FTL Scientists Get Shitcanned

[HVAC]

Harlow's note: LOL!


ROME—Two leaders of the OPERA collaboration, which stunned the world in
September when it announced data suggesting that neutrinos could travel
faster than the speed of light, have stepped down. The resignation of
Antonio Ereditato as spokesperson and Dario Autiero as physics
coordinator of the study followed a vote of no confidence, held
yesterday by leaders of the individual groups within the collaboration,
according to a source at OPERA who asked not to be identified. The vote
came several weeks after it was revealed that the hotly debated result
was probably caused by a faulty cable connection.

OPERA, based at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in central Italy,
measures the properties of neutrinos sent some 730 km through Earth's
crust from the CERN laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland. The
announcement that it had recorded these neutrinos arriving some 60
nanoseconds earlier than light appeared to violate Einstein's special
theory of relativity. But in February, ScienceNOW reported that the
early arrival time was probably due to a loose connection in a GPS
system used to synchronize timing between the two labs.

Ereditato, who leads a group from the University of Bern, and Autiero,
head of a group at the University of Lyon in France, had been the public
face of the controversial study for the past 6 months, but apparently
colleagues were unhappy about the way they had handled the results.
Specifically, there was discontent about Ereditato's management, says
the source at OPERA, while the opposition to Autiero focused on the
measurement itself.

Some 16 group leaders voted against the pair yesterday, while 13 voted
in their favor and several others abstained, the source says. Although
collaboration rules specify that a two-thirds vote is needed to remove
experiment leaders, the result meant that a majority wanted the pair
gone. Ereditato apparently resigned his post a few minutes after the
result of the ballot was known, whereas Autiero waited until today to
step down. But it's unclear what their positions will now be within the
collaboration.

Some collaboration members believe that the results, when first
announced at a symposium at CERN on 23 September 2011, should have been
presented more clearly as preliminary. They are also unhappy that more
experimental checks weren't carried out before the announcement. "Once
the seminar was done, OPERA should have undertaken a more extensive
campaign of tests before submitting its paper to a journal," says Luca
Stanco, leader of a group from the University of Padova in Italy,
"including the famous cable test. Technical errors can happen to any
collaboration. But we should have been more careful."

The collaboration now has to appoint a new spokesperson, although
exactly when that will happen remains unclear. "I hope it won't affect
the future of the experiment," Stanco says. "It is absolutely essential
that we continue with the scientific program."

Antonio Masiero, vice president of Italy's National Institute of Nuclear
Physics (INFN), which runs the Gran Sasso lab, has released a statement
saying that he hopes the collaboration can "find unity and new
leadership in carrying out its primary specific objective," the
"oscillation" of muon neutrinos produced by CERN into tau neutrinos.

The statement added that "further and definitive" measurements of the
velocity of neutrinos will be carried out by OPERA and three other
experiments at Gran Sasso using a new finely pulsed beam sent from CERN
at the end of April. Two of these experiments—Icarus and LVD—have
recently reported results confirming that neutrinos cannot travel faster
than light.

Neither Ereditato nor Autiero were available for comment today.







--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[RLW]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:42:06 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> Harlow's note: LOL!
>
>
> ROME—Two leaders of the OPERA collaboration, which stunned the world in
> September when it announced data suggesting that neutrinos could travel
> faster than the speed of light, have stepped down. The resignation of
> Antonio Ereditato as spokesperson and Dario Autiero as physics
> coordinator of the study followed a vote of no confidence, held
> yesterday by leaders of the individual groups within the collaboration,
> according to a source at OPERA who asked not to be identified. The vote
> came several weeks after it was revealed that the hotly debated result
> was probably caused by a faulty cable connection.

> <etc.>

They got cahsiered because of a technician's error? While surprising in a
country where the trains definitely do not run on time, it's heartening in
a way. Putting people in charge who lack the knowledge to check the work
of those reporting to them can cause problems. Hey, just look at the U.S.

I'll second that LOL.

And why am I posting at this time of day? Because a lightning strike took
out the power in my office, where the backup generators evidently do not
work. [sigh]

--
RLW

[HVAC]

On 3/30/2012 4:33 PM, RLW wrote:
>
>
> They got cahsiered because of a technician's error?

No. Their true mistake was believing anything can travel
faster that light speed in our universe. When these results
presented, they should have immediately realized that there
was a mistake in their methodology.

While surprising in a
> country where the trains definitely do not run on time, it's heartening in
> a way. Putting people in charge who lack the knowledge to check the work
> of those reporting to them can cause problems. Hey, just look at the U.S.
>
> I'll second that LOL.
>
> And why am I posting at this time of day? Because a lightning strike took
> out the power in my office, where the backup generators evidently do not
> work. [sigh]
>


--

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
> On 3/30/2012 4:33 PM, RLW wrote:
>>
>>
>> They got cahsiered because of a technician's error?
>
>
> No. Their true mistake was believing anything can travel
> faster that light speed in our universe. When these results
> presented, they should have immediately realized that there
> was a mistake in their methodology.
>

Eppur si muove.

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
>
> Harlow's note: LOL!
>
>
> ROME—Two leaders of the OPERA collaboration, which stunned the world in
> September when it announced data suggesting that neutrinos could travel
> faster than the speed of light, have stepped down. The resignation of
> Antonio Ereditato as spokesperson and Dario Autiero as physics
> coordinator of the study followed a vote of no confidence, held
> yesterday by leaders of the individual groups within the collaboration,
> according to a source at OPERA who asked not to be identified. The vote
> came several weeks after it was revealed that the hotly debated result
> was probably caused by a faulty cable connection.

Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.

[Double-A]

On Mar 30, 12:42 pm, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Harlow's note:  LOL!
>
> ROME—Two leaders of the OPERA collaboration, which stunned the world in
> September when it announced data suggesting that neutrinos could travel
> faster than the speed of light, have stepped down. The resignation of
> Antonio Ereditato as spokesperson and Dario Autiero as physics
> coordinator of the study followed a vote of no confidence, held
> yesterday by leaders of the individual groups within the collaboration,
> according to a source at OPERA who asked not to be identified. The vote
> came several weeks after it was revealed that the hotly debated result
> was probably caused by a faulty cable connection.

The purge begins!

Double-A

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:43:45 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 4:33 PM, RLW wrote:
>>
>>
>> They got cahsiered because of a technician's error?
>
>
> No. Their true mistake was believing anything can travel faster that
> light speed in our universe. When these results presented, they should
> have immediately realized that there was a mistake in their methodology.

If they were fired because they believed experiment trumps theory, then
whomever fired them is an idiot.

And there was nothing wrong with their methodology from what I heard, it
was a lose connection that caused the signal to appear delayed.

If you've never been bit in the butt by crap like that in an experiment,
then you've not done many interesting experiments.

[Marvin the Martian]

Einstein has been wrong many times; he was wrong about the cosmological
constant, he was wrong when he denounced Father LeMaitre's big bang
theory as "Catholic Science", he was wrong about the EPR paradox...

As soon a human abandons the scientific method and starts the dog like
butt sniffing of authority - they cease to be human and return to the
ways of their ape ancestors.

[linuxgal]

Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:16:56 -0700, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>
> Einstein has been wrong many times; he was wrong about the cosmological
> constant, he was wrong when he denounced Father LeMaitre's big bang
> theory as "Catholic Science", he was wrong about the EPR paradox...
>

Actually, he got the cosmological constant thing right, but he didn't
know it was attributable to the repulsion of dark energy.

[Olrik]

Well, maybe not, but they just become all *too* human...

[hanson]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:ZJqdnUxztLnfrevS...@giganews.com...

ecce homo


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/30/2012 4:43 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/30/2012 4:33 PM, RLW wrote:
>>
>>
>> They got cahsiered because of a technician's error?
>
>
> No. Their true mistake was believing anything can travel
> faster that light speed in our universe. When these results
> presented, they should have immediately realized that there
> was a mistake in their methodology.

In other words, he should have known better than to actually publicize
any result that appeared even tentatively in opposition to "official
approved science laws". Science always needs to reenforce politics and
that's why no deviations from approved messages can be tolerated. This
is why AGW deniers are all insane.

Step out of line and you MAY have to answer to HVAC...

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/30/2012 11:32 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> As soon a human abandons the scientific method and starts the dog like
> butt sniffing of authority - they cease to be human and return to the
> ways of their ape ancestors.

I don't know. I'm thinking that denier butts probably smell pretty rank
compared to "official expert" butts. Would be a great way separate those
that need killed from those that need lots of money. I'll bet Wormley's
butt smells just like a daisy.

[Peter Webb]

"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:e5wdr.24832$yD7....@newsfe15.iad...

> On 3/30/2012 4:43 PM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 3/30/2012 4:33 PM, RLW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> They got cahsiered because of a technician's error?
>>
>>
>> No. Their true mistake was believing anything can travel
>> faster that light speed in our universe. When these results
>> presented, they should have immediately realized that there
>> was a mistake in their methodology.
>
> In other words, he should have known better than to actually publicize any
> result that appeared even tentatively in opposition to "official approved
> science laws".

Absolute bullshit. There are no "official approved science laws", and
scientists would *love* to find evidence that existing theories are wrong.

This is why the researchers were in such a hurry to publish. The reason they
got into trouble is because they didn't do aqequate checking of their
experimental setup before publishing. If other scientists were so slapdash,
then we would have frequent annoucements of incorrect results, and
experiments which "disproved" Einstein would be a weekly event.

As it is, all that the researchers proved is that they couldn't set up their
own equipment properly; they showed themselves merely to be incompetent
experimental scientists and brought their institution (OPERA) into
disrepute.

Indeed, when it was checked, there were two errors found - a cable not
properly connected, and an error is setting up clocks (with opposite
effects). They should have checked their experiment more carefully before
announcing that one of the most fundamental physical laws ever found was
wrong.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/31/2012 1:19 AM, Peter Webb wrote:

> Absolute bullshit. There are no "official approved science laws", and
> scientists would *love* to find evidence that existing theories are wrong.
>
> This is why the researchers were in such a hurry to publish. The reason
> they got into trouble is because they didn't do aqequate checking of
> their experimental setup before publishing. If other scientists were so
> slapdash, then we would have frequent annoucements of incorrect results,
> and experiments which "disproved" Einstein would be a weekly event.
>
> As it is, all that the researchers proved is that they couldn't set up
> their own equipment properly; they showed themselves merely to be
> incompetent experimental scientists and brought their institution
> (OPERA) into disrepute.
>
> Indeed, when it was checked, there were two errors found - a cable not
> properly connected, and an error is setting up clocks (with opposite
> effects). They should have checked their experiment more carefully
> before announcing that one of the most fundamental physical laws ever
> found was wrong.

Sorry Peter but this is the BIGGEST load of "plausible" bullshit I've
heard in quite some time!

It's all fake from top to bottom which makes me wonder what exactly they
DID find that we are not supposed to know about?

This story only works for anyone who has no idea what a loose cable
does. There was no rush to publish (Like say Pons etc.) and there were
no wild claims of results. One could hardly call some setup error (if
there actually was one) on an experiment of this magnitude to be
"inadequate". That's simply political bullshit. To call this "slapdash"
and bring "disrepute" is nonsense. Cripe. Warmists actually FAKE data,
and CHERRY PICK data, and try to call computer models (that don't
predict things correctly) "PROOF"! Do they get fired? Nay. They get
defended with name calling and assertions that anyone questioning the
fake data is a fraud! But a supposed loose cable in an acre of high-tech
gear is some huge sin?

All I know is I smell politics here really STRONG, and I just wonder
whose butt it's coming from...

[Peter Webb]

"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

news:fXxdr.24861$yD7....@newsfe15.iad...

> On 3/31/2012 1:19 AM, Peter Webb wrote:
>
>> Absolute bullshit. There are no "official approved science laws", and
>> scientists would *love* to find evidence that existing theories are
>> wrong.
>>
>> This is why the researchers were in such a hurry to publish. The reason
>> they got into trouble is because they didn't do aqequate checking of
>> their experimental setup before publishing. If other scientists were so
>> slapdash, then we would have frequent annoucements of incorrect results,
>> and experiments which "disproved" Einstein would be a weekly event.
>>
>> As it is, all that the researchers proved is that they couldn't set up
>> their own equipment properly; they showed themselves merely to be
>> incompetent experimental scientists and brought their institution
>> (OPERA) into disrepute.
>>
>> Indeed, when it was checked, there were two errors found - a cable not
>> properly connected, and an error is setting up clocks (with opposite
>> effects). They should have checked their experiment more carefully
>> before announcing that one of the most fundamental physical laws ever
>> found was wrong.
>
> Sorry Peter but this is the BIGGEST load of "plausible" bullshit I've
> heard in quite some time!
>

Except its not bullshit, and you have provided no reason why you think it
is.

> It's all fake from top to bottom which makes me wonder what exactly they
> DID find that we are not supposed to know about?
>

Nothing. You are a conspiracy nut.

> This story only works for anyone who has no idea what a loose cable does.

Wrong. I know what a loose cable does, and it worked for me.

> There was no rush to publish (Like say Pons etc.)

Yes, there was a rush; they publicised their result before checking their
experimantal srtup.

> and there were no wild claims of results.

Yes, there was a wild claim, that of something travelling faster than light.

> One could hardly call some setup error (if there actually was one) on an
> experiment of this magnitude to be "inadequate".

There setup and controls clearly were inadequate; their experiment produced
false measurements.

> That's simply political bullshit.

No, there is no political aspect to this whatsoever.

> To call this "slapdash" and bring "disrepute" is nonsense.

It was slapdash by the standards required; at least two errors were found
which completely explained the spurious result and should have been
discovered by the scientists themselves.

And yes, they have brought disrepute onto OPERA; next time they announce
some result researchers will wonder if the equipment has been properly
checked or whether the experiment was just as poorly put together as this
neutrino speed claim. Indeed, the only reason that this caused a stir was
because OPERA was so highly regarded; if somebody nobody had ever heard of
had announced the result then few people would have been interested. They
have brought OPERA's ability to run a straightforward experiment into
disrepute.

> Cripe. Warmists actually FAKE data, and CHERRY PICK data, and try to call
> computer models (that don't predict things correctly) "PROOF"! Do they get
> fired? Nay. They get defended with name calling and assertions that anyone
> questioning the fake data is a fraud! But a supposed loose cable in an
> acre of high-tech gear is some huge sin?

This has got nothing to do with AGW.

>
> All I know is I smell politics here really STRONG, and I just wonder whose
> butt it's coming from...
>

There is no political aspect to the experiment under discussion. None at
all. You are just a conspiracy nutter.

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:42:06 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Harlow's note: LOL!
>

LOL, yeah.

Shitcanned the relativity deniers in sci.physics, too.

w.

[Androcles]

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
news:hscdn7tpu0sd3jfcl...@4ax.com...

Nah, shitcan the Anthropogenic Global Relativity believers.

[HVAC]

And sometimes it's just a loose wire.......

"Measure twice, cut once".

[HVAC]

On 3/31/2012 12:53 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>
>> No. Their true mistake was believing anything can travel
>> faster that light speed in our universe. When these results
>> presented, they should have immediately realized that there
>> was a mistake in their methodology.
>
> In other words, he should have known better than to actually publicize
> any result that appeared even tentatively in opposition to "official
> approved science laws".

In this case, yes.

> Science always needs to reenforce politics and
> that's why no deviations from approved messages can be tolerated.

Look, their idea that these neutrinos were moving faster than light,
is absurd on it's face. Everything, and I mean *everything* in physics
would have to be completely redone to reconcile this new paradigm.

> This is why AGW deniers are all insane.

What the fuck does FTL neutrinos have to do with global warming?

> Step out of line and you MAY have to answer to HVAC...

Perhaps YOU should 'resign' as well, BJ.

[HVAC]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[HVAC]

On 3/30/2012 11:32 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>>

>> Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>
> Einstein has been wrong many times; he was wrong about the cosmological
> constant, he was wrong when he denounced Father LeMaitre's big bang
> theory as "Catholic Science", he was wrong about the EPR paradox...
>
> As soon a human abandons the scientific method and starts the dog like
> butt sniffing of authority - they cease to be human and return to the
> ways of their ape ancestors.

And that is exactly why he 'resigned'. He/they abandoned the scientific
method and, seeking publicity, went public before testing was complete.

Pride cometh beforest a falleth.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:28:48 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 11:32 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>>
>> Einstein has been wrong many times; he was wrong about the cosmological
>> constant, he was wrong when he denounced Father LeMaitre's big bang
>> theory as "Catholic Science", he was wrong about the EPR paradox...
>>
>> As soon a human abandons the scientific method and starts the dog like
>> butt sniffing of authority - they cease to be human and return to the
>> ways of their ape ancestors.
>
>
> And that is exactly why he 'resigned'. He/they abandoned the scientific
> method and, seeking publicity, went public before testing was complete.
>
> Pride cometh beforest a falleth.

They didn't "abandon the scientific method". They said they were getting
readings that indicated the neutrinos were moving faster than light.

Unfortunately, this was all hyped in the pop-Fiziks rags.

And the only pride here is yours.

[Brad Guth]

FTL has to be accomplished, as otherwise we're as good as doomed.

Gravity seems to be worth at least 2c.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[HVAC]

On 3/31/2012 8:48 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>>
>> And that is exactly why he 'resigned'. He/they abandoned the scientific
>> method and, seeking publicity, went public before testing was complete.
>>
>> Pride cometh beforest a falleth.
>
> They didn't "abandon the scientific method". They said they were getting
> readings that indicated the neutrinos were moving faster than light.
>
> Unfortunately, this was all hyped in the pop-Fiziks rags.
>
> And the only pride here is yours.

Boo-Fucking-Hoo. There's no faster than light. Waaaaaaa.

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
>
>> This is why AGW deniers are all insane.
>
>
> What the fuck does FTL neutrinos have to do with global warming?
>

Same rush to publish as Pons and Fleischmann of cold fusion infamy.
Same lack of attention to detail.

[RLW]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:43:45 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 4:33 PM, RLW wrote:
>>
>> They got cahsiered because of a technician's error?
>
> No. Their true mistake was believing anything can travel faster that
> light speed in our universe. When these results presented, they should
> have immediately realized that there was a mistake in their methodology.

Eh? The best theory we have says nothing can be accelerated to the speed
of light, setting a "speed limit" for anything that is already moving at
sub-luminal speed. That's all.

Yet as I recall they didn't believe the elusive little critters were
travelling faster than the speed of light. They believed they'd made an
error and were inviting others to help find it.

The hype and BS seems to have come from "science" writers who don't know
science, or how science is done, but do know what buttons to push to get
the casual readers excited.

Still and all, I have to applaud the occasion of any bigwig too ignorant
to check his facility's gear, since as a rule they get to be the boss by
being good at talking to his own bosses, being fired.

Time to fire a few science writers also. Perhaps it will encourage the
others to learn a bit about the subjects about which they write.

--
RLW

[HVAC]

On 3/31/2012 11:04 AM, RLW wrote:
>
>>
>> No. Their true mistake was believing anything can travel faster that
>> light speed in our universe. When these results presented, they should
>> have immediately realized that there was a mistake in their methodology.
>
> Eh? The best theory we have says nothing can be accelerated to the speed
> of light, setting a "speed limit" for anything that is already moving at
> sub-luminal speed. That's all.
>
> Yet as I recall they didn't believe the elusive little critters were
> travelling faster than the speed of light. They believed they'd made an
> error and were inviting others to help find it.

Is that why he 'resigned'?

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
> On 3/31/2012 11:04 AM, RLW wrote:
>>
>> Yet as I recall they didn't believe the elusive little critters were
>> travelling faster than the speed of light. They believed they'd made an
>> error and were inviting others to help find it.
>
>
> Is that why he 'resigned'?
>

His wife was at the press conference. He said he had done much prayer
about the situation, and God told him he needed to spend more quality
time with his family.

[HVAC]

God, in his infinite wisdom, made me an atheist.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/31/2012 3:12 AM, Peter Webb wrote:

> There is no political aspect to the experiment under discussion. None at
> all. You are just a conspiracy nutter.

Ah. The old "you are just a conspiracy theorist card", with the "you are
insane" card thrown in for good measure! Well, THAT sure proves
politics is involved and you are engaged in "damage control"!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/31/2012 8:25 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 3/31/2012 12:53 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:

> What the fuck does FTL neutrinos have to do with global warming?

Scientifically? Obviously nothing. But unfortunately, HVAC, that is not
the topic under discussion here. The topic is political aspects of
science. In which case Global Warming and politically inspired firings
of neutrino scientists are both quite pertinent.

>> Step out of line and you MAY have to answer to HVAC...
>
> Perhaps YOU should 'resign' as well, BJ.

Go tell my boss you'll cut his funding if he doesn't fire me, HVAC.

Funny!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/31/2012 8:25 AM, HVAC wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 6:16 PM, linuxgal wrote:

>> Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>
> Couldn't have said it better myself!

OK, Class. Did everyone get HVAC's point here? In Science there are
certain accepted FACTS. Evolution is FACT. That there are no UFOs is
FACT. That Einstein's rules of physics are FACT. And if you question any
of these (or any other FACTS that are officially sanctioned) Pretty much
your career will be OVER. HVAC will see to it himself. For more
information on how to trash a career in science see the documentary:
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein.

[linuxgal]

BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 3/31/2012 8:25 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On 3/30/2012 6:16 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>
>>> Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>>
>> Couldn't have said it better myself!
>
> OK, Class. Did everyone get HVAC's point here? In Science there are
> certain accepted FACTS. Evolution is FACT. That there are no UFOs is
> FACT. That Einstein's rules of physics are FACT.

Facts are data points. Theories are models which use those data points
to make predictions about future data points. Theories are ranked in
order of how thoroughly this predictive process has been carried out.
Einstein's theory is superb. Descent with variation is useful. Quantum
loop gravity is tentative. UFO's exist, I saw one myself that was
later identified as a Soviet first stage booster. But it's very
tentative to identify them as piloted craft from other planets.
Intelligent Design is more tentative than George Bush answering a
question about Saddam's biological weapons while Cheney is drinking a
glass of water.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

BJA...@teranews.com <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

X0Hdr.30319$_C5....@newsfe09.iad

Another FACT is that most alt.* groups -- and for some strange
reason sci.phyics.* -- are mostly frequented by FACT-deniers.
No harm done of course, as long as it keeps them off the street.

Dirk Vdm

[HVAC]

On 3/31/2012 1:06 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>
>> What the fuck does FTL neutrinos have to do with global warming?
>
> Scientifically? Obviously nothing. But unfortunately, HVAC, that is not
> the topic under discussion here. The topic is political aspects of
> science. In which case Global Warming and politically inspired firings
> of neutrino scientists are both quite pertinent.

Really? Since I started the topic, I feel quite capable of
defining it's implications. Thanks for the help tho...

>>> Step out of line and you MAY have to answer to HVAC...
>>
>> Perhaps YOU should 'resign' as well, BJ.
>
> Go tell my boss you'll cut his funding if he doesn't fire me, HVAC.

LOL! That's not what I do.

[HVAC]

On 3/31/2012 1:19 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>
>>> Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>>
>> Couldn't have said it better myself!
>
> OK, Class. Did everyone get HVAC's point here?

Oh, PLEASE explain explain, BJ.

> In Science there are certain accepted FACTS.

Yes.


> Evolution is FACT.


Yes.

> That there are no UFOs is FACT.

No.

> That Einstein's rules of physics are FACT.

And well tested.

> And if you question any
> of these (or any other FACTS that are officially sanctioned) Pretty much
> your career will be OVER.

Not necessarily. If you wish to challenge the current paradigm,
you'd better bring your A game tho....

> HVAC will see to it himself.

Even I answer to someone, BJ.

[Bill Snyder]

"If you say I'm a conspiracy freak, that proves there's a
conspiracy!" The perfect self-reinforcing delusion.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[be...@iwaynet.net]

Careful there, Bill. Keep on trying to think like this and your head may
explode!

[Brad Guth]

On Mar 31, 10:50 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> BJAC...@teranews.com <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
>   X0Hdr.30319$_C5.8...@newsfe09.iad

How fast is gravity? (objectively proven, if you please)

[Marvin the Martian]

The authority once was Aristotle. Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo got in
trouble for "fucking" with Aristotle. Bruno was literally fired.

Science is never done. No person in science is an authority, the only
authority is experiment. HVAC has a pathetic misunderstanding of what
science is.

[Marvin the Martian]

Some of the cranks here are nutty enough, and hateful enough, to do
exactly that. Careful not to dare these people; there are nutjobs in the
newsgroups who will stalk you if you prove them wrong often enough.

[Marvin the Martian]

There are classified programs out there. There is physics that the
government would very much like to keep unpublished. One of my graduate
advisors repeatedly had the government come in and say "we'd prefer that
you not publish that" and since the implied threat is against the entire
universities research funding, you comply.

I mean, the entire atomic bomb thing is "classified", but there are books
articles out there that were published before they became secret. My
undergrad university had a huge library, and we attracted "spies" from
all over the world who would go through and pick out the stuff that was
now "classified" as secret. I asked on spy from Pakistan if he was
looking for atomic bomb secrets. He explained they knew how to make a
atomic bomb, their problem was uranium enrichment. The Pakistan
government sent him to our school SPECIFICALLY to data mine the library.
He got a full scholarship plus a stipend for doing nothing more than
finding old books on enrichment, copying them, and taking them to the
Pakistan consulate.

Another example: I submitted a patent application to my employer and they
rejected it because the design already existed and it was classified -
which is why there was no prior patent on it. :-D As they were under
contract to the government, they were not going to submit it, and neither
could I, since they owned the IP rights as I developed the technology for
them.

There are still things from Project Paper-clip that are secret, and it's
been almost 70 years. What's that about?

The presumption that everything about physics that there is to know is
out there and published is naive and a bad presumption.

[Peter Webb]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:FZydnf_4fZmyferS...@giganews.com...

You have not demonstrated any political aspect to the experiment under
discussion. None at all.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

It's not the authentic "nut jobs" that worry me. It's the political
agents PRETENDING to be whacko. I don't know how much experience you
have with them, but they have exactly ZERO sense of humor and NO moral
compass.

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't know anything about that. I just know of the run of the mill
variety psychopaths that are in the newsgroups.

[HVAC]

On 4/1/2012 3:31 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Some of the cranks here are nutty enough, and hateful enough, to do
>> exactly that. Careful not to dare these people; there are nutjobs in the
>> newsgroups who will stalk you if you prove them wrong often enough.
>
> It's not the authentic "nut jobs" that worry me. It's the political
> agents PRETENDING to be whacko. I don't know how much experience you
> have with them, but they have exactly ZERO sense of humor and NO moral
> compass.

Well, I'm glad you cleared THAT up. I have a great sense of humor,
and although my moral compass always points south, I *do* have one.

[HVAC]

On 4/1/2012 12:25 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>>>> Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>>>
>>> Couldn't have said it better myself!
>>
>> OK, Class. Did everyone get HVAC's point here? In Science there are
>> certain accepted FACTS. Evolution is FACT. That there are no UFOs is
>> FACT. That Einstein's rules of physics are FACT. And if you question any
>> of these (or any other FACTS that are officially sanctioned) Pretty much
>> your career will be OVER. HVAC will see to it himself. For more
>> information on how to trash a career in science see the documentary:
>> "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein.
>
> The authority once was Aristotle. Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo got in
> trouble for "fucking" with Aristotle. Bruno was literally fired.
>
> Science is never done. No person in science is an authority, the only
> authority is experiment. HVAC has a pathetic misunderstanding of what
> science is.

I'm pathetic enough to know that nothing can travel faster than
light in our universe. Anyone that says differently can take the
same exit as the Director of OPERA in Italy.

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
>
> I'm pathetic enough to know that nothing can travel faster than
> light in our universe. Anyone that says differently can take the
> same exit as the Director of OPERA in Italy.
>

Two photons emerge from a beam-splitter in Denver. One of them is
right-hand circular polarized (the electric and magnetic fields twist
360 degrees to the right once per cycle), the other one twists left, but
no one knows which is which. They are allowed to fly apart down
separate fiber optic cables, one to Richland, Washington, the other to
Oak Ridge, Tennesee. In Richland, the photon is measured to have a
left-hand polarization. This observation instantly (faster than is
possible by the speed limit c) causes the wavefunction of the photon in
the national laboratory in Tennessee to resolve as a Southpaw.

Action at a distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

[HVAC]

On 4/1/2012 9:10 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>
>
> Two photons emerge from a beam-splitter in Denver. One of them is
> right-hand circular polarized (the electric and magnetic fields twist
> 360 degrees to the right once per cycle), the other one twists left, but
> no one knows which is which. They are allowed to fly apart down separate
> fiber optic cables, one to Richland, Washington, the other to Oak Ridge,
> Tennesee. In Richland, the photon is measured to have a left-hand
> polarization. This observation instantly (faster than is possible by the
> speed limit c) causes the wavefunction of the photon in the national
> laboratory in Tennessee to resolve as a Southpaw.
>
> Action at a distance.

Ya....Maybe not so spooky though.
There is zero experimental evidence for this theoretical 'action'.

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:43:47 -0400, "BJA...@teranews.com"

Hardly seems likely. If it did that, you'd be dead. As it is, it
only seems to have swelled your head up to 3 or 4 times its proper
size.

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 9:10 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>>
>>
>> Two photons emerge from a beam-splitter in Denver. One of them is
>> right-hand circular polarized (the electric and magnetic fields twist
>> 360 degrees to the right once per cycle), the other one twists left, but
>> no one knows which is which. They are allowed to fly apart down separate
>> fiber optic cables, one to Richland, Washington, the other to Oak Ridge,
>> Tennesee. In Richland, the photon is measured to have a left-hand
>> polarization. This observation instantly (faster than is possible by the
>> speed limit c) causes the wavefunction of the photon in the national
>> laboratory in Tennessee to resolve as a Southpaw.
>>
>> Action at a distance.
>
> Ya....Maybe not so spooky though.
> There is zero experimental evidence for this theoretical 'action'.
>
>

Not only have the experiments been done, but it has commercial
applications in the field of cryptography. A third party taps into the
data stream, it messes up the transfer. At a distance, faster than light.

WP:

There are currently four companies offering commercial quantum key
distribution systems; id Quantique (Geneva), MagiQ Technologies (New
York), SmartQuantum (France) and QuintessenceLabs (Australia).

[HVAC]

On 4/1/2012 11:07 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Action at a distance.
>>
>> Ya....Maybe not so spooky though.
>> There is zero experimental evidence for this theoretical 'action'.
>>
>>
>
> Not only have the experiments been done, but it has commercial
> applications in the field of cryptography. A third party taps into the
> data stream, it messes up the transfer. At a distance, faster than light.

Ya..... No.

[hanson]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>
> HVAC wrote:
>> Harlow's note: LOL!
>>
>> ROME—Two leaders of the OPERA collaboration, which stunned the world in
>> September when it announced data suggesting that neutrinos could travel
>> faster than the speed of light, have stepped down. The resignation of
>> Antonio Ereditato as spokesperson and Dario Autiero as physics
>> coordinator of the study followed a vote of no confidence, held yesterday
>> by leaders of the individual groups within the collaboration, according
>> to a source at OPERA who asked not to be identified. The vote came
>> several weeks after it was revealed that the hotly debated result was
>> probably caused by a faulty cable connection.

>
Linuxgal wrote:
Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>

hanson worte:
True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>
That belief is gospel, DESPITE Einstein's own assertion,
in his 1905 paper, wherein he said:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light "c" in our theory (SR) plays the
|||AE||| part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
1) The story of "c" being constant is long and murky as
the physics community arbitrated and decided that "c"
must be a CONSTANT. -- If "c" were left as having a
variable value, then all other fundamental physical
constants would change in their size according the to
the value that "c-variable" has in each environment that it
is measured in... and the entire house of current physics
will crumble like a house of cards, because of needing
a theory for every given or looked at event.
>
2) The definition of a "constant 'c' in vacuum" is equally
murky, for there exists no true physical vacuum.
A true physical vacuum is devoid of every physical
asset and therefore cannot be observed.
This true physical vacuum is at the one end of physics
where known physical laws break down, like with the
also, by definition unobservable, black holes on the
other end of the spectrum.
>
3) The value of "c" as currently defined (not as its
arbitrated Cs measured size) has its roots in the
cosmologies, all of which use as their basis the
1234 cosmic envelope that says:
>
c = (GM/R)^1/2 = (GMH)^1/3 = (GM*b)^1/4
>
which shows why the physical vacuum is not zero
but is dependent on spatial mass-energy density,
and needs to be so to keep notions (1) & (2) afloat.
>
4) Einstein's notion of "c" being "physically, an infinitely
great velocity" is physically impossible and only valid in
an imaginary universe that is mass-energy devoid , a
locus that had no physical meanings.
>
To that end it is hilarious to notice that Einstein referred
to pastor LeMaitre's cosmetology as "Catholic Science"
while Einstein with his "Juden Physik" fervently believed
that his own "Jewish Shit don't stink", & is so supported
by hordes of Einstein's Dingleberries who all worship
Albert's sphincter. with a relativistic passion.... ahaha
>
IOW, Einstein was wrong and overreaching himself
with the properties of " 'c' being an infinitely great
velocity", and his subsequent "biggest blunder" was
merely a bagatelle resulting therefrom.
>
"Moral of this story": Fucked yourself with Einstein's
Shitcan that contains SR/GR.... ahahahAHAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs though, you splendid Shicksah
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
>
>
PS: Your handle indicates that you are a Linux
aficionado/a. So, tell me which Linux version I
should use that mimicks the OS "MS XP" the
closest and runs without problems on
HP-machines that are based on
ECS MCP61PM-HM aka Nettle2-GL8E Mother-
broads & AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual Core CPUs.
TIA for a good hint.
hanson

[HVAC]

On 4/1/2012 12:19 PM, hanson wrote:
>
>
>>
> hanson worte:
> True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
> hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
> that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.

Well, of COURSE it can't. It's all there in the maths.

> That belief is gospel, DESPITE Einstein's own assertion,
> in his 1905 paper, wherein he said:

It's 2012.

[hanson]

Rich Haley aka Harlow "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com>

was drunk early Sunday already when he wrote:
>
> On 4/1/2012 12:19 PM, hanson wrote:
>> True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
>> hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
>> that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>

Rich Haley wrote:
> Well, of COURSE it can't. It's all there in the maths.
>

hanson wrote:
>> That belief is gospel, DESPITE Einstein's own assertion,
>> in his 1905 paper, wherein he said:
>

Rich Haley wrote:
> It's 2012.
>
hanson wrote:
2012, yes, and Einstein Dingleberries like yourself
STILL hang onto and worship Einstein's sphincter
ever since 1905... ahahahaha...
The rest of the post you seem to have snipped cuz
it went beyond your the horizon of your comprehension...
ahahahaha... Here it is again for your benefit:

>
linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>
> HVAC wrote:
>> Harlow's note: LOL!
>>
>> ROME—Two leaders of the OPERA collaboration, which stunned the world in
>> September when it announced data suggesting that neutrinos could travel
>> faster than the speed of light, have stepped down. The resignation of
>> Antonio Ereditato as spokesperson and Dario Autiero as physics
>> coordinator of the study followed a vote of no confidence, held yesterday
>> by leaders of the individual groups within the collaboration, according
>> to a source at OPERA who asked not to be identified. The vote came
>> several weeks after it was revealed that the hotly debated result was
>> probably caused by a faulty cable connection.
>
Linuxgal wrote:
Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>

hanson worte:
True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>

That belief is gospel, DESPITE Einstein's own assertion,
in his 1905 paper, wherein he said:

[Stamenin]

On Apr 1, 9:19 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

> hanson- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That Einstein is wrong there isn't any doupt, But to see why is the
speed of light considered as maximal for all motions including and the
matterial bodies can be seen from the following comparitions about
what give the LT and GT:
If we try to do a comparison between the formulas of the speeds in
both transformations will find the same a strange situation.
For GT, from the relations (6) and (7) we obtain:
For v2=c, results: v1=v+c (13).
For v=c, results: v1=c+v2 (14).
For v=c, results: v2=v1-c (15).
For v1=c, results v2=c-v (16)

The same calculus we can do for the LT using the relations (8) and
(9).
For v2=c, results: v1=(c+v)/(1+c.v/c^2)=c (13’).
For v=c, results: v1=(c+v2)/(1+c.v2/c^2)=c (14’).
For v=c, results: v2=(v1-c)/(1-c.v1/c^2)=-c (15’).
For v1=c, results: v2=(c-v)/(1-v.c/c^2)=c (16’).

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:57:23 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/1/2012 12:19 PM, hanson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>> hanson worte:
>> True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
>> hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
>> that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>
>
>Well, of COURSE it can't. It's all there in the maths.

HAHAHHAHHHAHA!....the same maths say the speed of sound cannot be exceeded.

>
>
>
>> That belief is gospel, DESPITE Einstein's own assertion,
>> in his 1905 paper, wherein he said:
>
>
>It's 2012.

....The year in which Einstein's silly SciFi exercise will likely crumble.

c is a universal constant. Its value can be established quite accurately in
any TWLS experiment.

Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer approacjing at v.

[Marvin the Martian]

No information or energy is transfered faster than light in the "EPR
Paradox".

[Olrik]

Le 2012-04-01 21:43, Henry Wilson DSc. a écrit :
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:57:23 -0400, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/1/2012 12:19 PM, hanson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> hanson worte:
>>> True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
>>> hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
>>> that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>>
>>
>> Well, of COURSE it can't. It's all there in the maths.
>
> HAHAHHAHHHAHA!....the same maths say the speed of sound cannot be exceeded.

Explain.

[John Baker]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:43:23 +1000, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:57:23 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 4/1/2012 12:19 PM, hanson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> hanson worte:
>>> True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
>>> hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
>>> that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>>
>>
>>Well, of COURSE it can't. It's all there in the maths.
>
>HAHAHHAHHHAHA!....the same maths say the speed of sound cannot be exceeded.

Cites...?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 4/1/2012 7:10 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 3:31 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:

>> It's not the authentic "nut jobs" that worry me. It's the political
>> agents PRETENDING to be whacko. I don't know how much experience you
>> have with them, but they have exactly ZERO sense of humor and NO moral
>> compass.
>
> Well, I'm glad you cleared THAT up. I have a great sense of humor,
> and although my moral compass always points south, I *do* have one.

You Know, HVAC, I was actually thinking of you when I wrote that. That
yes, you do indeed have a great sense of humor and South or not, you are
really NOT "one of them". No proof of this will be provided by me here,
but "they" are scary.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 4/1/2012 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote:

> I'm pathetic enough to know that nothing can travel faster than
> light in our universe. Anyone that says differently can take the
> same exit as the Director of OPERA in Italy.

Pathetic is right. What does faster than light mean? Does it mean that
nothing can achieve a velocity along it's path that is faster than
light? If so, that could be true. But what about "apparent" velocities
faster than light? Let us assume as required by the bogus big bang that
the universe has another dimension. In other words is a hypersphere (so
that the "center" of the universe is in ALL locations). Under this
hypothesis it is possible to "warp" space or space-time such that a
"shortcut" path exists through the extra dimension. In such a case
experiments would seem to be measuring speeds faster than light but only
because they were not accounting for the "shortcut" path.

However since you are saying that it's "impossible" for anything to
travel faster light, I would once again point out that saying something
is "impossible" is the mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm a moron"!

(Although in fairness to you, I did notice that in essence you were sort
of saying you "believe" it impossible rather than saying it actually WAS
impossible.)

[Androcles]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message
news:jl7g60$f81$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> BJA...@teranews.com <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> X0Hdr.30319$_C5....@newsfe09.iad

>> On 3/31/2012 8:25 AM, HVAC wrote:

>> > On 3/30/2012 6:16 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>>
>> > > Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>> >

>> > Couldn't have said it better myself!
>>
>> OK, Class. Did everyone get HVAC's point here? In Science there are
>> certain accepted FACTS. Evolution is FACT. That there are no UFOs is
>> FACT. That Einstein's rules of physics are FACT. And if you
>> question any of these (or any other FACTS that are officially
>> sanctioned) Pretty much your career will be OVER. HVAC will see to
>> it himself. For more information on how to trash a career in
>> science see the documentary: "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben
>> Stein.
>

> Another FACT is that most alt.* groups -- and for some strange
> reason sci.phyics.* -- are mostly frequented by FACT-deniers.
> No harm done of course, as long as it keeps them off the street.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Keeps you off the street, does it, Dork?

[HVAC]

But you are wrong, BJ... I *am* one of them.

Someday you'll realize that 'them' is 'us'.

[HVAC]

On 4/2/2012 1:41 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
>> I'm pathetic enough to know that nothing can travel faster than
>> light in our universe. Anyone that says differently can take the
>> same exit as the Director of OPERA in Italy.
>
> Pathetic is right. What does faster than light mean? Does it mean that
> nothing can achieve a velocity along it's path that is faster than
> light?

Um.........Ya.

> If so, that could be true. But what about "apparent" velocities
> faster than light? Let us assume as required by the bogus big bang that
> the universe has another dimension. In other words is a hypersphere (so
> that the "center" of the universe is in ALL locations). Under this
> hypothesis it is possible to "warp" space or space-time such that a
> "shortcut" path exists through the extra dimension. In such a case
> experiments would seem to be measuring speeds faster than light but only
> because they were not accounting for the "shortcut" path.

The way I word it is, "Nothing can travel faster than light in
our universe'. Can space itself move faster than light?
There is nothing theoretically to prevent it.

> However since you are saying that it's "impossible" for anything to
> travel faster light, I would once again point out that saying something
> is "impossible" is the mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm a moron"!

Completely disagree. For instance, it is *impossible* for 4 to be
a prime number in base ten mathematics.

Anyone that disagrees is a moron.

> (Although in fairness to you, I did notice that in essence you were sort
> of saying you "believe" it impossible rather than saying it actually WAS
> impossible.)

I don't hold 'beliefs'. I deal in absolutes.

[HVAC]

On 4/1/2012 9:43 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>> True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
>>> hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
>>> that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>>
>>
>> Well, of COURSE it can't. It's all there in the maths.
>
> HAHAHHAHHHAHA!....the same maths say the speed of sound cannot be exceeded.

Care to point to an example of that?

Morons like you that use old wife's tales as a basis for their
'science' are what has held back humanity for years and years.

Take a physics class some day and get back to me.

>> It's 2012.
>
> ....The year in which Einstein's silly SciFi exercise will likely crumble.
>
> c is a universal constant. Its value can be established quite accurately in
> any TWLS experiment.
>
> Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer approacjing at v.
>
>
>

[ken...@att.net]

On Apr 1, 9:43 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:57:23 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 4/1/2012 12:19 PM, hanson wrote:
>
> >> hanson worte:
> >> True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
> >> hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
> >> that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>
> >Well, of COURSE it can't. It's all there in the maths.
>
> HAHAHHAHHHAHA!....the same maths say the speed of sound cannot be exceeded.
>
>
>
> >> That belief is gospel, DESPITE Einstein's own assertion,
> >> in his 1905 paper, wherein he said:
>
> >It's 2012.
>
> ....The year in which Einstein's silly SciFi exercise will likely crumble.
>
> c is a universal constant. Its value can be established quite accurately in
> any TWLS experiment.

No.....TWLS measurements get c because it uses the redefined meter:
1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second. As you can see this redefinition
of the meter guarantees the speed of light is c....all they needed to
do is to measure the return time to get c. Actual measurement of TWLS
using physically measured distances never been performed.

OWLS cannot use this redefinition of the meter because one needs two
absolutely synched clocks to measure OWLS. So they declared that OWLS
is c because both TWLS and OWLS speed are isotropic.

[hanson]

Rich Haley aka Harlow "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

-- BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
HVAC wrote:
I'm pathetic

.
BJACOBY wrote:
Pathetic is right.
>
HVAC wrote:
Um.........Ya.

I don't hold 'beliefs'. I deal in absolutes.
>

hanson wrote:
.... absolutely!... AHAHAHAHAHA.....
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahanson

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Androcles <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> wrote in message
nHfer.120563$e07....@fx16.am4

... and/or tied to their bed.

Dirk Vdm

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

It is well known that the force on an object increases to infinity as it
approaches Mach1.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:14:49 -0700 (PDT), "ken...@att.net" <set...@att.net>
wrote:

>On Apr 1, 9:43 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:57:23 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 4/1/2012 12:19 PM, hanson wrote:
>>
>> >> hanson worte:
>> >> True, but the "moral" only is such, cuz there are still
>> >> hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
>> >> that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>>
>> >Well, of COURSE it can't. It's all there in the maths.
>>
>> HAHAHHAHHHAHA!....the same maths say the speed of sound cannot be exceeded.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> That belief is gospel, DESPITE Einstein's own assertion,
>> >> in his 1905 paper, wherein he said:
>>
>> >It's 2012.
>>
>> ....The year in which Einstein's silly SciFi exercise will likely crumble.
>>
>> c is a universal constant. Its value can be established quite accurately in
>> any TWLS experiment.
>
>No.....TWLS measurements get c because it uses the redefined meter:
>1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second. As you can see this redefinition
>of the meter guarantees the speed of light is c....all they needed to
>do is to measure the return time to get c. Actual measurement of TWLS
>using physically measured distances never been performed.

Well that's somewhat correct but the early TWLS experiments did use
physically defined lengths. From those experiments came an official figure
for c. More recently the length standard was were redefined in terms of that
etablished standard purely for simplicity.

However in your outdated aether theory, TWLS does not equal OWLS or c unless
the apparatus is at rest in the absolute aether.

>OWLS cannot use this redefinition of the meter because one needs two
>absolutely synched clocks to measure OWLS. So they declared that OWLS
>is c because both TWLS and OWLS speed are isotropic.

In actual fact, it is easy to perform OWLS experiments with two presynched
clocks.
There is no aether and the whole of Einstein's theory is crap.

[hanson]

"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
-- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
---- Linus Segal aka "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com>
a kike in drag wrote:

----- Rich Haley aka Harlow "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Harlow's note: LOL!
> >> ROME—Two leaders of the OPERA collaboration, which stunned the world in
> >> September when it announced data suggesting that neutrinos could travel
> >> faster than the speed of light, have stepped down. The resignation of
> >> Antonio Ereditato as spokesperson and Dario Autiero as physics
> >> coordinator of the study followed a vote of no confidence, held
> >> yesterday
> >> by leaders of the individual groups within the collaboration, according
> >> to a source at OPERA who asked not to be identified. The vote came
> >> several weeks after it was revealed that the hotly debated result was
> >> probably caused by a faulty cable connection.
>

Linus Segal wrote:
Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>

hanson wrote:
True, but ONLY the "moral" is such, cuz there are still

an imaginary universe that is devoid of mass-energy which
a locus & construct that has no physical meanings.

>
To that end it is hilarious to notice that Einstein referred

to pastor LeMaitre's cosmology as "Catholic Science"

while Einstein with his "Juden Physik" fervently believed
that his own "Jewish Shit don't stink", & is so supported
by hordes of Einstein's Dingleberries who all worship
Albert's sphincter. with a relativistic passion.... ahaha
>
IOW, Einstein was wrong and overreaching himself
with the properties of " 'c' being an infinitely great
velocity", and his subsequent "biggest blunder" was
merely a bagatelle resulting therefrom.
>

Linus Segal listen, the "Moral of this story" is:
Segal, you "Fucked yourself with Einstein's Shitcan"
that contains his SR/GR.... ahahahAHAHAHA...

Thanks for the laughs though, you splendid Shicksah
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
>
>
PS: Your handle indicates that you are a Linux

aficionado/a. If so, tell me which Linux version I

should use that mimicks the OS "MS XP" the
closest and runs without problems on
HP-machines that are based on
ECS MCP61PM-HM aka Nettle2-GL8E Mother-

boards & AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual Core CPUs.
TIA for a good hint. -- hanson

PS for Segal: No need to answer this thing. We
heard and confirmed that the problem was in
defective ("swollen" ) capacitors of the mobo
Nettle-2. We scrapped the entire lot.
>
Stamenin wrote:
That Einstein is wrong there isn't any doubt,

But to see why is the speed of light considered as
maximal for all motions including and the matterial
bodies can be seen from the following comparitions

about what give the LT (SR) and GT (GR):

If we try to do a comparison between the formulas
of the speeds in both transformations will find the
same a strange situation.
For GT, from the relations (6) and (7) we obtain:
For v2=c, results: v1=v+c (13).
For v=c, results: v1=c+v2 (14).
For v=c, results: v2=v1-c (15).
For v1=c, results v2=c-v (16)
>
The same calculus we can do for the LT using the
relations (8) and (9).
For v2=c, results: v1=(c+v)/(1+c.v/c^2)=c (13’).
For v=c, results: v1=(c+v2)/(1+c.v2/c^2)=c (14’).
For v=c, results: v2=(v1-c)/(1-c.v1/c^2)=-c (15’).
For v1=c, results: v2=(c-v)/(1-v.c/c^2)=c (16’).
>

hanson wrote:
For these and such type of reasons that you have
mentioned above, did Einstein issue his own denials
about his SR/GR, warned & constantly urged others,
ever since 1920:
|||AE:|||.... "NOT to search at the same, now well lit places,
|||AE:||| .... where he, Einstein, had been working".
>
And he did so for one full generation, till 33 years later,
a year before he folded his relativity tent, closed his
umbrella, kicked the bucket and finally puffed and bit
the grass, Einstein wrote, in 1954 to his Jewish friend
Besso:
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, [my] gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
< http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein >

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 22:29:08 -0700, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

>"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>-- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

>1) The story of "c" being constant is long and murky as
>the physics community arbitrated and decided that "c"
>must be a CONSTANT. -- If "c" were left as having a
>variable value, then all other fundamental physical
>constants would change in their size according the to
>the value that "c-variable" has in each environment that it
>is measured in... and the entire house of current physics
>will crumble like a house of cards, because of needing
>a theory for every given or looked at event.
>>
>2) The definition of a "constant 'c' in vacuum" is equally
>murky, for there exists no true physical vacuum.
>A true physical vacuum is devoid of every physical
>asset and therefore cannot be observed.
>This true physical vacuum is at the one end of physics
>where known physical laws break down, like with the
>also, by definition unobservable, black holes on the
>other end of the spectrum.

I must point out again, Hanson old buddy, 'c' IS a universal constant.

Generally speaking, it is not 'light speed' except in as far as light
apparently moves at c wrt its source.

Like all speeds, that of Light must be frame dependent by definition....
and therefore moves at c+v wrt a moving observer.

Incidentally, is it true that some of your ancestors used to wander the
Sahara looking for gold or lost camels?

[Marvin the Martian]

Uh... no, and proven wrong no as well.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:41:13 -0500, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
wrote:

In your dreams, boy....

Name one believable experiment that has measured OWLS from a moving source.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:9ia4o7lep0ce2i4sn...@4ax.com...

Except that gamma is faster than X-ray is faster than UV is
faster than visible is faster than IR is faster than microwave is
faster than radio.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 03:55:51 +0100, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>
wrote:

I agree. That is quite possible.

[Marvin the Martian]

Are you saying that you don't understand relativistic velocity addition,
or that you just don't believe in mathematics?

[hanson]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote::

Mike Varney aka Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
"Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> > wrote:
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>> "Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>-- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>>

hanson wrote:

in his 1905 paper, Einstein said:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light "c" in our theory (SR) plays the
|||AE||| part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>

1) BUT, the story of "c" being constant is long and murky

as the physics community arbitrated and decided that "c"
must be a CONSTANT. -- If "c" were left as having a
variable value, then all other fundamental physical
constants would change in their size according the to
the value that "c-variable" has in each environment that it
is measured in... and the entire house of current physics
will crumble like a house of cards, because of needing
a theory for every given or looked at event.
>>>>>
2) The definition of a "constant 'c' in vacuum" is equally
murky, for there exists no true physical vacuum.
A true physical vacuum is devoid of every physical
asset and therefore cannot be observed.
This true physical vacuum is at the one end of physics
where known physical laws break down, like with the
also, by definition unobservable, black holes on the
other end of the spectrum.
>

3) The value of "c" as currently defined (not as its
arbitrated Cs measured size) has its roots in the
cosmologies, all of which use as their basis the
1234 cosmic envelope that says:
>
c = (GM/R)^1/2 = (GMH)^1/3 = (GM*b)^1/4
>
which shows why the physical vacuum is not zero
but is dependent on spatial mass-energy density,
and needs to be so to keep notions (1) & (2) afloat.
>
4) Einstein's notion of "c" being "physically, an infinitely
great velocity" is physically impossible and only valid in
an imaginary universe that is devoid of mass-energy which
a locus & construct that has no physical meanings.
>
To that end it is hilarious to notice that Einstein referred
to pastor LeMaitre's cosmology as "Catholic Science"
while Einstein with his "Juden Physik" fervently believed
that his own "Jewish Shit don't stink", & is so supported
by hordes of Einstein's Dingleberries who all worship
Albert's sphincter. with a relativistic passion.... ahaha
>>>

Henry wrote:
I must point out again, Hanson old buddy, 'c' IS a universal constant.
Generally speaking, it is not 'light speed' except in as far as light
apparently moves at c wrt its source. Like all speeds,
that of Light must be frame dependent by definition....
and therefore moves at c+v wrt a moving observer.
>>>

Mike Varney Marvin wrote:
Uh... no, Henry, and proven wrong no as well.

>
Adressing Henry, Androcles wrote:
Except that gamma is faster than X-ray is faster than UV is
faster than visible is faster than IR is faster than microwave is
faster than radio.
>

Henry wrote:
I agree. That is quite possible.
>

hanson wrote:
Well, lets look at the 2 limit cases.
a) Set the wavelength close to 511 MeV when/
where pair creation occurs. What now, Henry?
b) Set the wavelength to the 2.7K CMBR.
Are you still comfy with your "quite possible"? Why?

>
Henry wrote:
Incidentally, is it true that some of your ancestors used
to wander the Sahara looking for gold or lost camels?
>>>

hanson wrote:
... with everybody's ancestry diverting at 2^n per generation
it may have been as well a common ancestor of ours that
was searching, Henry. However, Henry, my line found the
gold and kept it, got the camels, sold them & kept the money
with which they bought sheep farms in your Aussie outback
and hired you as a sheep shagger. Androles pointed that out
to you for many years now. --- Henry, listen, don't be so
self-conscious about it. --- Henry, there is no shame in
earning your keep by manual labor, as is the case for you.
>
Thanks for the laughs, all you guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:9hq4o718v8ga2d8bb...@4ax.com...

Which, as we know, changes the shape of the light curve.

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 8, 7:55 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> wrote:
> "Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in messagenews:9ia4o7lep0ce2i4sn...@4ax.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 22:29:08 -0700, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>

Only the individual wavelength creation is faster as the frequency
increases from IR to gamma. However, the propagation of each wave
replication seems limited to c.

The initial photon (that doesn't actually move), is created faster at
higher frequencies, but those subsequent wave replications or wave
propagation is what seems to remain as limited to using the rate of c.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:30:41 -0500, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>

HAHAHAHHHAHHHAHHAHA!

Let's derive Einstein's velocity addition equation as it applies to light;

According to P2, light always moves at c.

Therefore w=c, where c is its speed in one frame and w is its speed in
another moving at v wrt the first.
Therefore, w = c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2).....HAHAHHAHHAHA!

What does that kind of circular logic prove?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:56:48 -0700, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote::
> Mike Varney aka Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> > wrote:

>>>>
>Henry wrote:
>I must point out again, Hanson old buddy, 'c' IS a universal constant.
>Generally speaking, it is not 'light speed' except in as far as light
>apparently moves at c wrt its source. Like all speeds,
>that of Light must be frame dependent by definition....
>and therefore moves at c+v wrt a moving observer.
>>>>
>Mike Varney Marvin wrote:
>Uh... no, Henry, and proven wrong no as well.
>>
>Adressing Henry, Androcles wrote:
>Except that gamma is faster than X-ray is faster than UV is
>faster than visible is faster than IR is faster than microwave is
>faster than radio.
>>
>Henry wrote:
>I agree. That is quite possible.
>>
>hanson wrote:
>Well, lets look at the 2 limit cases.
>a) Set the wavelength close to 511 MeV when/
> where pair creation occurs. What now, Henry?
>b) Set the wavelength to the 2.7K CMBR.
> Are you still comfy with your "quite possible"? Why?

Until somebody actually measures the OW speed of EM of different energies, I
will keep an open mind.
However as one of Andro's galaxy snapshots revealed, its Xray image appears
to have been emitted at a very different time from its visible image.

>Henry wrote:
>Incidentally, is it true that some of your ancestors used
>to wander the Sahara looking for gold or lost camels?
>>>>
>hanson wrote:
>... with everybody's ancestry diverting at 2^n per generation
>it may have been as well a common ancestor of ours that
>was searching, Henry. However, Henry, my line found the
>gold and kept it, got the camels, sold them & kept the money
>with which they bought sheep farms in your Aussie outback
>and hired you as a sheep shagger. Androles pointed that out
>to you for many years now. --- Henry, listen, don't be so
>self-conscious about it. --- Henry, there is no shame in
>earning your keep by manual labor, as is the case for you.

Are you related to Mahammed Hanson, the nomadic Saharan camel abuser?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 10:08:17 +0100, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012>

Also, when we view starlight through different filters, we might be seeing
light that, on average, was emitted at different times by the source.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 8, 7:55 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> wrote:
>> "Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in messagenews:9ia4o7lep0ce2i4sn...@4ax.com...

>>

>> >>2) The definition of  a "constant 'c' in vacuum" is equally
>> >>murky, for there exists no true physical vacuum.
>> >>A true physical vacuum is devoid of every physical
>> >>asset and therefore cannot be observed.
>> >>This true physical vacuum is at the one end of physics
>> >>where known physical laws break down, like with the
>> >>also, by definition unobservable, black holes on the
>> >>other end of the spectrum.
>>
>> > I must point out again, Hanson old buddy, 'c' IS a universal constant.
>>
>> > Generally speaking, it is not 'light speed' except in as far as light
>> > apparently moves at c wrt its source.
>>
>> > Like all speeds, that of Light must be frame dependent by definition....
>> > and therefore moves at c+v wrt a moving observer.
>>
>> Except that gamma is faster than X-ray is faster than UV is
>> faster than visible is faster than IR is faster than microwave is
>> faster than radio.
>
>Only the individual wavelength creation is faster as the frequency
>increases from IR to gamma. However, the propagation of each wave
>replication seems limited to c.

................'seems'...but you don't really know.

>The initial photon (that doesn't actually move), is created faster at
>higher frequencies, but those subsequent wave replications or wave
>propagation is what seems to remain as limited to using the rate of c.

................'seems'...but you don't really know.

You are just preaching Einsteinian dogma...

Accspt the facts...Nobody has accurately measured the OWLS of EM with vastly
different wavelengths.

[John Gogo]

On Apr 9, 5:27 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com>

I will agree that experiments must be performed in a one-way fashion-
but I also agree that we have been unconsciously performing a one-way
measure for thousands of years- its just that we have not created a
reference frame which is accurate and which can measure the quantities
of c- relative a distance to c's speed- a length measure.

[John Gogo]

We haven't been able to make the length measure. That's why we have
the hypothetical example of length contraction.

[John Gogo]

A OWLS measure is a tricky venture- for it demands that the near point
and the far point are synchronized.

[Brad Guth]

On Apr 9, 3:27 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 05:25:46 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com>

That's true, which puts my swag on the same level as Einstein, because
he didn't seem to know either.

>
> You are just preaching Einsteinian dogma...
>
> Accspt the facts...Nobody has accurately measured the OWLS of EM with vastly
> different wavelengths.

I'm not at all sure about that. Why can't the beginning and end of an
individual IR photon wave be measured, and thus timed?

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:v0o6o71e1cn7f47tp...@4ax.com...

I was just watching a TV show on the Huyghens probe to Titan, which
as you may know was successful. However, the data arrived SIX
MINUTES later than expected. It was ignored, other than it added
some drama to the program. No explanation was given, everyone
was excited that it arrived at all.
The problem with Huyghens was power, the Cassini craft has a
plutonium source because a solar panel would not work that far
from the Sun, but Huyghens only had a battery so it had to transmit
to Cassini which relayed the data to Earth, and Cassini's speed
meant there was Doppler shift between Cassini orbiting Saturn
and Huyghens landing on Titan. This meant Cassini had to
store the data from Huyghens when it had zero Doppler shift and
transmit it to Earth when it was in position to do so. What we do
not know is whether Cassini was receding or approaching Earth
when it did so. Without more data one can only conjecture whether
the six minute delay was a computational error, a c+v effect, a
c_microwave effect or some combination of the above.

[hanson]

Sheepshagger "Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

>
>
Sheepshagger Henry wrote:
Incidentally, is it true that some of your ancestors used
to wander the Sahara looking for gold or lost camels?
>>>>>
hanson wrote:

... with everybody's ancestry diverting 2^n per generation

it may have been as well a common ancestor of ours that
was searching, Henry. However, Henry, my line found the
gold and kept it, got the camels, sold them & kept the money
with which they bought sheep farms in your Aussie outback

and hired you as a sheep shagger. Androcles pointed that

out to you for many years now. --- Henry, listen, don't be so
self-conscious about it. --- Henry, there is no shame in
earning your keep by manual labor, as is the case for you.
>

Sheepshagger Henry kept on lamenting & wrote:
Are you related to Mahammed Hanson, the nomadic
Saharan camel abuser?
>

hanson wrote:
It is heart rendering to see how your exposure to
the constant "mah, mah, mah", of your wooly friends
has made you "mad" and confused to such an extent
that you have no idea what 2^n means.... ahahaha...
>
So, let me try and reach you on your level of mentation in
a different way, Henry: I have never seen nor met that
"Mahammed Hanson" but let me show you how closely
YOU are related to him:
>
1) Send 100 e-mails to your in laws friend & acqaintencies.
---------------------------- 100 = 10^2 pweople got mail
2) Ask that each one of theses folks to repeat (1), so that
---------------------------- 1e4 = 10^(2+2) NEW folks get mail
3) tell theses folks now to repeat (1), so that
---------------------------- 1e6 = 10^(2+2+2 ) NEW folks get mail
4) tell this # 3 lot now to repeat (1), so that
---------------------------- 1e8 = 10^(2+2+2 +2) NEW folks get mail
5) Make the 5th round with these folks and you will see that
~ one third into it, some 7 Billion folks = every person on
Earth has receide an e-mail.
>
So, Henry, do that. Arrange just 5 such e-mail spreads and
you will meet your yearned for relative Mahammed Hanson.
Do you git it now, Henry you git?
>
Until you do Henry, I shall repost what had substance which
has a velocity that was clearly beyond your event horizon:

>
---- Linus Segal aka "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com>

who is a kike in drag wrote:
----- Rich Haley aka Harlow "HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

OP Rich Haley aka Harlow wrote:
Two leaders of the OPERA collaboration, which stunned the
world in September when it announced data suggesting
that neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light,

have stepped down & got Shitcanned, cuz the problen was
blamed on a faulty cable connection.

>
Linus Segal wrote:
Moral of this story: Don't fuck with Einstein.
>
hanson wrote:
True, but ONLY the "moral" is such, cuz there are still
hordes of Einstein Dingleberries that stick to the belief
that, at any cost, the speed of light cannot be surpassed.
>
That belief is gospel, DESPITE Einstein's own assertion,

in his 1905 paper, wherein he said:
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light "c" in our theory (SR) plays the
|||AE||| part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>

1) The story of "c" being constant is long and murky as

IOW, Einstein was wrong and overreaching himself
with the properties of " 'c' being an infinitely great
velocity", and his subsequent "biggest blunder" was
merely a bagatelle resulting therefrom.
>
Linus Segal listen, the "Moral of this story" is:
Segal, you "Fucked yourself with Einstein's Shitcan"
that contains his SR/GR.... ahahahAHAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs though, you splendid Shicksah
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahanson
>
PS:

______Utilitarian Physics ________

Note to Einstein Dingleberries and FTL fanatics:
>
MMX proselytizers say "Physics can do without Aether"
Therefore there is NO Aether, they insist.
>
Relativists say "Physics can do without FTL"
Therefore there is NO FTL, they insist.
>
The history of physics is rife with such utilitarian paradigms.
This is known as__Politically Correct Physics__, PC-Science.
AGW & CC are the glaring heuristic examples thereof.
------- LOTs of money in such gags ------------

[HVAC]

On 4/9/2012 6:01 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you saying that you don't understand relativistic velocity addition,
>> or that you just don't believe in mathematics?
>
> HAHAHAHHHAHHHAHHAHA!
>
> Let's derive Einstein's velocity addition equation as it applies to light;
>
> According to P2, light always moves at c.

Light propagates at c but can and does move far slower.
So it doesn't always travel at c.









--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[linuxgal]

HVAC wrote:
>
> Light propagates at c but can and does move far slower.
> So it doesn't always travel at c.
>
>

It always travels at c in a vacuum.

[Marvin the Martian]

So, you're ignorant.

K.

[ken...@att.net]

On Apr 2, 7:03 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:14:49 -0700 (PDT), "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net>

No in my theory the value TWLS or OWLS are distance dependent but both
are istropic. TWLS can use the redefined meter to measure distance but
OWLS cannot. That's why SRians refuse to measure OWLS directly.

>
> >OWLS cannot use this redefinition of the meter because one needs two
> >absolutely synched clocks to measure OWLS. So they declared that OWLS
> >is c because both TWLS and OWLS speed are isotropic.
>
> In actual fact, it is easy to perform OWLS experiments with two presynched
> clocks.
> There is no aether and the whole of Einstein's theory is crap.
>
>
>

> >> Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer approacjing at v.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[greysky]

"HVAC" wrote in message news:jm12kg$rsh$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...

On 4/9/2012 6:01 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you saying that you don't understand relativistic velocity addition,
>> or that you just don't believe in mathematics?
>
> HAHAHAHHHAHHHAHHAHA!
>
> Let's derive Einstein's velocity addition equation as it applies to light;
>
> According to P2, light always moves at c.


Light propagates at c but can and does move far slower.
So it doesn't always travel at c.

============================================================

Light *always* propagates at C, Dumbo. It sometimes appears to move slower
because it is constantly being absorbed and re-emitted by atoms, but when it
moves, it moves at C. So far as I can tell, there is only *one* phenomenon
in this universe that allows controlled superluminal propagation, and I
discovered it 3 decades ago, and that's it. This doesn't speak very highly
of the spirit of discovery of the human race...

greysky

[Androcles]

"greysky" <ftl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f84...@news.x-privat.org...

Light *NEVER* propagates at c, Fuckwit, and you can't tell very far at all.

[Henry Wilson]

On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Apr.2012> wrote:
> "Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in messagenews:v0o6o71e1cn7f47tp...@4ax.com...

Interesting. Let's see. The distance is about 1.3E9 km. Light takes
about 4E3 second to get here.....67 minutes. So Cassini would have to
be moving at about 0.9c wrt us for a six minute error to occur due to c
+v.
Are you sure it wasn't 6 SECONDS late?

[Henry Wilson]

On Apr 11, 8:36 am, "greysky" <ftls...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "HVAC"  wrote in messagenews:jm12kg$rsh$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...

Light propagates at c or thereabouts wrt its source.

That speed is frame dependent.

> greysky