An immortal fumble about SR
Mike
" ...Has anyone ever precisely measured directly the relative velocity
between two moving objects at every-day-life velocities, and
found a difference between the result of the classic velocity
addition formula and the relativistic velocity composition formula?
To use your words: "The answer is NO".
No one has done an experiment where a velocity of 10 m/s was
combined with a velocity of 10 m/s, which gave exactly
20.00000000000000 m/s like predicted by the classic theory, as
opposed to the 19.99999999999998 m/s that is predicted by
relativity theory...."
Nice story, actually straw man argument to divert attention -- as
always -- from the main issue which is that the relativistic velocity
composition formula CANNOT be tested experimentally at relativistic
speeds, or for that purpose at any speed.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158502576.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And the Galilean velocity composition formula CANNOT be tested
experimentally at non-relativistic speeds.
I don't think I have ever seen someone miss the point so graciously
and spectacularly as the way you miss it right here :-)
A truly fine fumble indeed:
"The Fine Art of Entirely Missing The Point":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ArtMiss.html
Thanks for spelling it out so eloquently.
You truly honesty can't help it that you are a retard, can you? :-)
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:kSdPg.81365$lB5.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Hm, it seems you pissed you off again.
Bad idea, if you may say so yourself, fuckhead ;-)
Androcles
The Ghost In The Machine
<ele...@yahoo.gr>
wrote
on 17 Sep 2006 07:16:16 -0700
<1158502576.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
You might like to explain why a 7 TeV proton whizzing around an
approximately 27 km circumference only has a frequency of
11.245 kHz.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:m8a0u3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| You might like to explain why a 7 TeV proton whizzing around an
| approximately 27 km circumference only has a frequency of
| 11.245 kHz.
Hmmm.. interesting...
Let me see...
t = 1/ (f revolutions per second), so
t = 1/11245 seconds...
tangential speed = 27000 * 11245 = 303,615,000 meters/sec
It's a TACHYON!
How exciting!
Is its clock running backward? Did you check?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
MOM! I wanna see the tachyon!
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
ver...@gawab.com
VERGON
I don't know, some of these experimental boys are very clever and
resouuceful.
However, the correctness of Einstein's composition of velocities can be
determind theoretically by utilizing the conservation of momentum in a
closed system.
.
I speak of the addition of velocities theorem.
It can easily be tested by using the conservation of momentum.
To make it quick and easy, I shall use an example:
the addition of .75c to .75c. The theorem yields .96c.
To be consistent, we must be certain that both velocities are truly
.75c -- and we
must also be certain that the final momentum represents the correct
amount and
that it also represents a conserved amount.
To accomplish this, we set up a two case scenario.
We declare m = 1 and c= 1. This makes computation simpler with no
jeopardy to veracity.
CASE 1
( )-------.75c--------------><-------.75c--------------( )
p=1.13 p= 1.13
This certifies that we have two velocities of .75c.
Now the complication here is that according to custom, the final
momentum is zero.
So to acquire a meaningful momentum resultant, we simply change the
perspective and declare the right hand system as inertial and all the
velocity and momentum to reside in the left hand system.
This is merely a change in observation position, involves
no motion and therefore does not constitute a frame change.
This also guarantees that the resultant momentum is a conserved
quantity.
According to Einstein the answer is Case 2.
CASE 2
----------------------.96c--------------------------->( )( )
p = 3.43
Next, we note that we have changed nothing between Case 1 and Case 2
except the viewpoint. Therefore, in order maintain conservation, the
final momentum must be the sum of the momenta in Case 1, i.e., 2.26.
But it isn't. Therefore, the answer is wrong.
According to my theory, written up in my book, the correct addition is
.915c.
*********************************************
Again, thank you for your time and consideration.
Vertner H. Vergon
Dirk Van de moortel
<ver...@gawab.com> wrote in message news:1158519188.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
I already have something along these lines:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ProvablyWrong.html
so don't bother.
Dirk Vdm
ver...@gawab.com
VERGON
No, I won't bother because it does not upset me when someone else tries
to take credit for my work.
You and Y. Porat (two of a kind).
(a) I posted this article years ago. So you copied it. Quite a
coincidence that your presentation is EXACTLY
as mine.
Besides, I have the same presentation in a book I wrote and that was
published in 1976.
So, Van de Shmoosey "don't bother" --- except to apologise.
Incidentally, HOW did you get .915c --- by gerrymandering it to match
the conserved amount?
If not show us how.
As for me, the reason I came up with this scenario is because
Einstein's result was different from the result obtained by my Dual
Velocity Theory of Relativity (Also published in my book of 1976).
If I couldn't prove him wrong, my whole theory would be shot in the
ass.
I've also posted my Dual Velocity theory on this NG -- so to be
enterprising, you might try stealing that too.
Dirk Van de moortel
<ver...@gawab.com> wrote in message news:1158521539....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
>> I already have something along these lines:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ProvablyWrong.html
>> so don't bother.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> VERGON
Yes, you are VERGON.
We know.
You can stop shouting your name all over the place.
>
> No, I won't bother because it does not upset me when someone else tries
> to take credit for my work.
> You and Y. Porat (two of a kind).
>
> (a) I posted this article years ago. So you copied it. Quite a
> coincidence that your presentation is EXACTLY
> as mine.
Of course you wrote it. It's yours. It's a quote.
The title of the entry on my list is:
"An immortal fumble by Vertner Vergon (8-Oct-2001)"
and there is a pointer at the bottom to the place where you wrote
it :-)
Boy, you must be the Greatest Living Retard Known to Mankind.
>
> Besides, I have the same presentation in a book I wrote and that was
> published in 1976.
How many copies did you sell?
One to your mom and one to your garden gnome?
>
> So, Van de Shmoosey "don't bother" --- except to apologise.
>
> Incidentally, HOW did you get .915c --- by gerrymandering it to match
> the conserved amount?
You wrote the piece of shit, so why don't you answer your
own question?
> If not show us how.
>
> As for me, the reason I came up with this scenario is because
> Einstein's result was different from the result obtained by my Dual
> Velocity Theory of Relativity (Also published in my book of 1976).
>
> If I couldn't prove him wrong, my whole theory would be shot in the
> ass.
>
> I've also posted my Dual Velocity theory on this NG -- so to be
> enterprising, you might try stealing that too.
Stealing :-)
What a retard you are.
Painful.
Dirk Vdm
Golden Boar
Hey Jerk, you should've followed the link.
ver...@gawab.com
VERGON
I did, ass hole. How do you think I found out he was copying my work?
Apparently you are the same class as he.
Golden Boar
If you followed the link, then you should have noticed that he was
taking this piss out of you, and he was quoting one of your previous
posts.
Martin Hogbin
Fizeau did it.
Martin Hogbin
Sorcerer
2) Some kind of quote of some post?
Clarification:
Something you want us to believe you invented?
Something you found somewhere?
Something you want to tell us?
Something you want to tell us something about?
Something you forgot to delete when you started?
3) An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
4) Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
Clarification:
The 'shit' in question 4 is a reprise of the 'shit' in
question 3. This is what we call a 'style figure'.
Didn't they teach you to write English in Belgium?
How old are you?
"The man is a malicious troll" - Dork Van de merde.
ver...@gawab.com
> > > Hey Jerk, you should've followed the link.
> >
> > VERGON
> >
> > I did, ass hole. How do you think I found out he was copying my work?
> >
> > Apparently you are the same class as he.
>
> If you followed the link, then you should have noticed that he was
> taking this piss out of you, and he was quoting one of your previous
> posts.
VERGON
I've already apologised to Dirk -- and I do to you, too.
I completely missed that he was "honoring" me. :-)
You might want to read my apology to him.
ver...@gawab.com
VERGON
Yeah, if I remeber right he measured the speed of light in moving
water. If that's right then he was measuring the speed of light added
to the speed of the water. I'm not sure that's the same as the scenario
here as c is a constant.
ver...@gawab.com
ver...@gawab.com wrote:
From: ver...@gawab.com
Newsgroups: alt.local.village.idiot,alt.morons
Subject: Re: An immortal fumble about SR
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:42:42 -0700
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> <ver...@gawab.com> wrote in message news:1158521539....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I already have something along these lines:
> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ProvablyWrong.html
> >> so don't bother.
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > VERGON
>
> Yes, you are VERGON.
> We know.
> You can stop shouting your name all over the place.
>
> >
> > No, I won't bother because it does not upset me when someone else tries
> > to take credit for my work.
> > You and Y. Porat (two of a kind).
> >
> > (a) I posted this article years ago. So you copied it. Quite a
> > coincidence that your presentation is EXACTLY
> > as mine.
>
> Of course you wrote it. It's yours. It's a quote.
> The title of the entry on my list is:
> "An immortal fumble by Vertner Vergon (8-Oct-2001)"
> and there is a pointer at the bottom to the place where you wrote
> it :-)
> Boy, you must be the Greatest Living Retard Known to Mankind.
>
> >
> > Besides, I have the same presentation in a book I wrote and that was
> > published in 1976.
>
> How many copies did you sell?
> One to your mom and one to your garden gnome?
>
> >
> > So, Van de Shmoosey "don't bother" --- except to apologise.
> >
> > Incidentally, HOW did you get .915c --- by gerrymandering it to match
> > the conserved amount?
>
> You wrote the piece of shit, so why don't you answer your
> own question?
>
> > If not show us how.
> >
> > As for me, the reason I came up with this scenario is because
> > Einstein's result was different from the result obtained by my Dual
> > Velocity Theory of Relativity (Also published in my book of 1976).
> >
> > If I couldn't prove him wrong, my whole theory would be shot in the
> > ass.
> >
> > I've also posted my Dual Velocity theory on this NG -- so to be
> > enterprising, you might try stealing that too.
>
> Stealing :-)
> What a retard you are.
> Painful.
>
> Dirk Vdm
------------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> <ver...@gawab.com> wrote in message news:1158521539....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I already have something along these lines:
> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ProvablyWrong.html
> >> so don't bother.
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > VERGON
>
> Yes, you are VERGON.
> We know.
> You can stop shouting your name all over the place.
>
> >
> > No, I won't bother because it does not upset me when someone else tries
> > to take credit for my work.
> > You and Y. Porat (two of a kind).
> >
> > (a) I posted this article years ago. So you copied it. Quite a
> > coincidence that your presentation is EXACTLY
> > as mine.
>
> Of course you wrote it. It's yours. It's a quote.
> The title of the entry on my list is:
> "An immortal fumble by Vertner Vergon (8-Oct-2001)"
> and there is a pointer at the bottom to the place where you wrote
> it :-)
> Boy, you must be the Greatest Living Retard Known to Mankind.
>
> >
> > Besides, I have the same presentation in a book I wrote and that was
> > published in 1976.
>
> How many copies did you sell?
> One to your mom and one to your garden gnome?
>
> >
> > So, Van de Shmoosey "don't bother" --- except to apologise.
> >
> > Incidentally, HOW did you get .915c --- by gerrymandering it to match
> > the conserved amount?
>
> You wrote the piece of shit, so why don't you answer your
> own question?
>
> > If not show us how.
> >
> > As for me, the reason I came up with this scenario is because
> > Einstein's result was different from the result obtained by my Dual
> > Velocity Theory of Relativity (Also published in my book of 1976).
> >
> > If I couldn't prove him wrong, my whole theory would be shot in the
> > ass.
> >
> > I've also posted my Dual Velocity theory on this NG -- so to be
> > enterprising, you might try stealing that too.
>
> Stealing :-)
> What a retard you are.
> Painful.
>
> Dirk Vdm
VERGON
Well, when you are right--- you are right. (That's so seldom that I
can't refuse you) :-)
I do apologise, I missed the point that you are saying (heaven forbid)
that it was the great Vergon that fumbled.
Another reason I didn' take up on that was because (AS USUAL) you make
a derogatory statement that YOU CAN'T -- AND DON'T BACK UP.
If a man thinks someone has "fumbled", he SHOULD have a reason. And his
readers are entitled to know what it is. Only a jerk would fail to
offer something.
It's none of your business but It sold about 2,000 copies. What have
you published?
As to how the "piece of shit" I wrote --- gets the .915c, if you
really want to know go to http://www.babin.net and read The Dual
Velocity Theory of Relativity.
Also, I just posted it the other day on this NG. I know you won't read
it because (A) It'll show you are full of shit -- and (B) you might
learn something new --- and that's out of your league.
Your speed is to disparage things that are over your head, and issue
stupid unsubstantiated invectives.
However, I'll give you a hint.
Like the observed length of a rod contracts, the observed velocity it
has also contracts. The actual (proper)
velocity is a Newtonian velocity, the observed velocity is the relative
velocity.
To add two velociities together, you add the Newtonian quantities and
then convert that to the relative.
In the example at hand, that yields .915c.
ver...@gawab.com
ver...@gawab.com wrote:
> ver...@gawab.com wrote:
>
>
>
VERGON
I posted the URL wrong. It's http//WWW.wbabin.net
go to LIST OF AUTHORS and click on Vertner Vergon
ver...@gawab.com
PD
I already answered this in another thread. The relativistic composition
of velocities has been completely and compellingly tested in
particle-particle collisions at both fixed-target and collider
accelerators.
Your response to this was, I believe, that compelling evidence is not
enough, and you need evidence enough force the issue for you beyond a
reasonable doubt. I gather your point was that if this were a matter
before a jury, you wouldn't be convinced. Fortunately, truth in science
doesn't require a unanimous verdict, nor does it depend on the rhetoric
of paid attorneys, nor is a judge asking your opinion in the matter.
PD
Martin Hogbin
<ver...@gawab.com> wrote in message news:1158527155.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
> > "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158502576.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Dirt van den Mortal wrote at:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/3733a35a8f2872f1/2803b3f0cfb965a5?rnum=1&hl
> >
=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3733a35a8f2872f1%2Fb929d705c08b721c%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc
> > _b929d705c08b721c
> > >
> > >
> > > always -- from the main issue which is that the relativistic velocity
> > > composition formula CANNOT be tested experimentally at relativistic
> > > speeds, or for that purpose at any speed.
> >
> > Fizeau did it.
> >
>
> Yeah, if I remeber right he measured the speed of light in moving
> water. If that's right then he was measuring the speed of light added
> to the speed of the water. I'm not sure that's the same as the scenario
> here as c is a constant.
The light traveled at c/n with respect to the water (n is refractive index).
The water moved at v with respect to the lab. The speed of the light
with respect to the lab was found to be as predicted by the relativistic
velocity composition formula.
Martin Hogbin
>
Sorcerer
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158529596.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| Your response to this was, I believe, that compelling evidence is not
| enough, and you need evidence enough force the issue for you beyond a
| reasonable doubt. I gather your point was that if this were a matter
| before a jury, you wouldn't be convinced. Fortunately, truth in science
| doesn't require a unanimous verdict, nor does it depend on the rhetoric
| of paid attorneys, nor is a judge asking your opinion in the matter.
Fortunately, truth in science doesn't require a unanimous verdict, nor
does it depend on the rhetoric of Phuckwit Ducks, nor is a judge asking
your opinion in the matter.
Androcles.
Koobee Wublee
only two authors giving each other high-fives about absolute nonsense.
One of the authors has admirably since then realized how much he does
not know and chose to go back to school to study about these subjects,
especially about math. The other one is still zooming back and forth
mindlessly from thread to thread misinterpreting or maliciously
interpreting other's posts to further add more odorous piles into his
very useless web-trash bin. Can anyone think about more time-wasting
hobby than that? I surely can't.
Sorcerer
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158564121....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Well... sorta. Some people collect used postage stamps and squirrel
them away in the slight hope they'll have value some day. Fumbles
are less valuable than used postage stamps, unless the fumbler
is well-known name, such as Einstein.
Forged fumbles, on the other hand, are the mark of a criminal psychopath.
Androcles.
Mike
Well, considering the statement in
"Nice to see the full details Dirk But at a logical level all you
really
need to remember is that during an infinitesimal time period an
accelerated
system can be considered to be traveling and constant velocity so SR
applies.
Thanks
Bill "
I mean even Eistein was not as smart as Bull Hooba. Of course he
forgoit to mention that this holds only as the infinitesimal time
interval goes to zero, at the limit that is, and it is called
instantaneous velocity = ds/dt. Only instantaneously, a body at
accelerated motion can be considered travelling at constant speed,
something that it is of not practical use or significance since given
the limitation on information transfer by the speed of light c, no such
precise instant in time can be detected. Dirt van der Mortal's math
level is at a high school level. He cannot also understand that SR does
not deal with locally inertial FoR but global ones.
Yep, that folk has got no life other than jumping around threads
attacking posters.
Mike
ver...@gawab.com
Very good. But the only thing that occures to me is that the velocity
of the water is very low compared to the speed of light.
At low velocities it is hard to detect the difference between
Einstein's method and mine.
PD
3/4 of c is not "very low" compared to c.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158564121....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I have added a pointer to this at the end of
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
Thanks for insisting :-)
More from Koobee Australopithecus Afarensis Wublee, the
Retired Retarded Aerospace Engineer:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffGeoAero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
|
| "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158564121....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > An immortal fumble by moortel is the following thread where there are
| > only two authors giving each other high-fives about absolute nonsense.
| >
| >
| >
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/7e6a09e1b521cf2a/b91b271e1bc385d4#b91b271e1bc385d4
| >
| > One of the authors has admirably since then realized how much he does
| > not know and chose to go back to school to study about these subjects,
| > especially about math. The other one is still zooming back and forth
| > mindlessly from thread to thread misinterpreting or maliciously
| > interpreting other's posts to further add more odorous piles into his
| > very useless web-trash bin. Can anyone think about more time-wasting
| > hobby than that? I surely can't.
|
| I have added a pointer to this at the end of
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
| Thanks for insisting :-)
|
|
| More from Koobee Australopithecus Afarensis Wublee, the
| Retired Retarded Aerospace Engineer:
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffGeoAero.html
If you have a different set of coordinate system, you need another set
of metric. For example, the rectangular coordinate and polar
coordinate.
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
dx = 0, dx' = 0
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
The event experienced by both twins
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
the Target is each of the twin himself. Thus, dx = dx' = 0.
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
undergo identical events
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
|
According
to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
Androcles.
Helmut Wabnig
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
> Since SR's
>predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
>experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
>conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
What a false logic.
Everyday experience is no valid reference, is totally misleading,
and this is the first thing one has to learn when dealing with
physics knowlegde.
Another Saucerer fumble for the records.
w.
hanson
is wabniggering again: <...._.--_.-_-..._-._.._--.@.-_---_-._*_.-_->
as he morseled quite illogically with his Dingleberrian conviction in:
news:qbltg2pcd7jn9r28q...@4ax.com...
>
["Sorcerer"]
> <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
>> Since SR's predictions are utterly absurd according to your
>> own everyday experience, it is safe to say SR is the most
>> bogus concept ever conceived by the mankind in the
>
[Wabniggie]
> What a false logic.
> Everyday experience is no valid reference, is totally misleading,
> and this is the first thing one has to learn when dealing with
> physics knowlegde.
>
[hanson]
-------------------------------------
Andro 1 : Wabniggie 0
-------------------------------------
Wabniggie, you now sing like a classical Einstein Dingleberry:
you trying to get assurances by moving ever closer to the, for you
comfort furnishing, warmth of your rolemodel's sphincter... ahahaha...
.....despite the fact that Einstein tried desperately, already 80+
years ago, to wipe you pathetic Dingleberries off his ass.
Hell, Einstein urged his Dingleberries ever since the 1920's that they
== "should not search at the same, now well lit places,
where he had been working".
and then a year before he puffed Einstein said to Besso in 1954 :
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
:
Martin Hogbin
<ver...@gawab.com> wrote in message news:1158587630.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
> > <ver...@gawab.com> wrote in message news:1158527155.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Martin Hogbin wrote:
> > > > "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1158502576.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Dirt van den Mortal wrote at:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/3733a35a8f2872f1/2803b3f0cfb965a5?rnum=1&hl
> > > >
> >
=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3733a35a8f2872f1%2Fb929d705c08b721c%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc
> > > > _b929d705c08b721c
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice story, actually straw man argument to divert attention -- as
> > > > > always -- from the main issue which is that the relativistic velocity
> > > > > composition formula CANNOT be tested experimentally at relativistic
> > > > > speeds, or for that purpose at any speed.
> > > >
> > > > Fizeau did it.
> > > >
> > VERGON
> > >
> > > Yeah, if I remeber right he measured the speed of light in moving
> > > water. If that's right then he was measuring the speed of light added
> > > to the speed of the water. I'm not sure that's the same as the scenario
> > > here as c is a constant.
> >
> > The light traveled at c/n with respect to the water (n is refractive index).
> > The water moved at v with respect to the lab. The speed of the light
> > with respect to the lab was found to be as predicted by the relativistic
> > velocity composition formula.
>
>
> Very good. But the only thing that occures to me is that the velocity
> of the water is very low compared to the speed of light.
>
> At low velocities it is hard to detect the difference between
> Einstein's method and mine.
Yes but Fizeau's method was sensitive enough to get results
which clearly distinguish between SR and additive velocity
composition.
Martin Hogbin
Sorcerer
to me. It should really be:
--------------------------------------------
Koobee Wublee 1 : wogniggie -1
--------------------------------------------
wogniggy loses a penalty goal.
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:0cBPg.3313$W13.1168@trnddc05...
Helmut Wabnig
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
>The wogwabnigger is so stupid he attributes something KW said
>to me. It should really be:
> --------------------------------------------
> Koobee Wublee 1 : wogniggie -1
> --------------------------------------------
>wogniggy loses a penalty goal.
here it is with all the headers, and it is in the last paragraph.
If it was a citation it is missing the citation mark ">"
And it really sounds like Saucerer speaking
>Since SR's
>predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
>experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
>conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
Is that your text or not, Saucerer?
w.
###################citation################################
Path:
newsreader01.highway.telekom.at!newsspool.highway.telekom.at!newsfeed.aon.at!newsrouter.london1.eu.level3.net!level3eu!itgate.net!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!tiscali!transit1.news.tiscali.nl!transit.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news2.euro.net!213.132.189.2.MISMATCH!multikabel.net!feed20.multikabel.net!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk!blueyonder!pe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk!blueyonder!fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
References: <1158502576.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1158564121....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
<8gzPg.83267$_S6.12...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>
Subject: Re: MANY Immoortel Fumbles by dORK vAN dE mERDE
Lines: 78
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
Message-ID: <hqAPg.12813$cd1....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:10:37 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.34.65.187
X-Complaints-To: ab...@blueyonder.co.uk
X-Trace: fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk 1158599437 82.34.65.187 (Mon, 18
Sep 2006 18:10:37 BST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:10:37 BST
Xref: newsreader01.highway.telekom.at sci.physics.relativity:519310
sci.physics:915771
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
Correct. Immoortel fumble again.
Androcles.
#########################end cit#########################
Paul Cardinale
Sorcerer wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:m8a0u3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> | You might like to explain why a 7 TeV proton whizzing around an
> | approximately 27 km circumference only has a frequency of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's got 4 too many syllables for androcrap to understand.
> | 11.245 kHz.
>
> Hmmm.. interesting...
> Let me see...
> t = 1/ (f revolutions per second), so
> t = 1/11245 seconds...
> tangential speed = 27000 * 11245 = 303,615,000 meters/sec
>
> It's a TACHYON!
>
> How exciting!
>
> Is its clock running backward? Did you check?
> Are we there yet?
> Are we there yet?
> Are we there yet?
> Are we there yet?
> MOM! I wanna see the tachyon!
> Are we there yet?
> Are we there yet?
> Are we there yet?
> Are we there yet?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Helmut Wabnig" <...._.--_.-_-..._-._.._--.@.-_---_-._*_.-_-> wrote in message news:67rtg2dtdonsnee2a...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:48:11 GMT, "Sorcerer"
> <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
>
>>The wogwabnigger is so stupid he attributes something KW said
>>to me. It should really be:
>> --------------------------------------------
>> Koobee Wublee 1 : wogniggie -1
>> --------------------------------------------
>>wogniggy loses a penalty goal.
[snip - to annoy Androcles]
Now our dearest hanson will have to reply in order for
Androcles to be able to see what you wrote despite
his "killfiling" you ;-)
Otherwise Androfart will have to allegedly remove your
entry again.
What do you think - will hanson oblige?
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1158606754....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Hey fuckwit! Fuck off, pathetic troll.
Helmut Wabnig
W H O in hell is hanson?
w.
Eric Gisse
hanson = Traveler.
I don't care if the IPs don't match. They speak in the same idiotic way
and use the same hahahaha length when *nobody* else does.
At best I could concede them being a husband-wife [or husband-husband
considering their ass fixations] team.
>
> w.
jem
If Relativity weren't completely consistent with everyday experience it
wouldn't be a viable theory.
Sorcerer
"jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:2QRPg.141760$LF4.17549@dukeread05...
| If Relativity weren't completely consistent with everyday experience it
| wouldn't be a viable theory.
Agreed. Let's untie the "n'ts".
If Relativity were completely consistent with everyday experience it
would be a viable theory.
Here's some everyday experience:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Androcles
hanson
three stooges, Dirk+Eric+Helmut, together having a tête-à-tête!
>
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:13:55 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >What do you think - will hanson oblige?
>> >Dirk Vdm
>> >
>> >message news:67rtg2dtdonsnee2a...@4ax.com...
>
news:1158653509....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> hanson = Traveler.
> I don't care if the IPs don't match. They speak in the same idiotic way
> and use the same hahahaha length when *nobody* else does.
> At best I could concede them being a husband-wife [or husband-husband
> considering their ass fixations] team.
>
ahahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... Wow, that much attention!
This is balsam for my soul!...Thanks for your loving interests, guys!...
Eric, with that profound observation of yours I am not surprised
any longer that you have so many grievous problems with trivial
things such as you not being able to fill out the forms for your
mortgage re-financing. Maybe your other 2 stooges can help you.
ahahahaha... Take care, you fellow travelers... ahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
PD
Sorcerer wrote:
> "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:2QRPg.141760$LF4.17549@dukeread05...
> | If Relativity weren't completely consistent with everyday experience it
> | wouldn't be a viable theory.
>
> Agreed. Let's untie the "n'ts".
>
> If Relativity were completely consistent with everyday experience it
> would be a viable theory.
Crapola. If this is your criterion, there are more suprises for you.
Sorcerer
| ahahaha... This is a keeper!... ahahahaha... Finally, we got all
| three stooges, Dirk+Eric+Helmut, together having a tête-à-tête!
That's fives stooges.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/stooges.htm
Androcles
Sorcerer
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
| > news:2QRPg.141760$LF4.17549@dukeread05...
| > | If Relativity weren't completely consistent with everyday experience
it
| > | wouldn't be a viable theory.
| >
| > Agreed. Let's untie the "n'ts".
| >
| > If Relativity were completely consistent with everyday experience it
| > would be a viable theory.
|
| Crapola.
Having difficulty with taking out "n't", Phuckwit Duck?
Are you now saying the velocity of light is NOT the same in
all inertial frames of reference? Of course it is, we know trains move by
peristalsis. They have to, the wheels are not circular.
I thought you liked saying what things were NOT, shitheaded troll.
ver...@gawab.com
Mike wrote:
> Dirt van den Mortal wrote at:
>
>
I WONDER WHO THE SON OF A BITCH IS THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING
THOSE SPONSORED LINKS ON THE RIGHT TO BLOT OUT THE POSTS.
ver...@gawab.com
Mike wrote:
> Dirt van den Mortal wrote at:
>
>
>
>
> " ...Has anyone ever precisely measured directly the relative velocity
> between two moving objects at every-day-life velocities, and
> found a difference between the result of the classic velocity
> addition formula and the relativistic velocity composition formula?
> To use your words: "The answer is NO".
> No one has done an experiment where a velocity of 10 m/s was
> combined with a velocity of 10 m/s, which gave exactly
> 20.00000000000000 m/s like predicted by the classic theory, as
> opposed to the 19.99999999999998 m/s that is predicted by
> relativity theory...."
>
> Nice story, actually straw man argument to divert attention -- as
> always -- from the main issue which is that the relativistic velocity
> composition formula CANNOT be tested experimentally at relativistic
> speeds, or for that purpose at any speed.
>