shifting, posting articles that are
pure insults, ignoring well-known mainstream results, using dense spews
of undefined jargon in an attempt to stifle criticism...).
About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from crackpots is
that the former often recommend textbooks, but the latter never do. For
general knowledge of SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler,
_Spacetime_Physics_. For a discussion of the invariance of Maxwell's
equations: Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_, and also the Feynman
_Lectures_ Vol 2.
Tom Roberts
Dono
>
> He often acts like a crackpot (name shifting, posting articles that are
> pure insults, ignoring well-known mainstream results, using dense spews
> of undefined jargon in an attempt to stifle criticism...).
>
Juam R. Gonzalez-Alvarez has gone postal a few months ago, he is
posting under the sockpuppet "Lady Chacha".
"nade" is the well-known Australian troll, you have been had
(again!) :-)
Lady Chacha
Dirk Vdm wrote to Dono (Mar 2008)
"You act exactly like Androcles, and that is no compliment.
Your Dono-alias is severely compromized."
--
Dono is concubine Lady Chacha
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hmQDj.20206$Ch6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
| nade wrote:
| > http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
| > What do you make of it?
|
| The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.
Nonsensical lying bigot.
About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
original paper,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Szczepan Białek
"Androcles"
>
> About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
> crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
> original paper,
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together with the
unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the
``light medium,'' ..."
I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the rotation
of the earth".
What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
S*
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>nade wrote:
>> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>> What do you make of it?
>
>The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.
>
>Specifically:
>> if we allow the detector to have free
>> motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
>> must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector’s
>> motion.
>
>Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
>4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
>dotted into its 4-velocity.
Could you please provide a precise definition of the term '4-velocity'.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....
ulrich
in stead of posting brain, is proof on
stoopidity
> but the latter never do. For
> general knowledge of SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler,
> _Spacetime_Physics_. For a discussion of the invariance of Maxwell's
> equations: Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_, and also the Feynman
> _Lectures_ Vol 2.
>
> Tom Roberts
you post so many book titles
what abot postin brain?
Androcles
"Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:frp50d$k4v$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
|
| "Androcles"
| >
| > About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
| > crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
| > original paper,
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together with
the
| unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the
| ``light medium,'' ..."
Did you check what the example actually is?
It is:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet", so you are supposed to know what
relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and relativity"
and
pompously rants about it being "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics
hold good" as the cretin Roberts believes.
What the idiot Roberts completely misses is Einstein's third postulate: the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires
to travel from B to A, which is FALSE.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Roberts has never read the original paper which is why the prat recommends
the kiddy book, "Spacetime physics". Knowledgable he is NOT.
| I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the
rotation
| of the earth".
| What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
| S*
All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
nade
I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.
nade
On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
Androcles
Roberts suggests.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"nade" <prom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2ceee4bb-33ed-4441...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.
nade
On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
nade
> Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
> Roberts suggests.
Well. The paper was written by the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein.
What concerns people is the interpretation. Can someone pls. write
a FAQ or something about how the points differ between these
two brilliant physicists (Roberts vs Androcles)? The public needs to
know
how each one thinks so we can gauge the true nature of it all.
nade
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> "nade" <promon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2ceee4bb-33ed-4441...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
> is correct.
> Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
> differ
> and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
> giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
> Those
> of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
> physicists.
>
> nade
>
> On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm- Hide quoted text -
PD
It makes no sense to try to post in a few short paragraphs what it
takes many pages to explain in one of the books. Moreover, it is no
one's obligation to replicate what is written in books by transcribing
it into Usenet, just to make it free and easy for some amateurs and
cranks. That would be spoonfeeding. If you want to hunt buffalo, be
prepared to spend some effort making the arrowheads first, and stop
asking people to escort you to a dead buffalo.
PD
PD
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:30:38 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >nade wrote:
> >>http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
> >> What do you make of it?
>
> >The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.
>
> >Specifically:
> >> if we allow the detector to have free
> >> motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
> >> must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector's
> >> motion.
>
> >Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
> >4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
> >dotted into its 4-velocity.
>
> Could you please provide a precise definition of the term '4-velocity'.
>
Ah, good approach.
Condemn relativity first. Ask what it means second.
PD
Androcles
On Mar 19, 6:55 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
> Roberts suggests.
| Well. The paper was written by the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein.
| What concerns people is the interpretation. Can someone pls. write
| a FAQ or something about how the points differ between these
| two brilliant physicists (Roberts vs Androcles)? The public needs to
| know
| how each one thinks so we can gauge the true nature of it all.
| nade
Roberts has made himself clear, he recommends you read "Spacetime Physics".
I recommend you read the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein. In particular,
I recommend you discover for yourself (and repeat) the experiment that
the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein, conducted that led to his great
discovery
that 4 = 12 because the "time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals
the "time'' it requires to travel from B to A, as shown here in pictures
that a
12-year-old Ultimate DumbCluck could understand:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> "nade" <promon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2ceee4bb-33ed-4441...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
> is correct.
> Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
> differ
> and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
> giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
> Those
> of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
> physicists.
>
> nade
>
> On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
nade
> "nade" <promon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> On Mar 19, 6:55 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
> > Roberts suggests.
>
> | Well. The paper was written by the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein.
> | What concerns people is the interpretation. Can someone pls. write
> | a FAQ or something about how the points differ between these
> | two brilliant physicists (Roberts vs Androcles)? The public needs to
> | know
> | how each one thinks so we can gauge the true nature of it all.
>
> | nade
>
> Roberts has made himself clear, he recommends you read "Spacetime Physics".
> I recommend you read the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein. In particular,
> I recommend you discover for yourself (and repeat) the experiment that
> the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein, conducted that led to his great
> discovery
> that 4 = 12 because the "time'' required by light to travel from A to B
> equals
> the "time'' it requires to travel from B to A, as shown here in pictures
> that a
> 12-year-old Ultimate DumbCluck could understand:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
You have thought about this for long and knew the inner meanings
of your rough analogy but this doesn't mean others understood
your context. What in blazes are you talking about? What 4=12?
what travel from A to B? Pls. explain in clearer words that those
who are not exposed to your mindset would easily grasp your
point.
nade
>
>
>
> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> > "nade" <promon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:2ceee4bb-33ed-4441...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
> > is correct.
> > Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
> > differ
> > and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
> > giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
> > Those
> > of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
> > physicists.
>
> > nade
>
> > On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Androcles
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
This 4=12: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
| what travel from A to B?
Light's travel from A to B and back again. The tip of the ray's travel from
A to B
and back again. The photon's travel from A to B and back again.
| Pls. explain in clearer words that those
| who are not exposed to your mindset would easily grasp your
| point.
| nade
The light is called "Spot".
See Spot Run.
See B run.
B is running away from Spot.
Spot is running twice as fast as B.
Spot catches up with B.
It takes 12 units of time for Spot to travel from A to B, shown in the GIF.
See Spot Run Back Again.
See A run.
A is running toward Spot.
Spot meets A.
It takes 4 units of time for Spot to travel from B to A, shown in the GIF.
According to Einstein, the "time" (NOT the time; "time" is different to
time)
for Spot to get from A to B (12 units) is equal to the "time" (NOT the time;
"time" is different to time) for Spot to get from B to A (4 units).
So "12" (not 12, "12" is different to 12, it has quotation marks) is equal
to "4".
So Einstein says add the "time"s together and mix in spatial coordinates
to confuse you, then divide by 2, like this.
1/2 [ "time"(A,0) + "time"(A,16)] = "time"(B, 12)
"Einstein" (NOT Einstein) was the ultimate genius, but Einstein (NOT
"Einstein")
was a ranting lunatic.
Do you understand that "time" is not time and "Einstein" the ultimate genius
is not Einstein the ranting cretin?
I recommend you discover for yourself (and repeat) the experiment that
the Ultimate Genius Himself, "Einstein", conducted that led to his great
discovery that 4 = 12 because the "time'' required by light to travel from
A to B equals the "time'' it requires to travel from B to A, as shown here
in pictures that a 12-year-old Ultimate DumbCluck could understand:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
H. G. Wells was the ultimate genius, he inspired the teenage sci-fi reader
Einstein to write Houdini science.
Next, some real science:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Szczepan Białek
"Androcles"
>
> All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
The Earth rotate. But the Earth orbit also rotate. The Earth is a point on
the big disc. The equations are the same. Only radii are different. The MG
apparatus was huge to have proper sensitivity for the velocity 0.46 km/s.
The MM was for 30 km/s (and for this reason was not able to detect 0.46
km/s). The both were built years ago. Now we have very small electronic
apparatus which do the same. What they detect if we put them on the Earth
surface close to equator and orientalise in orbital direction?
I bet that the reading will be 0.46 km/s.
S*
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
>
>I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
>is correct.
>Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
>differ
>and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
>giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
>Those
>of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
>physicists.
>
>nade
Androcles an intellectual giant?
bruahahahaa....
That was a good one, you made my day.
w-
Juan R.
> nade wrote:
>> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm What do you make of
>> it?
>
> The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- Uncle Al to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008
> Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
> 4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
> dotted into its 4-velocity.
>
> This isn't anything new, but Phipps seems to think it is.
You do not show the most minimal idea about Phipps is writting.
>> a freely moving detector, the equations of electromagnetism become
>> Galilean invariant;
>
> This is not true (but I believe Phipps uses a nonstandard meaning of
> "Galilean invariant"; I use the usual meaning).
Bold-faced lie [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie]
Phipps is using a standard meaning of Galilean invariant. Equations (2.2)
on the pdf cited by nade in her/his 17 March post:
http://www.stardrive.org/Jack/PhippsEM.pdf
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote (possibly quoting Phipps):
Juan said me he was not.
>> Clocks do not define time no matter how many times Einstein said the
>> contrary thing.
>
> This merely depends on how one chooses to use words (specifically
> "time"). But this DOES NOT MATTER, because clocks most definitely do
> represent the time coordinate used by real experimenters.
Precisely this crucial distinction between *time* and *clocks rate* is
EXPLICITELY introduced in advanced relativistic theories such as this one:
http://order.ph.utexas.edu/mtrump/manybody/
from my Texas' colleague Prof. Schieve.
I already corrected your misunderstandings on this issue on
sci.physics.research. I recommend you to take a course in the subject.
Above book is explicitely addressed to undergraduate students.
> For
> general knowledge of SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler,
> _Spacetime_Physics_. For a discussion of the invariance of Maxwell's
> equations: Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_, and also the Feynman
> _Lectures_ Vol 2.
There is something poor that lack of citations: it is citing inadequate
references would confound the original poster.
It is obvious that research questions that Phipps is trying to answer
(first order effects, nonlocality, longitudinal forces...) are NOT replied
neither in Jackson and T&W nor in Feynman references you use.
Indeed the references you cite avoid to ASK that questions.
Research questions of that kind are, however, covered with some detail in
recent advanced monographs as
http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Electromagnetism-Foundations-Theory-
Applications/dp/9810220952
See chapter 11 on the section on Foundations. It is by Phipps coworker
(and son?) Phipps Jr. about the Hertzian-like electrodynamics that
original poster was asking.
I did not cited that monograph in my reply to nade because i think may be
too difficult (and expensive!) for her/him.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
PD
> I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
> is correct.
> Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
> differ
> and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
> giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
> Those
> of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
> physicists.
>
> nade
This, at root level, is the difficulty with trying to learn stuff from
the internet. There is no BS meter available. You have no way to
discern anything. Note the following:
1. The correctness of either has nothing to do with their "beliefs" or
which one has more "theoretical sense". The correctness of a theory
has to do with something else entirely: how well it describes
experimental data. I just want to point out to you that you are using
improper figures of merit for correctness.
2. Neither one is a theoretical physicist. One of them is an
experimentalist. The other is not a physicist at all and does not have
a physics degree.
3. Being able to string jargon together is not an indicator of whether
one is a physicist, let alone a brilliant one. You have been duped by
one of these posters, who is a shuckster, a liar, and who is
perpetually on a short track to Wrong. Now, tell me, what do you have
at your disposal to tell which one of them is the scam?
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm- Hide quoted text -
harry
>I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
>is correct.
>Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
>differ
>and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
>giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
>Those of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
>physicists.
>nade
See the comments by PD. For an additional indication, just count how often
"Androcles" appears in the following list as compared to "Tom Roberts":
http://www.googlibrary.com/ImmortalFumbles.html .
Harald
Androcles
|
| "Androcles"
| >
| > All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
|
| The Earth rotate.
Really? Sheesh, fancy that! You mean the Sun doesn't go around it?
| But the Earth orbit also rotate.
No, the orbit stays where it is, it's a path the Earth follows.
| The Earth is a point on
| the big disc.
No, the Earth is a big ball, not a point, and the big disc is not a disc at
all,
it's an ellipse.
| The equations are the same.
x = [-b +- sqrt(b^2 -4ac)] / 2a is the same as tan = sin/cos?
| Only radii are different.
Oh really? What radii are those, then?
| The MG
| apparatus was huge to have proper sensitivity for the velocity 0.46 km/s.
Here's some MGs, they even has a badge on the from that says "MG".
That stands for "Morris Garages", but it can't do 0.46 km/s.
http://www.simon-j-robinson.co.uk/mg.htm
| The MM was for 30 km/s (and for this reason was not able to detect 0.46
| km/s). The both were built years ago. Now we have very small electronic
| apparatus which do the same. What they detect if we put them on the Earth
| surface close to equator and orientalise in orbital direction?
| I bet that the reading will be 0.46 km/s.
How much money you want to bet? I'll match your bet, my money against
yours. I'll even bet you don't have the balls to bet against me.
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fce8f980-3442-42f6...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 18, 5:36 pm, nade <promon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
> is correct.
> Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
> differ
> and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
> giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
> Those
> of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
> physicists.
>
> nade
| This, at root level, is the difficulty with trying to learn stuff from
| the internet. There is no BS meter available. You have no way to
| discern anything. Note the following:
| 1. The correctness of either has nothing to do with their "beliefs" or
| which one has more "theoretical sense". The correctness of a theory
| has to do with something else entirely: how well it describes
| experimental data. I just want to point out to you that you are using
| improper figures of merit for correctness.
| 2. Neither one is a theoretical physicist. One of them is an
| experimentalist. The other is not a physicist at all and does not have
| a physics degree.
Roberts has no physics degree? Hmm... well, I'm not surprised.
Even if he had he would not have got it from Sussex.
He certainly doesn't have a math degree either.
| 3. Being able to string jargon together is not an indicator of whether
| one is a physicist, let alone a brilliant one. You have been duped by
| one of these posters, who is a shuckster, a liar, and who is
| perpetually on a short track to Wrong. Now, tell me, what do you have
| at your disposal to tell which one of them is the scam?
You have Roberts weighed up just right, Duck. I'm sure nade has his wits
at his disposal, far more so than you have your bigotry.
>
> On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Szczepan Białek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
nade
After analyzing it. Well. This is what I can comment. Imagine yourself
being in the moving orange horizontal, you can see the light moving
at c. While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
looking
at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer. This is what is
meant
by time slowing down in moving frame. Hey. You mean you misunderstood
this very elementary concept? Come on. Give more sophisticated
counterarguments against the legendary roberts. Look.
Reality doesn't need to conform to our newtonian way of thinking.
Reality is not newtonian because. Spacetime is flexible. The best
analogy to understand it is to assume reality is a simulation run
inside
a computer machine where mathematical algorithms rule the
cyber interactive dreamworld. This is how one can understand the
counter intuitive world of Special Relativity, General Relativity,
and Quantum Mechanics.
nade
> > > > "Szczepan Bia�ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
Androcles
How?
| While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
| looking
| at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer.
Longer than c? Miles longer or years longer? What are "in out seats"?
Let me think about this... Hmm.. My car doesn't seem longer than 30
mph to me, does your monitor seem longer than 6 feet per second to you?
| This is what is
| meant
| by time slowing down in moving frame.
Compared to what, "time"?
| Hey. You mean you misunderstood
| this very elementary concept?
Yes, I've misunderstood this very elementary concept. Explain it to me.
So far I have "seems longer than a velocity", and "this is what is meant
by time slowing down (compared to "time")". What very elementary concept?
| Come on. Give more sophisticated
| counterarguments against the legendary roberts.
Well, see, I'm what's called "sensible", I don't claim things
seem longer than c. Perhaps Roberts will.
| Look.
Ok, I'm looking, show me something longer than c. I'm quite willing
to be shown.
| Reality doesn't need to conform to our newtonian way of thinking.
OUR way of thinking?
What is OUR way of thinking?
MY way of thinking is very different to YOUR "seems longer than c" fuckin'
lunacy.
| Reality is not newtonian
From someone that claims reality seem longer than c I can understand why
you'd say that.
| because. Spacetime is flexible. The best
| analogy to understand it is to assume reality is a simulation run
| inside
| a computer machine where mathematical algorithms rule the
| cyber interactive dreamworld. This is how one can understand the
| counter intuitive world of Special Relativity, General Relativity,
| and Quantum Mechanics.
Ah, I see. Reality is a dreamworld. And what is your hallucinogenic drug of
choice? Whatever that shit you are smoking is, if it makes you happy, carry
on.
I prefer to remain sane.
Goodbye, fuckhead. Come back with a new name.
*plonk*
> > > > "Szczepan Bia�ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's not surprising that even you are unable to pick out the scam.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
nade
In any reference frame, light moves at c. We can prove this by
reflecting laser off the moon (take note our solar system moves
very fast) in space.
>
> | While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
> | looking
> | at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer.
>
> Longer than c? Miles longer or years longer? What are "in out seats"?
Longer means time being longer.
>
> Let me think about this... Hmm.. My car doesn't seem longer than 30
> mph to me, does your monitor seem longer than 6 feet per second to you?
>
What the heck. What I mean by longer is time seems to pass by longer
in moving frame.
> | This is what is
> | meant
> | by time slowing down in moving frame.
>
> Compared to what, "time"?
Compared to our stationary frame time.
>
> | Hey. You mean you misunderstood
> | this very elementary concept?
>
> Yes, I've misunderstood this very elementary concept. Explain it to me.
> So far I have "seems longer than a velocity", and "this is what is meant
> by time slowing down (compared to "time")". What very elementary concept?
You know what. You have misunderstood it similar to Seto in his
moving light mirror.
>
> | Come on. Give more sophisticated
> | counterarguments against the legendary roberts.
>
> Well, see, I'm what's called "sensible", I don't claim things
> seem longer than c. Perhaps Roberts will.
What are you babbling.. when I say longer.. it means time
passing by longer.
>
> | Look.
>
> Ok, I'm looking, show me something longer than c. I'm quite willing
> to be shown.
>
> | Reality doesn't need to conform to our newtonian way of thinking.
>
> OUR way of thinking?
> What is OUR way of thinking?
We mostly think newtonianly because our neurons couple to
classical world..
> MY way of thinking is very different to YOUR "seems longer than c" fuckin'
> lunacy.
>
> | Reality is not newtonian
>
> From someone that claims reality seem longer than c I can understand why
> you'd say that.
>
> | because. Spacetime is flexible. The best
> | analogy to understand it is to assume reality is a simulation run
> | inside
> | a computer machine where mathematical algorithms rule the
> | cyber interactive dreamworld. This is how one can understand the
> | counter intuitive world of Special Relativity, General Relativity,
> | and Quantum Mechanics.
>
> Ah, I see. Reality is a dreamworld. And what is your hallucinogenic drug of
> choice? Whatever that shit you are smoking is, if it makes you happy, carry
> on.
You seem to be the most brilliant anti-relativist but it seems you
have
misunderstood very elementary concept. So try to study in your room
more and come back with more sophisticated stuff to give challenges
to the relativists. For example. Try to figure out quantum gravity
instead
of wasting time defending newtonian fallacy.
nade
Einstein should be cannonized as saint. There is no way a mere
mortal can figure out photoelectric effect (photon exists), brownian
motion (atom exists), special relativity in the miracle year of 1905.
However, I hold reservations about it because if Phipps is right.
We can annihilate special relativity by annihilating maxwellian
foundation. So there is still hope for you anti-relativists. Study
Phipps. It's the last hope of the anti-relativists. If Phipps is
wrong, then anti-relativists would be extinct.
Daryl McCullough
>I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
>is correct.
Androcles is a crank. He understands basically nothing about
physics. He has spent decades puzzling over a single paper
of Einstein's that he should have been able to master in
a couple of hours. He has literally wasted thousands of
hours of his own time and that of others spinning in
circles, making no progress at understanding the basic
principles of physics.
Tom Roberts is not an expert, but he is well-informed
and very competent.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
harry
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:ifb0u31n555vigjml...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:30:38 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>nade wrote:
>>> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>>> What do you make of it?
>>
>>The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.
>>
>>Specifically:
>>> if we allow the detector to have free
>>> motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
>>> must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector's
>>> motion.
>>
>>Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
>>4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
>>dotted into its 4-velocity.
>
> Could you please provide a precise definition of the term '4-velocity'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-velocity
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
> I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
> is correct.
> Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
> differ
> and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
> giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
> Those
> of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
> physicists.
>
> nade
"Androcles, the intellectual giant":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IntellectualGiant.html
Dirk Vdm
Szczepan Białek
"nade"
>
>Einstein should be cannonized as saint. There is no way a mere
mortal can figure out photoelectric effect (photon exists), brownian
motion (atom exists), special relativity in the miracle year of 1905.
All are now a math toys. Einstain and his girl friend were in 1905 very
young and full of fantasy.
Photon do not exist. In optics is the lenght of light wave packet.. If the
way difference is bigger than the lengh of the packet no interference.
Browian motions are caused by electric charges. The all dispersed media
exist thanks reppeling of electrical charges. But the charges are live and
make the mess (Browian.motions).
Special relativity is a history after 1925 (Michelson-Gale experiment).
But all which do the math physics without any errors and in agreements with
assumptions are undoubtedly genius. Einstain was such.
S*
hanson
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:sc7Ej.34320$M9....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
great stuff,... profound and incisive, as usual, but beyond the
comprehension of any of parroting Einstein Dingleberries
who tried to make their case for Einstein's crock... ahahahaha...
>
Hey Andro, you sure do know how to flush out those virulent
Einstein Dingleberries... like fade "nade" <promonade, Proletarian
Dunce PD-Draper, Hairy "harry" <harald.vanlintel>, Karandarse
Dunno Dono, Toilet Dweller Wabnig, Saucepan Szczepan Białek"
<sz.b...@wp.pl>, Variouos Kike Varneys and a host of others...
But sadly, all your heroic efforts only make those poor bastards
move closer to the warmth of Einstein's sphincter..... ahahaha...
>
Actually, do have some pity for them. Those brainwashed poor
dumbfucks, all being damaged goods now, do not realize that
they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
>
::AE:: .... "NOT search at the same, now well lit places, where he,
Einstein, had been working".
>
--- More here about Einstein's Anus Mirabilis
(= Albert's sphincter where his EDs do worship):
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9e824b27dab62a0d >
The nature and character traits of EDs:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/498298f4a2794397 >
>
Einstein's conscience finally caught up with him, when he was
fessing up about the con of REL, ... one year before he folded
his tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket, bit the grass
and puffed, ... when/where he said to Besso in 1954:
::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . [ &
::AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:
>
::: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
::: who said
::: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th century
::: will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
>
::: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
::: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
::: associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
>
::: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
::: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
::: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
>
So, like in any movement and/or religion there are fanatic disciples
of which you have garnered a set here:.. the financially and mentally
poverty stricken Einstein Dingleberries... for whose, "here-and-now
earthly Seelen-heil" it should be pointed out that in the real world,
today,
>
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
But thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson
Szczepan Białek
"Androcles"
>
> | I bet that the reading will be 0.46 km/s.
>
> How much money you want to bet? I'll match your bet, my money against
> yours. I'll even bet you don't have the balls to bet against me.
Early we must know Your figure. Null, 0.42 or 30 km/s.
S*
Dr. Henri Wilson
...laughable.....the kind of SciFi that impresses little boys like Eric geese.
Isn't it amazing what mathematics can do with a false physical postulate....
>Harald
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....
Androcles
| Early we must know
Did you snip something? Now I can't tell who said what.. I wonder what it
was...
Let's start again, shall we?
| Only radii are different.
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:1kbEj.16619$Id3.2721@trnddc07...
| ..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
| news:sc7Ej.34320$M9....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| great stuff,... profound and incisive, as usual, but beyond the
| comprehension of any of parroting Einstein Dingleberries
| who tried to make their case for Einstein's crock... ahahahaha...
| >
| Hey Andro, you sure do know how to flush out those virulent
| Einstein Dingleberries... like fade "nade" <promonade, Proletarian
| Dunce PD-Draper, Hairy "harry" <harald.vanlintel>, Karandarse
| Dunno Dono, Toilet Dweller Wabnig, Saucepan Szczepan Białek"
| <sz.b...@wp.pl>, Variouos Kike Varneys and a host of others...
| But sadly, all your heroic efforts only make those poor bastards
| move closer to the warmth of Einstein's sphincter..... ahahaha...
| >
| Actually, do have some pity for them. Those brainwashed poor
| dumbfucks, all being damaged goods now, do not realize that
| they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
| century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
| with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
Me? Have pity? You misunderstand me, sir, pity would be an emotion.
I reserve emotion for those that matter, not for dingbats.
In matters of science I appear as this, blindfold:
http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif
Why should anyone be interested in a clown that says:
"After analyzing it. Well. This is what I can comment. Imagine yourself
being in the moving orange horizontal, you can see the light moving
at c.
While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
looking at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer."
"In out seats"? "it (c) may seem longer"?
And that is after anal-yzing it well.
I can't have pity for a lunatic, it wouldn't do any good anyway.
aick
sure it does, thats tha whole poing,
few lines in stead of reading and replication
> Moreover, it is no
> one's obligation to replicate what is written in books by transcribing
> it into Usenet,
not replicate fool, thats tha whole poing
yo are contradicting your foken self
> just to make it free and easy for some amateurs and
> cranks.
you?
> That would be spoonfeeding. If you want to hunt buffalo, be
> prepared to spend some effort making the arrowheads first, and stop
> asking people to escort you to a dead buffalo.
its a dead buffalo in that book or
what you would have tp say about
that book is a dead buffalo
>
> PD
you violate tha unwritten rules of usenet
promoting books you wan ta sell
if that books have pictures then is okay
but if it has math, then you read one
page a day,
for instance 5 books times 200 pages
takes 1000 days,
three years, fool, in order for a moron
ta unswer a simple question
nade
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1kbEj.16619$Id3.2721@trnddc07...
>
> |news:sc7Ej.34320$M9....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | great stuff,... profound and incisive, as usual, but beyond the
> | comprehension of any of parroting Einstein Dingleberries
> | who tried to make their case for Einstein's crock... ahahahaha...
> | >
> | Hey Andro, you sure do know how to flush out those virulent
> | Einstein Dingleberries... like fade "nade" <promonade, Proletarian
> | Dunce PD-Draper, Hairy "harry" <harald.vanlintel>, Karandarse
> | <sz.bia...@wp.pl>, Variouos Kike Varneys and a host of others...
> | But sadly, all your heroic efforts only make those poor bastards
> | move closer to the warmth of Einstein's sphincter..... ahahaha...
> | >
> | Actually, do have some pity for them. Those brainwashed poor
> | dumbfucks, all being damaged goods now, do not realize that
> | they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
> | century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
> | with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
>
> Me? Have pity? You misunderstand me, sir, pity would be an emotion.
> I reserve emotion for those that matter, not for dingbats.
> In matters of science I appear as this, blindfold:
> http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif
>
> Why should anyone be interested in a clown that says:
> "After analyzing it. Well. This is what I can comment. Imagine yourself
> being in the moving orange horizontal, you can see the light moving
> at c.
> While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
> looking at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer."
>
> "In out seats"? "it (c) may seem longer"?
What I simply meant is that in our seats looking at a moving
frame of reference (represented by the monitor image). It takes
longer time for c to go from A to B. This translate to time slowing
down. For example, we see the c of the moving block travels
for 12 seconds in our frame while in its frame the time is 4
seconds. This means for every 4 seconds in its frame, it
takes 12 seconds in our frame. But since the speed of light
is constant and both the frames must see the same speed
of light. Time dilation occurs in moving frame with respect
to ours. Note that c = distance travel/time. Let the horizonal
numbers in your demo animation signify the distance.
Since the distance for the point to move from A to B is
12 and the time is also 12 in the clock. C=1 which is
unity. In the return from B to A which signifies closer
to light speed in its frame.. 4/4=1. Again, since c is
always c and we see longer path of c in the moving
frame which takes shorter for the observer in that frame.
Everything else in the moving ship slows down with
respect to us, and you can see slow motion in other image.
This is why moving frame of reference such as atomic clock
in fast orbit around the planet has slower time.
This all occurs because c is the common timing reference
used by reality computer program as bookkeeping to make
sure the equations have symmetric state in all locations
in the virtual state called spacetime. Get the hang of it
dude. Relativity will fail in a pure physical world.. but it
so happens we don't actually live in one.
nade
Dono
Why do you post as BOTH "nade" and "aick"? Do you suffer from some
mental disease?
Don't answer, it was a rhetorical question.
It is fun to see that you managed to sucker both Tom and Paul into
exchanging ideas with your saner "you" ("nade") :-)
nade
Who is aick? No. I'm not aick or whatever. I'm just someone
who wants to find flaws in Special Relativity by seeing
if the maxwellian foundation has problems in the first
place that makes SR superflous.
nade
Dono
You are lying. You are one and the same person.
nade
>
> - Show quoted text -
searching for "aick" at goggle news search. I only find 4 threads
about him. I don't know how you can attribute him to me. What
does he do and how can i be him?
nade
Szczepan Białek
"Androcles" >
> Did you snip something? Now I can't tell who said what.. I wonder what it
> was...
>
> Let's start again, shall we?
>
> "Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:frqja5$rm6$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
> |
> | "Androcles"
> | >
> | > All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
> | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
> |
> | The Earth rotate.
>
>
> Really? Sheesh, fancy that! You mean the Sun doesn't go around it?
>
>
> | But the Earth orbit also rotate.
>
> No, the orbit stays where it is, it's a path the Earth follows.
Use an imagination. In the Solar System everything rotate. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet
>
> | The Earth is a point on | the big disc.
>
> No, the Earth is a big ball, not a point, and the big disc is not a disc
> at all, it's an ellipse.
>
>
> | The equations are the same.
>
> x = [-b +- sqrt(b^2 -4ac)] / 2a is the same as tan = sin/cos?
>
> | Only radii are different.
>
> Oh really? What radii are those, then?
Use an imagination. The result of MM will be the same the Earth as for the
disc equal to the Earth orbit.
>
> | The MG
> | apparatus was huge to have proper sensitivity for the velocity 0.46
> km/s.
>
> Here's some MGs, they even has a badge on the from that says "MG".
All use MM. Nobody mentions any Michelson-Gale nor MG (it stand for
Michelson-Gale experiment)
See:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..140M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
.
PD
If it were possible to accurately present the material in a few lines,
then it would have been done so in a few lines in the books, rather
than in a number of pages. You get what you pay for.
You keep saying, "I don't have the time or interest in reading long
pages or in buying books. I want the same content, for free, and in a
couple of short paragraphs. Make it so." Stop whining. If you want
short and free, you'll get shallow and poor quality. If you want deep
and high quality, this will require some investment on your part. Suck
it up.
>
> > Moreover, it is no
> > one's obligation to replicate what is written in books by transcribing
> > it into Usenet,
>
> not replicate fool, thats tha whole poing
>
> yo are contradicting your foken self
>
> > just to make it free and easy for some amateurs and
> > cranks.
>
> you?
>
> > That would be spoonfeeding. If you want to hunt buffalo, be
> > prepared to spend some effort making the arrowheads first, and stop
> > asking people to escort you to a dead buffalo.
>
> its a dead buffalo in that book or
> what you would have tp say about
> that book is a dead buffalo
>
>
>
> > PD
>
> you violate tha unwritten rules of usenet
> promoting books you wan ta sell
No, I'm not going to sell them. Someone else will sell them. It is not
an unwritten rule of usenet to advocate that anything worthwhile can
be had for free on the internet. That isn't a rule, it's an idiocy.
Get over it.
>
> if that books have pictures then is okay
>
> but if it has math, then you read one
> page a day,
Not if you have a bit more practice in the math. If you have practice,
you can read 30 pages a day. And if you want a simple answer to a
simple question, then you don't have to read the entirety of all five
books. You just have to read enough to get the answer. Some answers,
note, are not so simple, and just asking, "Well, then, make it
simple," is not an option. Suck it up and get over it.
>
> for instance 5 books times 200 pages
> takes 1000 days,
>
> three years, fool, in order for a moron
> ta unswer a simple question- Hide quoted text -
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" >
| > Did you snip something? Now I can't tell who said what.. I wonder what
it
| > was...
| >
| > Let's start again, shall we?
| >
| > "Szczepan Białek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
| > news:frqja5$rm6$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
| > |
| > | "Androcles"
| > | >
| > | > All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
| > |
| > | The Earth rotate.
| >
| >
| > Really? Sheesh, fancy that! You mean the Sun doesn't go around it?
| >
| >
| > | But the Earth orbit also rotate.
| >
| > No, the orbit stays where it is, it's a path the Earth follows.
|
| Use an imagination.
No, I'll use my eyes and simple logic. You can shove your stupid
imagination up your arse, orbits do not rotate, cretin.
[My turn to snip and your turn to get it back again, moron]
Dirk Van de moortel
> "Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
> news:frtdhi$bjl$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
>>
>> "Androcles" >
>>> Did you snip something? Now I can't tell who said what.. I wonder what it
>>> was...
>>>
>>> Let's start again, shall we?
>>>
>>> news:frqja5$rm6$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
>>>>
>>>> "Androcles"
>>>>>
>>>>> All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
>>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
>>>>
>>>> The Earth rotate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? Sheesh, fancy that! You mean the Sun doesn't go around it?
>>>
>>>
>>>> But the Earth orbit also rotate.
>>>
>>> No, the orbit stays where it is, it's a path the Earth follows.
>>
>> Use an imagination.
>
> No, I'll use my eyes and simple logic. You can shove your stupid
> imagination up your arse, orbits do not rotate, cretin.
ALERT!
He is about to use his simple logic again:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORforever.html
Dirk Vdm
hanson
news:64bff222-9d13-4893...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:1kbEj.16619$Id3.2721@trnddc07...
> | ..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....
> | "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> |news:sc7Ej.34320$M9....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | great stuff,... profound and incisive, as usual, but beyond the
> | comprehension of any of parroting Einstein Dingleberries
> | who tried to make their case for Einstein's crock... ahahahaha...
> | >
> | Hey Andro, you sure do know how to flush out those virulent
> | Einstein Dingleberries... like fade "nade" <promonade, Proletarian
> | Dunce PD-Draper, Hairy "harry" <harald.vanlintel>, Karandarse
> | <sz.bia...@wp.pl>, Variouos Kike Varneys and a host of others...
> | But sadly, all your heroic efforts only make those poor bastards
> | move closer to the warmth of Einstein's sphincter..... ahahaha...
> | Actually, do have some pity for them. Those brainwashed poor
> | dumbfucks, all being damaged goods now, do not realize that
> | they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
> | century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
> | with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
>
Androcles wrote:
> Me? Have pity? You misunderstand me, sir, pity would be an emotion.
> I reserve emotion for those that matter, not for dingbats.
> In matters of science I appear as this, blindfold:
> http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif
> Why should anyone be interested in a clown that says:
> "After analyzing it. Well. This is what I can comment. Imagine yourself
> being in the moving orange horizontal, you can see the light moving
> at c. While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
> looking at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer."
> "In out seats"? "it (c) may seem longer"?
>
What I simply meant is that ... Relativity will fail in a pure physical
world.. but it so happens we don't actually live in one.
nade
>
> And that is after anal-yzing it well.
> I can't have pity for a lunatic, it wouldn't do any good anyway.
>
> | they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
> | century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
> | with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
no-Nad-Varney listen... here's a copy/retort from/for your other post.
It's well meant, with concerns for your well being and benefit:
>
no-nad-"nade" <prom...@yahoo.com> promenaded in [1] & [2]
news:796c4108-d9ff-4f80...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
news:64bff222-9d13-4893...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com.....
his Einstein Dingleberry intellect, yearning in his abject worship:
[1]
> If we can have holy week to commemorate the life of an
> non-existent man (Jesus doesn't truly exist historically, does he??)
> Why can't we have Einstein Week
> Einstein Week to be celebrated once a year around the world
> Who has the power to grant Einstein Week and make it part
> of holidays in the world? Can Bush do it?
[2]
> Relativity will fail in a pure physical world..
> but it so happens we don't actually live in one.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha.. Varney, you've have lost your nads, and your chance,
to get your Einstein week, because of the comments you made
in [1] which makes all the bible-beating Jesus disciples mad at
you... and then [2] you killed all prospects for your EW with your
own conviction of you not living in a real world...
You are a loser, Varney!... Bad Scene, Varney!... ahahahaha....
>
But listen, you still can advocate an annual ED parade, like the
fabled doo-daa parades... Go for it. Partake and strut in there...
They're filled with all sorts of intellectual & emotional perverts,
Dingleberries, like yourself... You'll really feel to be very close
to even more than just Albert's sphincter in your ED "promende"
Now get some nads again and include yourself by "promenading"
yourself in that parade as the chief of all Einstein Dingleberries...
You have made a good start in this NG. You have the right stuff.
>
Thanks for the laughs , Varney... ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
de Nada hallucinates the kind of world we live in.
Are you sure it isn't de nada's prominent pomade?
hanson
> de Nada hallucinates the kind of world we live in.
>
of course, that is a classic symptom of Einstein Dingleberryism.
>
> | Andro continues:
> | > And that is after anal-yzing it well.
> | > I can't have pity for a lunatic, it wouldn't do any good anyway.
> | >
> | hanson continued:
> | > | they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
> | > | century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
> | > | with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
> | > | ::AE:: .... where he, Einstein, had been working".
> | > | >
> | > | --- More here about Einstein's Anus Mirabilis
> | > | (= Albert's sphincter where his EDs do worship):
> | > | <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9e824b27dab62a0d>
> | > | The nature and character traits of EDs:
> | > | <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/498298f4a2794397>
> | > | >
> | > | Einstein's conscience finally caught up with him, when he was
> | > | fessing up about the con of REL, ... one year before he folded
> | > | his tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket, bit the grass
> | > | and puffed, ... when/where he said to Besso in 1954:
> | > | ::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
> | > | ::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In
> | > | ::AE:: gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
> | > | ::AE:: modern physics." . [ & elsewhere]
> | > | ::AE::"why would anyone be interested in getting
> | > | ::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
> | > | >
> | > | Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
> | > | final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:
> | > | >
> | > | ::: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
> | > | ::: who said
> | > | ::: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th
> | > | ::: century will be characterized in history
> | > | ::: as the dark ages of physics."
> | > | >
> | > | ::: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
> | > | ::: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition,
> > | ::: essentially associated with the names of
> > | ::: Marx, Freud and Einstein"
> | > | :::
> | > | ::: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
> | > | ::: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of
> | > | ::: reality? That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
> | > | >
> | > | So, like in any movement and/or religion there are fanatic disciples
> | > | of which you have garnered a set here:.. the financially and
> | > | mentally poverty stricken Einstein Dingleberries..
> | > | . for whose, "here-and-now earthly Seelen-heil" it should
> | > | be pointed out that in the real world, today,
> | > | == mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
> | > | == *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
> | > | == Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
> | > | == Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or
> | Now get some nads again and include yourself by "promenading"
> | yourself in that parade as the chief of all Einstein Dingleberries...
> | You have made a good start in this NG. You have the right stuff.
> | >
> | Thanks for the laughs , Varney... ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> hanson, Are you sure it isn't de nada's prominent pomade?
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... well, if that turns out to be so-n'such
then his pomade will serve poster no-gonad-"nade"-Varney at
least well enough to grease-up his own Dingleberries with it and
protect his own sphincter instead of only Einstein's... ahahaha...
But ED's have strange priorities though... ahahaha... ahahanson
maxwell
> ...
> Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
> is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
> think is the cause of gravity?
>
There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
'relativity'. SRT is a consequence of Maxwell's theory of electricity
and GRT is Einstein's theory of gravity. He wasted the last 40 years
of his life trying to unify these two field theories. Modern
theorists have wasted their own careers in attempting the same but
adding the complexity of the quantum.
Tom Roberts
> There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
> Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
> the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
> 'relativity'.
This is plain and simply not true. SR was INSTRUMENTAL in leading
Einstein to GR, and remains as both:
A) the local limit of GR at any point in any manifold
B) the solution of the GR field equation for an empty universe
and the topology of R^4.
> SRT is a consequence of Maxwell's theory of electricity
> and GRT is Einstein's theory of gravity.
Hmmm. Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics is incompatible with SR, but
the modern version of it is fully compatible with SR. Today we would say
that SR is a consequence of local symmetries of the universe we inhabit
(specifically: local Lorentz invariance).
> He wasted the last 40 years
> of his life trying to unify these two field theories.
This was only "wasted" to those who do not understand what he was doing.
Yes, he did not succeed in unifying GR and electrodynamics. But in the
journey there was much to be learned....
> Modern
> theorists have wasted their own careers in attempting the same but
> adding the complexity of the quantum.
The modern issues are MUCH more complicated than you seem to think.
Tom Roberts
Yanick Toutain
> On Mar 17, 6:54 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Don't you know how to judge for yourself?
>
> > Catch 22:
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
>
> > Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
>
> > specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
> > real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
> > "Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
> > to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
> > have to fly more missions.
>
> > "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
> > was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
> > to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
>
> > In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
> > the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
> > use c+v.
>
> > Troll kooks such as
>
> > Uncle Schwartzschit,
> > Blind Poe,
> > Moron McCullough,
> > Humpty Roberts,
> > Phuckwit Duck Draper,
> > Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
> > Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
> > Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
> > Ghost ewill,
> > Goosey Gisse,
> > Wanker Olson,
> > Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
> > Fecal Jekyll,
> > Bilewacky,
> > Dork Van de merde et. al.
> > fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
>
> > between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
> > shown here:
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
>
> > Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
> > moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
>
> > Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
> > If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
> > you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
>
> > c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
> > part where Einstein screws up is:
> > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
>
> > What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
> > reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
> > in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.
>
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
>
> > Here are some mathematical proofs:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
>
> > Not included are
> > Proof by "because I say so",
> > Proof by "everybody knows",
> > Proof by "it is written",
> > the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
>
> > You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
> > but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
> > indoctrination like lemmings.
>
> > Catch 22:
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
>
> > Prediction:
> > The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
> > proof.
>
> > RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
>
> > RULE I.
> > We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
> > and sufficient to explain their appearances.
>
> > To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
> > and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
> > simplicity,
> > and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
>
> > -- Sir Isaac Newton
>
> > ["tj Frazir"]
> > If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 year.
>
> > ["CWatters"]
> > Suppose you apply a small displacement by compressing one end with a
> > hammer.
> > Does the shock wave still travel at the speed of light?
>
> > [Androcles]
> > Clearly the extrapolation (increasing rigidity yields increasing speed
> > of sound) indicates either there is limit to rigidity or there is a limit to
> > the speed of sound in a material body.
> > Given that a material body is made of atoms then atoms are
> > not rigid... but we do not expect them to be anyway, the model of
> > an atom is that of a nucleus surrounded by a mantle of empty
> > space and a shell (or shells) of electrons. By compressing the
> > atom we force the electrons into the nucleus, the charges cancel
> > and we are left with a nucleus of incompressible neutrons where
> > the limit to rigidity has been reached; for either the neutron is totally
> > rigid or the speed of sound in neutrons exceeds the speed of light.
>
> > "Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we
> > have settled what is to be understood by"[1] neutron stars and proven
> > black holes do not exist, the extrapolation has gone too far.
>
> > [1] Einstein's verbal diaorreah to impress neanderthals and gorillas.
>
> Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
> is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
> think is the cause of gravity?
>
PHOTONS
1367 W/m²
NEW NEWTONIST THEORY
Yanick Toutain
YOU ARE JOKING !!!
You must BUY Einstein's books !!!!
Yanick Toutain
> On Mar 17, 9:12 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>
> <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > nade wrote on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:21:46 -0700:
>
> > > What do you think of the following paper written by this esteemed
> > > physicist?
>
> > >http://www.stardrive.org/Jack/PhippsEM.pdf
>
> > > nad
>
> > I did explicit my opinion about Phipps Hertzian approach in a previous
> > post.
>
> > --http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
>
> Say, are you a normal or a crackpot? How come you have 13 stars with
> one rating. Did the crackpots rate you or did the normal?
>
> About Phipps.. do you think he is loose screw?
You must stop to use the word "crackpot"
crackpot ?
If Newton wrote here, it is exactly the insult which you would use
against him!!!
How I know it? Which evidence?
It is very simple:
I am a newtonist, in favour of Newton and I defend absolute space, and
the absolute velocities against the relativistic imbeciles!
And I receive spittles, the insults, calumnies (and even the threats:
Jacques Lavau) of the partisans of Einstein, same spittles, same
insults, same calumnies and same threats that would receive Isaac
Newton.
Si Newton écrivait ici, c'est exactement l'insulte que vous
utiliseriez contre lui !!!
Comment je le sais ? Quelles preuves ?
C'est très simple :
Je suis un newtoniste, partisan de Newton et je défends l'espace
absolu, et les vitesses absolues contre les imbéciles relativistes !
Et je reçois les crachats, les insultes, les calomnies (et même les
menaces : Jacques Lavau) des partisans de Einstein, les mêmes
crachats, les mêmes insultes, les mêmes calomnies et les mêmes menaces
que recevrait Isaac Newton.
Androcles
Today I'm more interested in finding out about Uff's hardon state...
"Alejandro Rivero" <Al.R...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51d736aa-4955-48cf...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| On 10 mar, 09:05, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "127.0.0.1" <127.0....@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
| >
[Uff]
| > news:rX0Bj.446$Vt2...@newsfe07.lga...
| > At the author work "Modelof theindivisibleparticlesatclosedsystem
| > ofsimultaneousequationsof themattermotioninpseudocurvedspace",
| > St. Petersburg,1995 the structured particle present as a lepton both
| > hardon states and, forming the atom into continuous transitional its
| > states in the time.
| >
[Andro]
| > It that were English I'd ask about hardon states but I can already see
the
| > reply would be totally incediberufal.
|
[Uff]
| original source here. Uff.
|
| http://www.shaping.ru/CONGRESS/english/ratnicov/ratnicov.asp
[Andro]
Ok, tell us all about hardon states, Uff.
Daryl McCullough
>
>On Mar 16, 4:51=A0pm, nade <promon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
>> is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
>> think is the cause of gravity?
>>
>There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
>Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
>the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
>'relativity'.
That's not at all correct. There is an intimate relationship between
Special Relativity and General Relativity, which is that Special
Relativity is the small-region limit of General Relativity.
Here's an analogy with Euclidean geometry. We all know how to
do Euclidean geometry on a plane: (1) A straight line is the
shortest distance between two points. (2) The measure (in degrees)
of the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180. (3) A right
triangle has sides with lengths related by A^2 + B^2 = C^2.
Now, instead of a flat plane, consider geometry on the surface
of the Earth (which is approximately a sphere).
The shortest distance between two points isn't a straight
line, it is what's called a "great circle" (on the Earth,
the lines of longitude are great circles). If you want to
know the quickest way to get from point X to point Y, you
find the circle whose center is the center of the Earth
that goes through X and Y. Along that circle is the shortest
path between X and Y.
In some ways, great circles are like "straight lines" of
planar geometry, but in other ways they are different.
If you take three points X, Y and Z on the surface of the
Earth, and make a "triangle" by taking the great circle
route from X to Y, then the great circle route from Y to
Z, then the great circle route from Z back to X, the
resulting triangle will have interior angles that add up
to greater than 180 degrees. If it is a right triangle
with small sides A and B, and large side C, then
A^2 + B^2 adds up to more than C^2. So the geometry of
great circles is not much like the geometry of straight
lines.
However, if you are not concerned with a big region of
the Earth, but only with a tiny region (maybe your back
yard), then the difference between a great circle and
a straight line becomes negligible. If in your back
yard, you make a triangle out of great circles, its
angles will add up to 180 degrees to the limits of
your ability to measure. If you make a right triangle
in your back yard, it's sides will satisfy the Pythagorean
theorem, to within the limits of your ability to measure
distances.
The conclusion is this: The small-region limit of
spherical geometry is planar geometry. An alternative
way to see the same conclusion is this: Instead of
having a *real* sphere, take many, many tiny planar
triangles and connect them together in 3D to form a
spherical "geodesic dome". If the dome is big enough
compared to the size of the triangles, then spherical
geometry can be used (approximately) to describe
the large-scale shape of the dome. But for small
scales, in a tiny region that only involves one or
two triangles, the dome will look like a section of
a flat plane.
The relationship between General Relativity and Special
Relativity is analogous. In a very large region of
spacetime, a region large enough to include planets and
stars, General Relativity looks very different from
Special Relativity. However, if you focus in on a small
region of spacetime (say, a few seconds in the inside of
an elevator that is in free-fall) General Relativity
becomes indistinguishable from Special Relativity.
Special Relativity is the small-region limit of General
Relativity. If your measurement devices (for measuring
times and distances) have limited precision, then in a
small enough region of spacetime, the predictions of
Special Relativity will be true (to the limits of your
ability to measure).
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Oncle Dom
892fdfec-fb6f-4cd3...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
nous a fait l'honneur d'écrire:
> Et je reçois les crachats, les insultes, les calomnies (et même les
> menaces : Jacques Lavau) des partisans de Einstein, les mêmes
> crachats, les mêmes insultes, les mêmes calomnies et les mêmes menaces
> que recevrait Isaac Newton.
Isaac Newton n'est pas à l'entartomètre, lui
--
Oncle Dom
_________
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/oncle.dom/
maxwell
maxwell
comment about two points that are infinitely close together or
Einstein's mental processes. By introducing the term 'manifold' you
have already left the world of reality (physics) and landed on Plato's
planet of invariant relationships (math). Instead of writing
mathematical gobbleygook like "SR is a consequence of local symmetries
of the universe" why not talk about real phenomena, like electricity.
SR is supposed to work at macro-separations: stop hiding behind
infinitessimals, such as 'local symmetries'. SR is a theory of EM
(check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
were doing?). It was the universality of c in Maxwell's model of the
aether that led to all this nonsense. Trying to justify a theory of
gravity that only manifests measurable effects with mega masses & then
linking this to the interactions between two microscopic electrons at
LARGE separations is too much of a stretch of the imagination. If you
were right why did Einstein waste 40 years? Incidentally, what did
Einstein learn from all this effort?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Tom, I was making a point about the physics, NOT some mathematical
> comment about two points that are infinitely close together or
> Einstein's mental processes. By introducing the term 'manifold' you
> have already left the world of reality (physics) and landed on Plato's
> planet of invariant relationships (math). Instead of writing
> mathematical gobbleygook like "SR is a consequence of local symmetries
> of the universe" why not talk about real phenomena, like electricity.
> SR is supposed to work at macro-separations: stop hiding behind
> infinitessimals, such as 'local symmetries'. SR is a theory of EM
> (check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
> were doing?).
Making mistakes. Lorentz admitted that Einstein's approach was the best.
Every covariant theory of gravitation requires manifolds.
The fact of the matter is that mathematics is the horse upon which
physics rides. Newton did not come up with his theory of motion until he
invented calculus, complete with infinitesimals.
The equations ARE the theory.
Bob Kolker
Juan R.
> SR is a theory of EM
> (check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
> were doing?).
Tom misunderstandings about history of SR were revealed on the March
thread "History of relativity" on sci.physics.relativity.
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Juan R.
>> infinitessimals, such as 'local symmetries'. SR is a theory of EM
>> (check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
>> were doing?).
>
> Making mistakes. Lorentz admitted that Einstein's approach was the best.
In his 1914 paper Lorentz credited Poincaré (before Einstein and
Minkowski) as pionner in SR.
It was also Lorentz one of Nobel Prize committee who rejected Einstein
for the Nobel Prize for relativity because was unfair.
> Every covariant theory of gravitation requires manifolds.
It depends one means by "covariant"
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Tom Roberts
> Tom, I was making a point about the physics, NOT some mathematical
> comment about two points that are infinitely close together or
> Einstein's mental processes. By introducing the term 'manifold' you
> have already left the world of reality (physics) and landed on Plato's
> planet of invariant relationships (math).
Hmmm. In physics we make models of the world. To date, by far the best
models are all mathematical. SR is no exception -- it is inherently
mathematical.
> Instead of writing
> mathematical gobbleygook like "SR is a consequence of local symmetries
> of the universe" why not talk about real phenomena, like electricity.
Because you were attempting to describe the basis of SR, and today that
is symmetries of the manifold.
> SR is supposed to work at macro-separations: stop hiding behind
> infinitessimals, such as 'local symmetries'.
Today nobody expects SR to apply globally to the world we inhabit. It
only applies as the local limit of GR. Note that in this context,
"local" frequently encompasses an entire experiment accurately,
depending on the details.
> SR is a theory of EM
> (check out your history - what do you think Larmor, Poincare & Lorentz
> were doing?).
Historically, SR was based on EM. Today it is not. We have LEARNED a
thing or three in the intervening century....
> It was the universality of c in Maxwell's model of the
> aether that led to all this nonsense.
But today, c is a parameter of the local symmetry of spacetime. It is
merely an historical artifact that the same symbol (c) is used for two
quite different quantities: the speed of light in vacuum, and the
invariant local speed of the manifold.
> Trying to justify a theory of
> gravity that only manifests measurable effects with mega masses & then
> linking this to the interactions between two microscopic electrons at
> LARGE separations is too much of a stretch of the imagination.
I have no idea why you think anybody does that. Gravitation between
electrons is utterly negligible compared to their EM interaction.
> If you
> were right why did Einstein waste 40 years? Incidentally, what did
> Einstein learn from all this effort?
Ask him.
Tom Roberts
Jeff▲Relf
he's all you ever talk about.
Looking at Nade's IP address ( 122.53.86.160 ),
I see he's using Google on IE7 on Windows Vista
on the “ Philippine Long Distance Telephone ” in “ Makati City ”.
Michael Varney posts from the University of Colorado, Boulder,
and uses Mozilla Thunderbird. Last we heard from him,
he said he has a life ( working on quantum gravity at the NIST );
so he doesn't post here anymore.
Back when he was posting, he seldom mentioned physics,
if I recall correctly.
hanson
"Jeff?Relf" <Jeff_Re...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2008_...@Cotse.NET...
> Face it Hanson, you're obsessed with Einstein,
> he's all you ever talk about.
>
... ahahahaha.. That's more engaging & interesting then
you whining about your fears about your Land lord & your
personal sorry state of being a pauper & dead-beat dad.
ahahaha... ahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson
Jeff▲Relf
( all landlords are also tenants )... that's not “ whining ”.
Likewise, you're renting space in Einstein's head.
P.S. I misspelled “ to boot ”.
hanson
news:Jeff_Relf_2008_...@Cotse.NET...
big time, bad and grievously... to the point of you being
obsessed with me! ... ahahaha... Boot yourself, Jeff.
Now go and suck an Egg. Easter is here!... ahahaha...
Androcles
on another computer other than my own.
It's a Keplerian orbit plot, all you need change are the numbers in
the yellow boxes. You can ignore the questions the operating
system spits out.
Randy Poe
Then how do you know what physics he was working
on?
- Randy
hanson
> Have a look at this for me, pal. I'm curious as to how well it works
> on another computer other than my own.
> It's a Keplerian orbit plot, all you need change are the numbers in
> the yellow boxes. You can ignore the questions the operating
> system spits out.
>
Happy Easter, dude.
Well, I snipped the Relf-shit stuff, after which only your
5 lines above manifested on this XP platform with OE6.
>
I had you post checked on Win 98, 2000 prof, and 2 Vista
machines... All reported only your 5 lines above. Not even
an url/link was evident --- Maybe self-anointed c-guru Jeff
has better luck with his profound probing about who is who
with what n'where ... ahahahahaha -- So, try again, Andro...
hanson
Androcles
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
| news:FqdFj.94384$nw4...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > Have a look at this for me, pal. I'm curious as to how well it works
| > on another computer other than my own.
| > It's a Keplerian orbit plot, all you need change are the numbers in
| > the yellow boxes. You can ignore the questions the operating
| > system spits out.
| >
| hanson wrote:
| Happy Easter, dude.
You too if the first Sunday after the first full Moon after the Spring
equinox (which this year happened to coincide) is important to you. :-)
The frigging tree outside my window is in blossom and the wind is
taking it right off again as fast as it grows. Snow is forecast... oh well.
| Well, I snipped the Relf-shit stuff, after which only your
| 5 lines above manifested on this XP platform with OE6.
Using Outlook Express you can go to
Message/
Create Rule from Message/
Where the message is from "Relf"/
Delete it/
But don't tell Smiffy, Relf has him by the bollocks by changing
the number part of his name automatically and defeating Smiffy's
kill file. I gotta like Relf for doing that. :-)
| >
| I had you post checked on Win 98, 2000 prof, and 2 Vista
| machines... All reported only your 5 lines above. Not even
| an url/link was evident --- Maybe self-anointed c-guru Jeff
| has better luck with his profound probing about who is who
| with what n'where ... ahahahahaha -- So, try again, Andro...
| hanson
Ghost in the Machine seems to have it going at least.
What you should have got was an Excel spreadsheet in
Internet Explorer, but maybe you need Excel as well.
I'll try it with Microsoft Works, that is a freebie.
The link again is:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.xls
hanson
NOW that your link arrived, double clicking on it worked just fine.
0.7 / 360 gives an elliptic segment from 300-600 o'clock pos.
0.2 / 85 gives an circle segment from 330-1100 o'clock pos.
0.9 / 560 gives an ellipse segment from 300-600 o'clock pos.
0.001/1000 = an ellipse segment from 330-400 o'clock pos.
Bitch'n!
The color of the curve display dots appear in pale pink color
Hard to see.
hanson
>
Shit! Gotta run! Pool pump in the grotto just "exploded"
Water's all over!... ahahahaha.... lata alligata!....
Jeff▲Relf
Pete posted a news article about him, with a picture of him at work.
Jeff▲Relf
The randomly generated letters in my email address
are there to foil email harvesters;
I'm trying to “ bounce flood ” their inboxes.
As you noted, you can score me this way:
“ Outlook ( or, on Vista, Windows Mail ) --> Message
--> Create Rule --> Where the message is from ‘ Relf ’ ”.
Androcles
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
| news:yGhFj.64867$M9.3...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| > The link again is:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.xls
| >
| hanson:
| NOW that your link arrived, double clicking on it worked just fine.
Oops! Did I leave it out? Dang, I really am as stupid as so many tell me.
| 0.7 / 360 gives an elliptic segment from 300-600 o'clock pos.
| 0.2 / 85 gives an circle segment from 330-1100 o'clock pos.
| 0.9 / 560 gives an ellipse segment from 300-600 o'clock pos.
| 0.001/1000 = an ellipse segment from 330-400 o'clock pos.
Yes, ok. Unfortunately I have to increase the size of the spreadsheet
as a function of the number of points, so the limitation is about 60.
| Bitch'n!
| The color of the curve display dots appear in pale pink color
| Hard to see.
That I can fix, but it may be that your monitor needs a tune up. :-)
My flat widescreen LCD has a slight tendency toward pink when
it should really be grey; which is nowhere near as good as my
Compaq CRT monitor, colourwise. Fashion dictates that tubes
are out of fashion because they have the wrong aspect ratio, 3:4
instead of 3^2: 4^2, 9:16, and fashion is just like green tree-hugging
shit. Whatever sells is GOOD, or so we are to believe. And we
go along with it, the message is not good unless it is fashionable.
To think that I stared at 1024x768 pixels for all the years when
I could have understood physics much better with 1440 x 900
pixels...and spent money.
Anyway, the page works, that's what mattered.
Copernicus.exe (which I wrote over 15 years ago) allows
for 10,000,000 points. 100,000,000 points and you need a
faster computer. I'm not planning on increasing the point count
for a spreadsheet.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
Thanks for your help, it is appreciated. Now go fix the pool pump.
Michael Moroney
don't quote him/her, and break threading, but:
> The randomly generated letters in my email address
> are there to foil email harvesters;
> I'm trying to M-bM-^@M-^\ bounce flood M-bM-^@M-^] their inboxes.
That is evil of you, since the victims of bounce floods are whichever
email addresses the spammers forge in the "From:" lines of the spam emails,
not the spammers themselves. Fortunately, your strategy doesn't actually
make things any worse, since there will be one bounce per spam sent to a
broken email server, regardless of what is in the "To:" field.
Just use a nonfunctional email in your From: and leave it at that, like
what I do.
Go read news.admin.net-abuse.email and check out the woes of the owner
of cotse.com, which is being swamped by bounce floods, which is probably
deliberately being done by a spammer.
Jeff▲Relf
( Stephen K. Gielda's posts, the owner of Cotse.NET, using FreeBSD ).
Hmmm... as you noted, bouncing is evil;
so my “ From ” field now reads: “ Jeff▲Relf <X...@X.Invalid> ”.
Just to be safe, my Message-ID's now end in “ X.Invalid ”, like this:
“ news:Jeff_Relf_2008_...@X.Invalid ”.
Steve says he's getting: “ over 50 million [ bounces ] per day ”,
“ over 10,000 connections a second during it's peak
from almost every major mail server
and a plethora of bit players and lasted over five days. ”.
He says “ It's maxing out a 100MB full duplex NIC. ”.
It locked up a quad machine with a giga bit ethernet card
and people are telling him to throw more resources at it.
He wrote:
“ [ Cotse ] currently hosts over ten thousand domains
and normal mail volume is around 40 million a day.
They just flattened whatever I put in front of this flood.
Machines would not even stay up to issue 5xx errors. ”.
These emails are All using “ Cotse.COM ” ( my email is at Cotse.NET )
in the “ From ” field, so he's set up several machines with gigE cards
to handle emails bouncing “ Back ” ( ha ha ) to “ Cotse.COM ”.
That's called “ Load Balancing ”.
Also, he gets hit hard with credit card fraud,
and it costs him 25 dollars per mistake.
Banks love credit card fraud, they make big money off it.
maxwell
to derive the ideas, which were in the tradition of natural philosophy
- a subject that mathematicians like yourself feel really
uncomfortable with. Check out Principia.
Robert J. Kolker
> Wrong again, Bob. Calculus was introduced to SOLVE the equations, not
> to derive the ideas, which were in the tradition of natural philosophy
> - a subject that mathematicians like yourself feel really
> uncomfortable with. Check out Principia.
I read it cover to cover. Newton published -Princiipia- using
traditional geometric language because his calculus methods were
relatively unknown to his target audience. He invented calculus to talk
about motion. Calculus is the language of motion. He could not have
formulated his physics without calculus.
It turns out the later developments of classical mechanics required the
least action principle and the calculus of variations to be stated. See
the works of Jacobi, Lagrange and Hamilton.
Bob Kolker
Darwin123
> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>
> What do you make of it? Author has doctorate in nuclear physics
> and has over 40 publications in physics journals.
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>
> from the web site:
> Following this logic, if we allow the detector to have free
> motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
> must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector's
> motion.
The electrodynamics that I learn do allow it through chain
derivatives. Maxwell's equations are defined for detectors that are
travelling at a constant velocity in an inertial frame. If one wants
the equivalent equations for a detector in an accelerated frame, one
uses the chain rule to figure out what the derivatives mean in the
accelerated frame.
Actually, the problem you refer to proceeded electromagnetism.
The same type of problem exists in classical fluid dynamics. One uses
the chain rule of derivation. In fact, there is an operator in fluid
dynamics called the material derivative. The material derivative is
what happens to a spatial derivative in the accelerated frame of the
streamline.
I think the formalism of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics
would be very useful in electromagnetic theory classrooms. In these
subjects, the derivatives are written in such a way that there is
never any doubt which quantities are in an inertial frame. In the
electromagnetic theory classes, the meaning of the derivatives are
conveyed entirely by words instead of being part of the equation.
Just pay close attention to the chain rule of differentiation,
and to partial derivatives. Application of SR to accelerating frames
is actually rather easy once you understand the chain rule of
differentiating.
maxwell
contemporaries - it was totally unknown, since Newton wished to keep
his 'secret weopon' to himself. He used geometry as his expositional
method because it would be understood by ALL his fellow
mathematicians. The later developments of CM by mathematicians is
where these guys forgot Newton's physics & just invented more
continuum math. The world is NOT continuous, it is discrete; that's
why the math does NOT work.
Juan R.
> "nade" <prom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a1fbc49a-da6c-440d...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 17, 9:12 pm, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
> <juan...@VEcanonicalscience.com> wrote: [...]
>
>> Say, are you a normal or a crackpot? How come you have 13 stars with
> one rating. Did the crackpots rate you or did the normal?
>
> There is at least one nutcase here who found a way to falsify the rating
> counts and apparently, he finds such trickery very enjoyable.
She is well-known by Google Groups administrators and each certain time
the false ratings are deleted.
My average rating also fluctuates because of her. Weekend i submitted two
messages to sci.physics.research and then I had suspicious 250 one-rating
stars. Today all false ratings were deleted and my average rant is of
five stars
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?
enc_user=GoncHx4AAAC1vIl8N7H_NtwnSrHDuE1RoVXr7-I212PRgSBPBahlNQ
In no doubt, she lives for the tiny yellow stars...
--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> On Mar 23, 6:21 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I read it cover to cover. Newton published -Princiipia- using
> > traditional geometric language because his calculus methods were
> > relatively unknown to his target audience. He invented calculus to talk
> > about motion. Calculus is the language of motion. He could not have
> > formulated his physics without calculus.
>
> > It turns out the later developments of classical mechanics required the
> > least action principle and the calculus of variations to be stated. See
> > the works of Jacobi, Lagrange and Hamilton.
>
> > Bob Kolker
>
> Wrong again, Bob. Calculus was not 'relatively' unknown by Newton's
> contemporaries - it was totally unknown, since Newton wished to keep
> his 'secret weopon' to himself.
As usual with most of your writings, you are sadly misinformed.
Leibnitz independently developed many ideas of calculus as early as
1674, and used well-developed methods of calculus, expressed in his
own, superior notation, in correspondence with other mathematicians
starting around 1677.
Newton's Principia Mathematica was published in 1687.
Jerry
Autymn D. C.
> On 17 mar, 14:54, nade <promon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Say, are you a normal or a crackpot? How come you have 13 stars with
> > one rating. Did the crackpots rate you or did the normal?
>
>
> You must stop to use the word "crackpot"
Yes, with a stopping-time of about 1.8 s--or tapping.
> crackpot ?
>
> If Newton wrote here, it is exactly the insult which you would use
> against him!!!
> How I know it? Which evidence?
> It is very simple:
> I am a newtonist, in favour of Newton and I defend absolute space, and
> the absolute velocities against the relativistic imbeciles!
You defend what absolute where? Which imbecils?
Autymn D. C.
> 3. Being able to string jargon together is not an indicator of whether
> one is a physicist, let alone a brilliant one. You have been duped by
> one of these posters, who is a shuckster, a liar, and who is
> perpetually on a short track to Wrong. Now, tell me, what do you have
> at your disposal to tell which one of them is the scam?
How do some longtime posters such as yourself keep from Androcles's
block?
All the while they don't get to tell him his setup has two
independents, which by definition can't make his equality--as every
one of his bickers is his innumerate invention and not relativity's or
Einstein's. He's not a "shuckster"; he's a shyster.
http://dictionary.com/browse/shyster
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> "Androcles"
>
>
>
> > All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
>
> The Earth rotate. But the Earth orbit also rotate. The Earth is a point on
> the big disc. The equations are the same. Only radii are different. The MG
> apparatus was huge to have proper sensitivity for the velocity 0.46 km/s.
> The MM was for 30 km/s (and for this reason was not able to detect 0.46
> km/s). The both were built years ago. Now we have very small electronic
> apparatus which do the same. What they detect if we put them on the Earth
> surface close to equator and orientalise in orbital direction?
> I bet that the reading will be 0.46 km/s.
> S*
Learn how to declinare.
socratus
No any sins.
It is only our poor consciousness thinks so.
=============================..
Pythagoras' theory applies equally to the largest and smallest
triangle.
So physicists had decided, that this applies also to
the electromagnetic phenomena;
that the laws of a nature in the macrocosm and in a microcosm are
identical.
It appears that this is not so.
In the macrocosm, Maxwell's laws apply
and in the microcosm, other laws, the laws of SRT operate.
SRT is a continuation of the development of electrodynamics.
==========================..
There isn't the Maxwell's theory / SRT without electron.
The electron is a main and single hero in the Maxwell's theory and
SRT.
1) What does the electron do in Maxwell's theory?
Maxwell's equations have no relation to the movement of the
electron.
They describe the distribution of electromagnetic waves
but not the movement of a particle such as an electron.
In Maxwell's theory, the charge - electron is considered local,
as though the particle is "at rest".
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around his diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of the electron creates electrical waves.
* * *
2) What does the electron do in SRT ?
At the beginning of the last century many scientists
(Einstein, Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Abraham)
were interested in the question:
" What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell's) ,
creating an electrical field, begins to move - rectilinearly?"
All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical
changes with the electron.
These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
That is when the originally rotating electron (sphere) begins to move
rectilinearly, during movement it gradually will change its
geometrical form.
Having reached constant speed of c=1, its form will become a circle.
In such condition it is called a "quantum of light "," photon".
And when a quantum of light rotates around its diameter its name is
"electron "
An "electron" is an actively working "quantum of light".
===========================..
All know, that an electron is not a firm sphere.
All know, that its form can be changed.
But nobody understands the borders of the change of the
geometrical form of the electron.
So, what are the borders of this change?
Quantum theory gives an answer to this question.
It says that at the interaction of the electron with the vacuum,
the energy and mass of the electron become infinite.
It means that " The law of conservation and transformation energy" is
broken.
Unless can it be? No.
Physics does not understand what to do with infinite sizes
and therefore have thought up "a method of renormalization", a method
"to sweep the dust under the carpet" / Feynman./
This method is abstract. The situation can be understood another way.
Electrons, having the geometrical form of a sphere,
lose their volume (density) and turn into an indefinitely flat
circle.
In this is the reason for the occurrence of infinite sizes for the
electron.
But in physics we know only one particle which has the form of a flat
circle.
It is a quantum of light which flies rectilinearly with speed c=
1.
Therefore, the electron turns into a quantum of light.
Therefore, the electron and /or a quantum of light
is the same particle in different states.
==========================...
Autymn D. C.
> " What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell's) ,
> creating an electrical field, begins to move - rectilinearly?"
> All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical
> changes with the electron.
> These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
> That is when the originally rotating electron (sphere) begins to move
> rectilinearly, during movement it gradually will change its
> geometrical form.
> Having reached constant speed of c=1, its form will become a circle.
No, the ball will blunt in the foreward and drag in the backward,
where its overall volume will be nouht and mass infinite foreward but
bigger and leihter backward.
> In such condition it is called a "quantum of light "," photon".
> And when a quantum of light rotates around its diameter its name is
> "electron "
> An "electron" is an actively working "quantum of light".
Wrong, a fotòn is a shift in the elèctròn. The former is a hap and
not a thing; the latter a thing and not a hap.
> In this is the reason for the occurrence of infinite sizes for the
> electron.
> But in physics we know only one particle which has the form of a flat
> circle.
> It is a quantum of light which flies rectilinearly with speed c=
> 1.
> Therefore, the electron turns into a quantum of light.
> Therefore, the electron and /or a quantum of light
> is the same particle in different states.
Liht is not a mote. The wave flies circumpolarly, as a ball, with
polarisation-bias in strength. See the apple.
-Aut