STRICH Thread: Putting Relativity to Rest
Strich 9
It is about time that Special and General Relativity is put in its
proper inertial frame of REST. Many arguments and proofs have been put
forth against it, and most have remained undisputed. Counterproofs from
the Relativity Masters, or RM for short, have ranged from the inane, to
the insane, to the incensed, but not one based on logic or evidence. I
must agree, SR/GR is a beautiful theory. People really like the
visualization of gravity as curves in space. It tickles their
geometric intuitions and egoistic fantasies. But science is not about
superficial beauty, it is about the deepest beauty called truth. In
this regard, relativity suffers.
THE THESIS SUMMARY OF THIS THREAD IS THAT RELATIVITY, AS PROPOSED BY
EINSTEIN IS ERRONEOUS, AND POSSIBLE REASONS WHY AN ERROR OF SUCH
MAGNITUDE HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED, BY THE AUTHOR HIMSELF AND BY HIS
FOLLOWERS.
THERE ARE OTHER THREADS OF SIMILAR IDEAS. THIS IS THE STRICH THREAD.
ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CLAIMS, PROOFS AND CONCLUSIONS OF STRICH WILL
BE ANSWERED HERE TO AVOID REPETITION, DUPLICATION, AND FALSE
COUNTERPROOFS BY THE RMS. HOWEVER, AS QGD IS MY ACTIVE AREA OF
RESEARCH, ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY PERTAIN OR RELATE TO THIS FIELD WILL
NOT BE ANSWERED IN THE INTEREST OF SECRECY.
1.) The obvious flaw in SR/GR is the Twin Paradox. The weak answer
based on non-inertiality of the frames is easily countered by varying
the paradox, as for example in the David Twin Paradox. Here, SR/GR has
no answer.
2.) SR/GR can easily be corrected by assuming that time dilation and
length contraction are mere illusions of observation. This remedy
changes the theory to a reality model and strips it of any practical
application, and hence is not acceptable to RM.
3.) Without this correction, all conclusions and predictions of SR/GR
become suspect.
4.) While SR/GR did predict post-hoc the precession of the perihelion
of the orbit of Mercury, it does not correctly predict the precession
of the planet Earth.
5.) While SR/GR also predicted post-hoc the bending of light, this is
easily accounted for by refraction of the atmosphere of the sun.
6.) SR/GR reconciles cosmological red shift with an expanding universe,
but runs aground when it must postulate more matter, so-called dark
matter; red shift due to entropy does not lead to any logical or
verifiable contradictions.
7.) The Hafele-Keating experiment was never repeated. A few runs do
not constitute sound evidence. Perhaps HK did not feel the need to
waste further resources in a futile endeavor.
8.) The Pound-Rebka experiment was never repeated as well. Other
physicists did not see the need to waste further resources in futile
theatrics.
9.) The muon experiment contains many methodological errors and its
conclusions are easily shown to be contradictory.
10.) GPS devices do not employ SR/GR. GPS is one of a number of null
results for SR/GR.
11.) The LIGO experiment is another null result.
12.) The gravity probes are another null result.
13.) It can be seen that SR/GR stands on a very shaky logical and
experimental foundation.
14.) To compensate SR/GR is one of the most profligate developers of
buzzwords and jargon. This increases its mass appeal, and at the same
time makes it harder for outsiders to understand. It has become a
tower of Babel than no physicist can claim to fully understand, even
Einstein himself.
15.) SR uses very simple mathematics. Einstein was not a strong
mathematician. GR uses more complex mathematics which he obviously
borrowed and developed from the great minds of the time. Hence, he was
unable to solve them, and had to rely on the genius of Schwarzchild to
solve the easy ones.
16.) SR/GR runs counter to quantum dynamics. Einstein knew this, and
attempted a disproof with his famous EPR paradox. Without the
foundation of logic, Einstein was easily proved wrong by the simple
inequalites of Bell. RMs had to come up with the word
‘entanglement’ as another term for superluminal
communication, in an attempt to bury the superluminal heresy.
17.) While it is only human to err, to propagate an error because of
ignorance borders on subhuman, and to knowingly propagate an error for
personal gain borders on the parasitic.
18.) The periods of popularity of relativity will be viewed as the Dark
Age of Cosmology. Only the conclusion of QGD will bring us into the
Enlightenment of Cosmology.
--
Strich 9
PD
wrote:
You are SO absorbed in your need for self-aggrandizement that you feel
the need to TITLE posts with your screen name, so that it will show up
twice in the same line in a newsreader?
How desperate for attention are you? Were you ignored as a child by
your father?
How much of your daily activity is one variant or another of "Hey!
Look at me! Look at ME! Over HERE! Hey!!" ?
PD
Igor
wrote:
> It is about time that Special and General Relativity is put in its
> proper inertial frame of REST. Many arguments and proofs have been put
> forth against it, and most have remained undisputed.
Nonsense doesn't need to be disputed. It unravels on its own accord.
But if you ever find experimental evidence that might undo a physical
theory, by all means report it. Mere mathematical arguments cannot
undo a theory, provided it already has internal consistency. But both
that notion and the entire scientific method seem to have abandoned
your brain and you continue to post garbage.
Uncle Al
>
> It is about time that Special and General Relativity is put in its
> proper inertial frame of REST. Many arguments and proofs have been put
> forth against it, and most have remained undisputed.
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
Fucking imbecile.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
PD
wrote:
It isn't often that one poster can so neatly capture so many of the
classic hallmarks of crankdom in one place. Let's take a short
inventory.
1. "My critics are all intellectually inferior to me. I am not swayed
one bit by their arguments."
2. "Just by my declarations here, I immediately shatter all the
arguments of my critics."
3. "To properly convey the appropriate adversarial nature of science,
I shall give my critics a pet name -- here, Relativity Masters. Aren't
I cute in doing so?"
4. "Relativity is a beautiful theory, but a theory should be judged
not on its empirical success or its mathematical beauty, but by
whether it agrees with my philosophy of nature, which I will also
label in such a way as to carry authority -- here, Truth."
5. "I alone have stumbled on the Truth, all others being blinded by a
desire to be Followers of Einstein."
6. "The problems of relativity are revealed in its paradoxes. Since
several of them are claimed to have resolutions, though I don't
understand them, let me focus on one that not so many people have said
is resolvable. Unless everyone can be completely convinced of the
resolution of all paradoxes, then relativity is suspect."
7. "Sure, relativity makes accurate predictions of measurements. But
measurements are tainted by illusion. The underlying reality is
unmeasurable and conflicts with relativity."
8. "Since relativity correctly makes a prediction about the precession
of Mercury's perihelion, then I expect relativity to have a prediction
about anything involving the word 'perihelion'."
9. "To my knowledge, none of the key experiments have been repeated.
If my knowledge is thin, then prove me wrong."
10. "I don't believe in the results of the key experiments, for one
reason or another. Experiments are always suspect for one reason or
another, and therefore the experimental support for relativity is
suspect as well, and therefore relativity is suspect."
11. "Relativity is full of technical terms that makes it hard to
understand, and for this reason relativity is suspect. On the other
hand, the math of relativity appears to be too easy, and for this
reason relativity is suspect. A solid theory should be expressible in
ordinary, understandable language and have really hard, advanced
mathematics."
12. "Einstein collaborated and built on the work of others. Therefore
he cannot claim it to be wholly original. Therefore it is wrong."
13. "The fact that no one has figured out how to make a good quantum
theory of gravity means that relativity is wrong."
14. "The fact that some predicted observations haven't been yet found
means that relativity is wrong. All predicted observations should be
observed within the first few minutes of trying."
15. "I am free to relabel quantum entanglement as 'superluminal
communication' despite careful warnings by physicists that it is not
superluminal communication. I alone can see it for what it truly is,
and have called a spade a spade, and the spade proves relativity
wrong."
16. "I have clearly pointed out the falsity of relativity, and
therefore demand that everyone stop teaching relativity THIS INSTANT,
for if you do not then you are guilty of promulgating a KNOWN lie --
and you know it's a lie because I've told you it's a lie. J'ACCUSE!"
17. "I have a theory of quantum gravity, but I must keep it secret."
Well done, Strich9, the Crank-O-Meter has registered all of these
crankiness notes, and is positively smoking from all of the current.
PD
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sifting through your neurotic babble, i found one crumb of minimal
scientific merit:
8. "Since relativity correctly makes a prediction about the precession
of Mercury's perihelion, then I expect relativity to have a prediction
about anything involving the word 'perihelion'."
which was misquoted from my item (4):
4.) While SR/GR did predict post-hoc the precession of the perihelion
of the orbit of Mercury, it does not correctly predict the precession
of the planet Earth.
Obviously PD does not know the meaning of the word 'post-hoc", and for
some reason he makes the simple arithmetic error of Earth=anything.
As for his home made crankmeter, he'll probably get a better reading
if he would only pull it out of his ***.
Keep trying PD. Of course you already know you can't really beat me in
anything, unless you are too dumb to know even that fact.
iqgo...@gmail.com
I think an impartial observer would know who just posted garbage...
iqgo...@gmail.com
> Strich 9 wrote:
>
> > It is about time that Special and General Relativity is put in its
> > proper inertial frame of REST. Many arguments and proofs have been put
> > forth against it, and most have remained undisputed.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
> Special Relativity for yard apes
>
> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
> Experimental constraints on General Relativity
>
> Fucking imbecile.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Sen-Al-ity, still forgetting your medications?
Matthew Johnson
iqgo...@gmail.com says...
[snip]
>> It isn't often that one poster can so neatly capture so many of the
>> classic hallmarks of crankdom in one place. Let's take a short
>> inventory.
His main achievement in life;)
[snip]
>Sifting through your neurotic babble, i found one crumb of minimal
>scientific merit:
The only "neurotic babble" in PD's post was quote from -- you?
>8. "Since relativity correctly makes a prediction about the precession
>of Mercury's perihelion, then I expect relativity to have a prediction
>about anything involving the word 'perihelion'."
>
>which was misquoted from my item (4):
>
>4.) While SR/GR did predict post-hoc the precession of the perihelion
>of the orbit of Mercury, it does not correctly predict the precession
>of the planet Earth.
But this is nonsense. Even Newton's theory correctly predicted that. What is
your source of information for the claim that Einstein's did not?
[snip]
PD
Precisely my point. Are you referring to the precession of the
perihelion of the Earth, or the precession of the rotational axis of
the Earth, or what? And why do you think relativity should have a
prediction of the latter? And what do you think the experimental
discrepancy is for the former?
>
> Obviously PD does not know the meaning of the word 'post-hoc", and for
> some reason he makes the simple arithmetic error of Earth=anything.
>
> As for his home made crankmeter, he'll probably get a better reading
> if he would only pull it out of his ***.
>
> Keep trying PD. Of course you already know you can't really beat me in
> anything, unless you are too dumb to know even that fact.
I don't know how you judge being "beaten", Strich9.
There was once a boxer who felt that as long as he was standing up, he
had not lost. It didn't matter whether he had landed any blows or
whether his nose was broken or whether his eyes were swollen shut. It
didn't matter how many more punches the opponent threw or landed than
he did. As long as he was awake and standing, he had not lost. After a
while, he convinced himself that as long as he was standing up, he had
in fact won. Of course, by that time, he had serious brain damage.
Do you think of your participation on sci.physics as a boxing match?
Are you trying to win at something here?
PD
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Precisely yor point. How can you use 'precisely' and not know what
precession is being referred to in the same sentence. You reveal your
usual mental weakness. GR prediction = 3.8; actual =5.0. Tell me if
these are equal.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> In article <fec7d73e-64f6-4ccf-9223-b0fc426d5...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> iqgoo...@gmail.com says...
I guess even you don't want to sift through his babble. It is his
number 8. Note that my number 8 refers to the PR expt.
PD
>
> Precisely yor point. How can you use 'precisely' and not know what
> precession is being referred to in the same sentence. You reveal your
> usual mental weakness. GR prediction = 3.8; actual =5.0. Tell me if
> these are equal.
So which precession IS being referred to? And what are the units and
error bars on the above numbers?
PD
Matthew Johnson
iqgo...@gmail.com says...
[snip]
>I guess even you don't want to sift through his babble.
You have misunderstood: PD is not the source of 'babble' in this thread.
> It is his
>number 8. Note that my number 8 refers to the PR expt.
And none of these references contain actual reference to real data to support
the claim the GTR does not explain the earth's precession.
Not one.
Eric Gisse
Precession of the perihelia, arcseconds/century, +/- 1.2
It looks like we have yet another idiot that does not understand the
concept of error bars.
Matthew Johnson
Eric Gisse says...
>
>On Aug 7, 1:17=A0pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 4:03=A0pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Precisely yor point. =A0How can you use 'precisely' and not know what
>> > precession is being referred to in the same sentence. You reveal your
> me if
>> > these are equal.
>>
>> So which precession IS being referred to? And what are the units and
>> error bars on the above numbers?
>>
>> PD
>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
>
>Precession of the perihelia, arcseconds/century, +/- 1.2
>
>It looks like we have yet another idiot that does not understand the
>concept of error bars.
It wouldn't surprise me. After all, the anti-relativity crowd delights and
thrives on such misunderstanding. But it is right on the edge, which really does
look at least a little suspicious.
Not, however, suspicious enough to use as evidence that GTR is wrong, nor that
it fails to explain the Earth's precession.
PD
> In article <2fdbef3a-81ea-4f80-a82a-006a60d29...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Eric Gisse says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 7, 1:17=A0pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 7, 4:03=A0pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > Precisely yor point. =A0How can you use 'precisely' and not know what
> >> > precession is being referred to in the same sentence. You reveal your
> >> > usual mental weakness. =A0GR prediction =3D 3.8; actual =3D5.0. =A0Tell=
> > me if
> >> > these are equal.
>
> >> So which precession IS being referred to? And what are the units and
> >> error bars on the above numbers?
>
> >> PD
> >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
>
> >Precession of the perihelia, arcseconds/century, +/- 1.2
>
> >It looks like we have yet another idiot that does not understand the
> >concept of error bars.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me. After all, the anti-relativity crowd delights and
> thrives on such misunderstanding. But it is right on the edge, which really does
> look at least a little suspicious.
No, it's not right on the edge, really. The error bar is usually taken
as something that would be represented as sigma in a gaussian
distribution and so there is a substantial likelihood that two numbers
that are in fact the same would show up outside of each other by one
sigma. This is the reason why physicists usually do not cite discovery
of a signal until it sticks up at least *three* sigma above
background. Then there is less than a 1% chance that the signal is not
just a statistical fluctuation.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> In article <b2b847af-c042-4886-a75c-c56017360...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> iqgoo...@gmail.com says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >I guess even you don't want to sift through his babble.
>
> You have misunderstood: PD is not the source of 'babble' in this thread.
>
> > It is his
> >number 8. Note that my number 8 refers to the PR expt.
>
> And none of these references contain actual reference to real data to support
> the claim the GTR does not explain the earth's precession.
>
> Not one.
Mr. Professor, you cannot use my data and dispute it at the same
time. If you think my data is wrong, then present your data. You
will be embarassed to know that there is no other data, except this
one from 80 years ago...
iqgo...@gmail.com
And that is the crux of GR. It is true that the GR prediction of 3.8
lies just at the lower border of the measured 5+/-1.2 or 3.8 to 6.2.
In 80 years nobody has bothered to obtain better data. Not one MS or
PHD student ever thought about or was encouraged by his mentors to
refine the data. GR always hinges on these trickles of evidence. Is
that GOOD enough? From the tone of the relativity crowd, that is good
enough for them. "Yeah, we made it by the skin of our teeth. Maybe
next time we won't be so lucky!" And what, you want the rest of the
world to be impressed by such antics?
It is like saying the passing grade is 70%, and PD got 70% in particle
physics. Would you trust him to run LHC? Of course not, you would
get somebody more along the lines of of 95+.
It appears all the pro relativity people think alike. Passing is good
enough. The data for the HK experiment is similar. A couple runs
with clock differentials, and that should be enough. With the number
of plane flights going on everyday, one wonders why they did not do at
least 30 or 100 runs. After all the clocks do not need to sit on
business class. The same again with the PR experiment. A few runs at
Harvard. One would expect a more comprehensive sets of runs deserving
of a Nobel, either in Hardard or elsewhere. And the list goes on and
on. Barely passable data being passed on as incontrovertible evidence
of GR. Now is that exact science, or fudged science?
PD
Well, hold on here.
Keep in mind that the Earth measurement is one of about six planetary
precession measurements, and the Earth one is the ONLY one that is
even close to dodgy, and not very dodgy at that.
Also keep in mind that planetary precession measurement are only one
class among about three dozen classes of experimental tests of SR and
GR, with the remainder of those tests being solidly in favor of SR and
GR.
To use your analogy, this would be like a student in particle physics
getting a 70% on *one* homework assignment, but doing better than a 95
on all other assignments and exams, and in fact doing better than any
other student in the class. Most people would say the student did
fine. You, however, would say, "But he got a 70 on that one homework
assignment. Are you going to let him pass with that?"
PD
Matthew Johnson
iqgo...@gmail.com says...
>
[snip]
>> It looks like we have yet another idiot that does not understand the
>> concept of error bars.
>
>And that is the crux of GR.
No, it isn't.
> It is true that the GR prediction of 3.8
>lies just at the lower border of the measured 5+/-1.2 or 3.8 to 6.2.
True. And if you had actually read the reference he gave, you would know why.
>In 80 years nobody has bothered to obtain better data.
Nonsense. You don't know this. You are just making it up. The reason they don't
have "better data" is because measuring the Earth's own precession to a higher
degree of accuracy is harder, because it is so much smaller than these other
planets.
Furthermore, since the agreement with GR is already very good on the planets
where we -can- measure this accurately, only an idiot would believe that a more
accurate measurement in this one case is going to overturn the theory.
Oh, wait, that -is- what you believe. But this confirms my statement precisely;)
[snip]
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean a theory that fails on one test is ok as long as it passes
other tests? This is not democracy. A theory need only fail one test
to be proven wrong. And failing the Earth precession prediction is
already one. You can count 3.8 = (3.8-6.2) as a pass but to exact
science that is tantamount to failure. Furthermore, we have not even
quoted the p values in this case. Is that p less than 0.10, 0.05,
0.01 in a Gaussian curve, meaning a 90%, 95% or 99% confidence
interval? Do not assume you automatically have three standard
deviations of confidence when you do not have the exact p value. That
is mere assistant janitor reasoning.
iqgo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <1557d93f-48b3-4c66-82b5-7d7002fa6...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> iqgoo...@gmail.com says...
You say nonsense implying there is more data, and in the same sentence
contradict yourself by agreeing that there are no other measurements.
Which is which? You can either refute my claim that there is more
data and present that, or agree that there is no new data because it
is hard to obtain. You cannot claim a paradox of having new data and
no new data at the same time. You should know that taking alcohol in
the morning is not advisable.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> Also keep in mind that planetary precession measurement are only one
> class among about three dozen classes of experimental tests of SR and
> GR, with the remainder of those tests being solidly in favor of SR and
> GR.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok. I have only picked on the weakness of so-called evidence for
GR. Let me now pick on the evidence AGAINST GR.
First, the GPS is supposed to find evidence for GR. With 24 orbiting
satellites with atomic clocks, this is supposed to pick up time
discrepancies due to GR. This system has been in place for a decade.
Did GPS find any evidence for GR? OF COURSE NOT.
Second, the LIGO experiment failed to show gravitational waves for the
radiation burst detected on 02/2007. This is evidence against GR.
Yet, the RM provides us with many explanations for the failure. "The
detector is not sensitive enough." "The burst is of a different
nature." What they fail to acknowledge is that the LIGO was designed
precisely for this kind of event and the result was negative. Of
course nobody in their right mind would admit failure in public,
especially if the project cost a third of a billion dollars.
Third...
I'll let the RMs digest that for the meantime and see them squirm and
perspire in their keyboards...
PD
That's correct. The Earth precession rate is not a failing test. These
numbers DO NOT DISAGREE.
> And failing the Earth precession prediction is
> already one. You can count 3.8 = (3.8-6.2) as a pass but to exact
> science that is tantamount to failure.
That is COMPLETELY incorrect.
For precise science, the numbers 3.8 +/- 1.2 and 5.0 AGREE.
This is *precisely* the point in science of quoting both a central
value and an experimental uncertainty in a result, because the result
is INCORRECTLY STATED without both.
If you do not have this experimental sensibility in your repertoire,
then you are missing some fundamental, freshman science skills.
> Furthermore, we have not even
> quoted the p values in this case. Is that p less than 0.10, 0.05,
> 0.01 in a Gaussian curve, meaning a 90%, 95% or 99% confidence
> interval? Do not assume you automatically have three standard
> deviations of confidence when you do not have the exact p value.
And that is precisely the point of having the *original* published
paper regarding the measurement, not a link to some compendium. The
original paper goes into some detail about how that uncertainty was
arrived at and what it means.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> The original paper goes into some detail about how that uncertainty was arrived at and what it means.
Good. How come you don't know the p?
PD
> On Aug 8, 10:08 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also keep in mind that planetary precession measurement are only one
> > class among about three dozen classes of experimental tests of SR and
> > GR, with the remainder of those tests being solidly in favor of SR and
> > GR.
>
> > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ok. I have only picked on the weakness of so-called evidence for
> GR. Let me now pick on the evidence AGAINST GR.
>
> First, the GPS is supposed to find evidence for GR. With 24 orbiting
> satellites with atomic clocks, this is supposed to pick up time
> discrepancies due to GR. This system has been in place for a decade.
> Did GPS find any evidence for GR? OF COURSE NOT.
Of COURSE it did. The GPS system without the GR correction encoded in
it fell immediately and hopelessly out of synch. The correction
prescribed by GR fixed this. This is documented. Have you no sense?
>
> Second, the LIGO experiment failed to show gravitational waves for the
> radiation burst detected on 02/2007. This is evidence against GR.
> Yet, the RM provides us with many explanations for the failure. "The
> detector is not sensitive enough." "The burst is of a different
> nature." What they fail to acknowledge is that the LIGO was designed
> precisely for this kind of event and the result was negative.
That is also COMPLETELY incorrect. You say that LIGO was designed
precisely for this kind of event. That is incorrect. There are a
number of non-GR assumptions required for the events like this to
generate a detectable signal in LIGO. There was NO assurance that
those assumptions were satisfied. There was the hope that IF those
assumptions were satisfied, then LIGO would see the signal.
If in fact those non-GR assumptions could be shown to have been
satisfied in the 2/2007 event, then indeed the lack of signal in LIGO
would be significant trouble for GR. In this particular case, the
gamma ray burst GRB070201 from the *direction of* Andromeda would have
been surely detectable in LIGO if it were known that the burst came
FROM Andromeda and not from a galaxy from BEHIND Andromeda. This non-
GR criterion has not been able to be verified.
> Of
> course nobody in their right mind would admit failure in public,
> especially if the project cost a third of a billion dollars.
Compared with the cost of the war in Iraq, which costs a thousand
times that each and every year.
PD
What's the matter, you can't find the original paper?
Here, I'll help you. Here's a paper that gives you references to the
major measurements and the original papers. You should be able to find
everything you need.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v19/i4/p361_1
PD
iqgo...@gmail.com
While PD is playing hide and seek with the p values, let me educate
these monkeys on basic statistics. Obviously none of these monkeys
are in experimental physics or research for they have no clue about
statistical interpretation. I guess that is expected since
introductory courses in janitorship merely parrot dogma instead of
analying the numbers critically.
Let me give you this table. You are welcome to provide other values
if you have them:
1.) 5.0 +/- 0.1 (p less than 0.5)
2.) 5.0 +/- 0.5 (p less than 0.1)
3.) 5.0 +/- 0.9 (p less than 0.01)
4.) 5.0 +/- 1.2 (p less than 0.001)
5.) 5.0 +/- infinity (p at 0)
What does it mean? When we limit the observed value to a smaller
range, our confidence that our measurement is correct is smaller. We
can increase our confidence to 100% by giving an infinite range, but
then that measurement becomes meaningless. Obviously, we need a high
confidence, but at the same time, we want a small range.
What does this mean in the interpretation? For example, if the
predicted value of 3.8 lies outside a certain interval, what does it
mean?
Let us take case 1. Since 3.8 lies outside, we can say with 50%
certainty that the prediction is wrong. That is no good. It is just
as good as chance.
Let us take case 3. Since 3.8 lies outside, we can say with 99%
certainty that the prediction is wrong.
Let us take case 4. Since 3.8 lies inside, we cannot anymore say with
99.9% certainty that the prediction is wrong.
Note that while a betting man may be happy with 99%, an invested man
may prefer 99.9% For the former, the prediction can already be seen
as wrong, while the latter may hold out for better measurements.
Obviously, chance would favor the betting man.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> Did GPS find any evidence for GR? OF COURSE NOT.
>
> Of COURSE it did. The GPS system without the GR correction encoded in it fell > immediately and hopelessly out of synch. The correction prescribed by GR fixed > this. This is documented. Have you no sense?
>
You must be reading the janitor manual. With the GR corrections, the
system fell out of synch, later on attributed to random errors in the
atomic clocks (they were being nice to RMs). Currently, the atomic
clocks are reset twice each day to a single referece clock, with the
appropriate OFFSET to account for the distance of each satellite from
the reference. There is no GR correction or offset factor.
Not only are you IGNORANT of GPS, you are IGNORANT of what GR means.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> That is also COMPLETELY incorrect. You say that LIGO was designed
> precisely for this kind of event. That is incorrect. There are a
> number of non-GR assumptions required for the events like this to
> generate a detectable signal in LIGO. There was NO assurance that
> those assumptions were satisfied. There was the hope that IF those
> assumptions were satisfied, then LIGO would see the signal.
>
> If in fact those non-GR assumptions could be shown to have been
> satisfied in the 2/2007 event, then indeed the lack of signal in LIGO
> would be significant trouble for GR. In this particular case, the
> gamma ray burst GRB070201 from the *direction of* Andromeda would have
> been surely detectable in LIGO if it were known that the burst came
> FROM Andromeda and not from a galaxy from BEHIND Andromeda. This non-
> GR criterion has not been able to be verified.
And that is what I had called SPIN (not the quantum kind, but the PR
kind).
And FYI the RM argument implies that the G-wave travels at a different
velocity than the gamma ray burst, which is already a contradiction to
SR, unless of course you have the preposterous assumption that gravity
travels slower than light.
iqgo...@gmail.com
result. Further number crunching is ongoing. The good thing is that
this is mainly a Stanford project, and would not jeopardize their
reputation by fiddling with the numbers to generate a positive result,
or to SPIN a negative result. They can stand behind a negative
result. I would bet my beige Exige that when the official Stanford
conclusions are out, it would say something like:
"We regret to inform the Science community that the results of the
Gravity Probe projects have conclusively proven that Relativity must
be false." A long apology, hand holding and tight hugs will follow so
as to preserve the pride and positions of the humbled RMs.
Sam Wormley
> You must be reading the janitor manual. With the GR corrections, the
> system fell out of synch, later on attributed to random errors in the
> atomic clocks (they were being nice to RMs). Currently, the atomic
> clocks are reset twice each day to a single referece clock, with the
> appropriate OFFSET to account for the distance of each satellite from
> the reference. There is no GR correction or offset factor.
>
Igloo, your information is totally bogus, if fact likely fabricated
by you. The GPS satellite clocks have NEVER been "reset" since being
launched. Satellite Clock "modeling" and "steering" is routinely
done on atomic clocks and is orders of magnitude smaller that the
relativistic corrections. The relativistic correction are in the form
of an offset on the satellites and in GPS receiver calculations.
See: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
A bit of self education on your part, Igloo, is in order.
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
It must be embarrassing to spew such error and nonsense in a public
forum such as sci.physics on USENET.
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> It looks like we have yet another idiot that does not understand the
> concept of error bars.
Error bars are meaningless without specifying the associated p value.
It looks like we have yet another idiot that does not understand
statistics.
Matthew Johnson
>
>iqgo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[snip]
> Igloo, your information is totally bogus, if fact likely fabricated
> by you. The GPS satellite clocks have NEVER been "reset" since being
> launched. Satellite Clock "modeling" and "steering" is routinely
> done on atomic clocks and is orders of magnitude smaller that the
> relativistic corrections. The relativistic correction are in the form
> of an offset on the satellites and in GPS receiver calculations.
>
> See: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
>
> See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
>
> A bit of self education on your part, Igloo, is in order.
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
>
> It must be embarrassing to spew such error and nonsense in a public
> forum such as sci.physics on USENET.
It should be. But the same amazing anti-thought mechanism that keeps them from
understanding relativity also keeps them from realizing how they are embarassing
themselves.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You must be reading the janitor manual. With the GR corrections, the
> > system fell out of synch, later on attributed to random errors in the
> > atomic clocks (they were being nice to RMs). Currently, the atomic
> > clocks are reset twice each day to a single referece clock, with the
> > appropriate OFFSET to account for the distance of each satellite from
> > the reference. There is no GR correction or offset factor.
>
> Igloo, your information is totally bogus, if fact likely fabricated
> by you. The GPS satellite clocks have NEVER been "reset" since being
> launched. Satellite Clock "modeling" and "steering" is routinely
> done on atomic clocks and is orders of magnitude smaller that the
> relativistic corrections. The relativistic correction are in the form
> of an offset on the satellites and in GPS receiver calculations.
>
> See:http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
>
> See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
>
> A bit of self education on your part, Igloo, is in order.
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
>
> It must be embarrassing to spew such error and nonsense in a public
> forum such as sci.physics on USENET.
Nice try. Your first reference specifically states that relativistic
correction factors are negligible and hence do not factor in the
operation of GPS. Note also that "relativistic" is used in other
connotations, and when referring to described frequency shifts, this
is more a Doppler effect than a true "relativistic" effect. This is
not a relativistic correction factor. Ergo, so-called gravitational
time dilation DOES NOT factor in to the calculations of GPS. Your
other subsequent references are non-peer reviewed, biased, and non-
informed blabber. It is one thing having the manual, it is another to
actually understand it. You must have a lot of guts to spread
disinformation on USENET and think you can get away with it.
Sam Wormley
Sam Wormley
<laughing>
Igloo, you are one ignorant trip.
PD
> On Aug 8, 12:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That is also COMPLETELY incorrect. You say that LIGO was designed
> > precisely for this kind of event. That is incorrect. There are a
> > number of non-GR assumptions required for the events like this to
> > generate a detectable signal in LIGO. There was NO assurance that
> > those assumptions were satisfied. There was the hope that IF those
> > assumptions were satisfied, then LIGO would see the signal.
>
> > If in fact those non-GR assumptions could be shown to have been
> > satisfied in the 2/2007 event, then indeed the lack of signal in LIGO
> > would be significant trouble for GR. In this particular case, the
> > gamma ray burst GRB070201 from the *direction of* Andromeda would have
> > been surely detectable in LIGO if it were known that the burst came
> > FROM Andromeda and not from a galaxy from BEHIND Andromeda. This non-
> > GR criterion has not been able to be verified.
>
> And that is what I had called SPIN (not the quantum kind, but the PR
> kind).
I don't agree. If you have some observational basis for believing that
the gamma ray burst originated from no further away than Andromeda, by
all means share it.
>
> And FYI the RM argument implies that the G-wave travels at a different
> velocity than the gamma ray burst,
It does no such thing. There is no claim that the gravitational wave
arrived at a different *time* from the gamma ray burst. It's a
question of *amplitude*, which as you know falls off with distance.
PD
> On Aug 7, 7:20 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Precession of the perihelia, arcseconds/century, +/- 1.2
>
> > It looks like we have yet another idiot that does not understand the
> > concept of error bars.
>
> Error bars are meaningless without specifying the associated p value.
And I've already given you a reference to where you can find the
original experimental papers where you can find the p-value.
iqgo...@gmail.com
Perhaps you did not read my post correctly.
You must have one of those old 13 inch CRT monitors. Try to upgrade
to the newer 20 inch LCD monitors. Maybe then you can read my posts
correctly.
iqgo...@gmail.com
You have not measured or observed a G-wave, and now you are conjuring
up new properties for your G-wave. As I said earlier, more SPIN...
iqgo...@gmail.com
After all your arguments are stumped by Strich, you go pick up some
mud...
Here's to another pseudo-scientist who doesn't know a p-value... much
less know its relevance...
Consider a shift of career... astrology perhaps...
PD
Oh, come, come. The *theory* for G-waves say that their amplitude
*should* fall with distance, this being a direct by-product of GR.
Therefore the *design* of LIGO, aimed to test the predictions of GR,
will also be based on the premise that G-waves fall with distance. It
is therefore perfectly reasonable to say that, if the gamma-ray burst
can be shown to be from no further away than Andromeda, then the
absence of detected G-waves is inconsistent with GR. If however, it is
not shown that the gamma-ray burst is at Andromeda-distance or nearer,
then the absence of detected G-waves is *not* inconsistent with GR.
I had no idea you were trying to say that the absence of detected G-
waves is inconsistent with some other theory *different* than GR,
where the G-waves do not decrease in amplitude with distance.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
5342bb98-5fb1-4a4a...@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com
> On Aug 8, 4:10 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Oops, you forgot to read:
>> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
>
>
> You must have one of those old 13 inch CRT monitors. Try to upgrade
> to the newer 20 inch LCD monitors. Maybe then you can read my posts
> correctly.
Try to design a CRT with your private non-relativistic version
of Maxwell's equations. Make sure they don't transform along
a Lorentz tansformation.
Dirk Vdm
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> And I've already given you a reference to where you can find the
> original experimental papers where you can find the p-value.
>
slight change in p would have given a smaller range, kicking out your
3.8 and GR with it into error. So much for relativity research.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> ...anti-thought mechanism...
Another RM buzzword...
PD
No, that's not what I said. What I said is that if you will look at
the original paper, you will find the analysis of the data, including
a discussion of the sources of experimental uncertainty, so that you
know the central value AND the error bar AND the p-value associated
with that error bar.
If you *choose* a different p-value and as a consequence arrive at a
different error bar, this in no way changes the confidence level that
the disagreement is significant.
For example, if you choose a p-value of 0.68 and arrive an error bar
of 2.4 on a central value of 14.2, then the likelihood that 14.2 +/-
2.4 is significantly different than 16.6 is 68%. If you choose a p-
value of 0.95 and as a result the error bar is now 4.8, then the
likelihood that 14.2 +/- 4.8 is significantly different than 16.6 is
STILL 68%. When it is unstated, an error bar is customarily understood
in scientific publications to be represented by the normal
distribution's standard deviation, which comes with a p-value of 0.68.
So much for your understanding of basic statistics.
PD
Sam Wormley
<laughing> You are so silly!
Sam Wormley
Here you go Igloo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value#Frequent_misunderstandings
Timo A. Nieminen
> No, it's not right on the edge, really. The error bar is usually taken
> as something that would be represented as sigma in a gaussian
> distribution and so there is a substantial likelihood that two numbers
> that are in fact the same would show up outside of each other by one
> sigma. This is the reason why physicists usually do not cite discovery
> of a signal until it sticks up at least *three* sigma above
> background. Then there is less than a 1% chance that the signal is not
> just a statistical fluctuation.
Most physicists don't know enough about statistics - their data are
usually to good for them to need to (see Rutherford for more detail).
There was an appalling breach of your criterion above that appeared in PRL
not that long ago. Ugh!
An interesting student exercise is to ask, given some theoretical relation
plotted on a graph in comparison to some experimental measurements, what
fraction of the error bars should the theoretical curve pass through,
assuming theory and measurements are correct. This can lead to a useful
discussion of random vs systematic errors, and what do error bars mean.
Also how to detect incorrect error bars or even faked data.
--
Timo
Strich 9
PD;1207187 Wrote:
>
>
> To use your analogy, this would be like a student in particle physics
> getting a 70% on *one* homework assignment, but doing better than a 95
> on all other assignments and exams, and in fact doing better than any
> other student in the class. Most people would say the student did
> fine. You, however, would say, "But he got a 70 on that one homework
> assignment. Are you going to let him pass with that?"
>
> PD
Wrong analogy. A student getting 70% on a difficult test (like the
Earth PPO) and getting 95% on an easy test (like the Mercury PPO) leads
you to the simple conclusion that this student is not Nobel material.
--
Strich 9
Spaceman
In rubber ruler physics such as the type that PD operates with and
worships without question, you have your clockwise spin, your anticlockwise
spin, your time spin,your backwards time spin, your distance spin, your
shinkage
of distance spin, and of course , the PD head spin.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
PD
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, PD wrote:
> > No, it's not right on the edge, really. The error bar is usually taken
> > as something that would be represented as sigma in a gaussian
> > distribution and so there is a substantial likelihood that two numbers
> > that are in fact the same would show up outside of each other by one
> > sigma. This is the reason why physicists usually do not cite discovery
> > of a signal until it sticks up at least *three* sigma above
> > background. Then there is less than a 1% chance that the signal is not
> > just a statistical fluctuation.
>
> Most physicists don't know enough about statistics - their data are
> usually to good for them to need to (see Rutherford for more detail).
> There was an appalling breach of your criterion above that appeared in PRL
> not that long ago. Ugh!
>
> An interesting student exercise is to ask, given some theoretical relation
> plotted on a graph in comparison to some experimental measurements, what
> fraction of the error bars should the theoretical curve pass through,
> assuming theory and measurements are correct.
And assuming the error analysis is correct!
It's an interesting lesson for a student that is actually trying to
estimate sources of error to see that the data look "too good".
PD
And I confess a boo-boo, swapping 1-p for p.
PD
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 7, 7:20 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > > Precisely yor point. How can you use 'precisely' and not know what
> > > > precession is being referred to in the same sentence. You reveal your
> > > > usual mental weakness. GR prediction = 3.8; actual =5.0. Tell me if
> > > > these are equal.
>
> > > So which precession IS being referred to? And what are the units and
> > > error bars on the above numbers?
>
> > > PD
>
> >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
>
> > Precession of the perihelia, arcseconds/century, +/- 1.2
>
> > It looks like we have yet another idiot that does not understand the
> > concept of error bars.
>
> lies just at the lower border of the measured 5+/-1.2 or 3.8 to 6.2.
Pointing out why your misunderstandings of statistics are silly would
be a doubly futile effort because others already did that, and you
didn't get it.
> In 80 years nobody has bothered to obtain better data. Not one MS or
> PHD student ever thought about or was encouraged by his mentors to
> refine the data. GR always hinges on these trickles of evidence. Is
In what way does GR "hinge" on any "trickles of evidence"? The
observations for reasonably non-circular orbits are pretty damn solid.
> that GOOD enough? From the tone of the relativity crowd, that is good
> enough for them. "Yeah, we made it by the skin of our teeth. Maybe
> next time we won't be so lucky!" And what, you want the rest of the
> world to be impressed by such antics?
Boring whining. The advance as predicted by GR is proportional to (1-
e^2) where e is the eccentricity of the orbit. For nearly circular
orbits - like Earth - the advance is *small*, and hard to measure.
This is explained in the mathpages link I gave Paul to explain your
stupidity.
>
> It is like saying the passing grade is 70%, and PD got 70% in particle
> physics. Would you trust him to run LHC? Of course not, you would
> get somebody more along the lines of of 95+.
Silly question. I wouldn't look at grades.
>
> It appears all the pro relativity people think alike. Passing is good
> enough. The data for the HK experiment is similar. A couple runs
> with clock differentials, and that should be enough. With the number
> of plane flights going on everyday, one wonders why they did not do at
> least 30 or 100 runs. After all the clocks do not need to sit on
> business class. The same again with the PR experiment. A few runs at
> Harvard. One would expect a more comprehensive sets of runs deserving
> of a Nobel, either in Hardard or elsewhere. And the list goes on and
> on. Barely passable data being passed on as incontrovertible evidence
> of GR. Now is that exact science, or fudged science?
The goal post thus shifts further back. Now it isn't that there is no
evidence, its' that the evidence isn't "good enough".
Just admit you will never be happy with the state of modern physics
and find a new hobby so you can spare us your ignorant bleating.
Matthew Johnson
>
>iqgo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 4:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 8, 1:13 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
[snip]
>> You have not measured or observed a G-wave, and now you are conjuring
>> up new properties for your G-wave. As I said earlier, more SPIN...
>
>In rubber ruler physics such as the type that PD operates with and
>worships without question,
Oh, stop showign off your complete ignorance of the entire scientific method. PD
does NOT "worship without question" any of your fictional "rubber rulers".
You just can't admit that you don't know squat about physics. Nor that it is YOU
who engages in the mindless worship of the physicist you don't even understand
-- Newton.
[snip]
Androcles
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
How come you are now starting to be sensible, Nieminen?
You are absolutely right, and if error bars are applied to
"Mercury precesses 43 arc seconds per century" the drivel that
Einstein presented is clearly not only a faked calculation but
with insignificant data as well. The Newtonian calculation made
by Le Verrier is excellent, the Einsteinian add-on sheer bullshit.
You seem to have come a long way from "refusal to discuss
physics noted", I congratulate you.
Matthew Johnson
>
>
>"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
>| On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, PD wrote:
>|
>| > No, it's not right on the edge, really. The error bar is usually taken
>| > as something that would be represented as sigma in a gaussian
>| > distribution and so there is a substantial likelihood that two numbers
>| > that are in fact the same would show up outside of each other by one
>| > sigma. This is the reason why physicists usually do not cite discovery
>| > of a signal until it sticks up at least *three* sigma above
>| > background. Then there is less than a 1% chance that the signal is not
>| > just a statistical fluctuation.
>|
>| Most physicists don't know enough about statistics - their data are
>| usually to good for them to need to (see Rutherford for more detail).
>| There was an appalling breach of your criterion above that appeared in PRL
>| not that long ago. Ugh!
>|
>| An interesting student exercise is to ask, given some theoretical relation
>| plotted on a graph in comparison to some experimental measurements, what
>| fraction of the error bars should the theoretical curve pass through,
>| assuming theory and measurements are correct. This can lead to a useful
>| discussion of random vs systematic errors, and what do error bars mean.
>| Also how to detect incorrect error bars or even faked data.
>|
>| --
>| Timo
>
>How come you are now starting to be sensible, Nieminen?
Timo has been sensible all along. It is you who is even now being unsensible.
No, Einstein's data/calculation was NOT 'faked'.
[snip]
iqgo...@gmail.com
> On Aug 8, 5:16 am, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 7:20 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 7, 1:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 7, 4:03 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Precisely yor point. How can you use 'precisely' and not know what
> > > > > precession is being referred to in the same sentence. You reveal your
> > > > > usual mental weakness. GR prediction = 3.8; actual =5.0. Tell me if
> > > > > these are equal.
>
> > > > So which precession IS being referred to? And what are the units and
> > > > error bars on the above numbers?
>
> > > > PD
>
> > >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
>
> > > Precession of the perihelia, arcseconds/century, +/- 1.2
>
> > > It looks like we have yet another idiot that does not understand the
> > > concept of error bars.
>
> > And that is the crux of GR. It is true that the GR prediction of 3.8
> > lies just at the lower border of the measured 5+/-1.2 or 3.8 to 6.2.
>
> Pointing out why your misunderstandings of statistics are silly would
> be a doubly futile effort because others already did that, and you
> didn't get it.
>
All your efforts are futile due to lack of merit.
> > In 80 years nobody has bothered to obtain better data. Not one MS or
> > PHD student ever thought about or was encouraged by his mentors to
> > refine the data. GR always hinges on these trickles of evidence. Is
>
> In what way does GR "hinge" on any "trickles of evidence"? The
> observations for reasonably non-circular orbits are pretty damn solid.
>
"Damn solid"... Now that is one damn scientific statement if I ever
see one.
> > that GOOD enough? From the tone of the relativity crowd, that is good
> > enough for them. "Yeah, we made it by the skin of our teeth. Maybe
> > next time we won't be so lucky!" And what, you want the rest of the
> > world to be impressed by such antics?
>
> Boring whining. The advance as predicted by GR is proportional to (1-
> e^2) where e is the eccentricity of the orbit. For nearly circular
> orbits - like Earth - the advance is *small*, and hard to measure.
> This is explained in the mathpages link I gave Paul to explain your
> stupidity.
>
Hard to measure? If that were the attitude of particle physics, the
proton would still be a fundamental particle.
>
>
> > It is like saying the passing grade is 70%, and PD got 70% in particle
> > physics. Would you trust him to run LHC? Of course not, you would
> > get somebody more along the lines of of 95+.
>
> Silly question. I wouldn't look at grades.
>
I know. Speaks about what kind of grades you had.
>
>
> > It appears all the pro relativity people think alike. Passing is good
> > enough. The data for the HK experiment is similar. A couple runs
> > with clock differentials, and that should be enough. With the number
> > of plane flights going on everyday, one wonders why they did not do at
> > least 30 or 100 runs. After all the clocks do not need to sit on
> > business class. The same again with the PR experiment. A few runs at
> > Harvard. One would expect a more comprehensive sets of runs deserving
> > of a Nobel, either in Hardard or elsewhere. And the list goes on and
> > on. Barely passable data being passed on as incontrovertible evidence
> > of GR. Now is that exact science, or fudged science?
>
> The goal post thus shifts further back. Now it isn't that there is no
> evidence, its' that the evidence isn't "good enough".
>
I just moved the goal posts to their proper location. You had been
working with the handicap goal posts.
> Just admit you will never be happy with the state of modern physics
> and find a new hobby so you can spare us your ignorant bleating.
Speak for yourself monkey boy. Everybody here knows what you just
posted did not contain one shred of scientific merit. Never did one
time you proved me wrong and many times I have stumped you. But you
continue to blabber, using it as a cover for your lack of intellect,
like your ilk PD.
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since you continue to be confused, let me it in simple terms. Perhaps
you did not understand my longer explanation earlier to PD. You can
refer to your wiki link, although I suggest a proper basic textbook.
I'm surprised you don't have one lying around. This is as basic to a
scientist as the bible is to a priest.
The null hypothesis is that GR has no error. Since the 3.8 fell
within 5.0+/-1.2, the null hypothesis CANNOT BE rejected. To then
ACCEPT the null hypothesis is not the SAME, as clearly stated in your
source.
If the 3.8 fell outside a range of 5.0 +/1.1, the the null hypothesis
CAN BE REJECTED, proving it false.
In SUMMARY, the 5.0+/-1.2 observation, while it does not prove that GR
is wrong, it also does NOT prove that GR is right. It only allows it
NOT TO BE REJECTED (translation: probationary/temporary/pending) until
such time as better observations are made.
And as I have been explaining to the RMs, there is no new data. ERGO,
GR predictions of planetary orbital precesssions, CANNOT BE USED AS
PROOF OF GR.
Sam, if you still cannot understand this, I suggest a consultation
with your local statistician. Now if you cannot accept this, or have
a hard time accepting this, then that is different, and I would
suggest a consultation with your local psychiatrist.
My sympathies.
iqgo...@gmail.com
Confused as usual. It looks like your 3 cylinder brain is over-
revving. Just refer to my reply to Mr. Wormley, as related to the GR
test case. My recommendations to him apply as well, although knowing
you, you would need both a statistician AND a psychiatrist.
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong again. If the gamma ray burst was much further than Andromeda,
a simple application of the hubble effect would reveal it to be so.
LIGO was a failure, and like all failures, will employ SPIN people.
And as I said earlier, while the LIGO researchers are digging
themselves a hole, the Gravity Probe researchers will call GR for what
it is, a false theory. And guess what, they will probably win the
Nobel for proving GR false. Too bad for me, who merely used logic and
no fancy equipment except of course that overdeveloped product of
evolution called my brain, to prove it false, and of course the other
intellects with like sized brains, who saw the fallacy of GR even
before me.
PD
:>)
Maybe you'd like to explore that further. What redshift is measurable
in gamma ray bursts?
>
> LIGO was a failure, and like all failures, will employ SPIN people.
> And as I said earlier, while the LIGO researchers are digging
> themselves a hole, the Gravity Probe researchers will call GR for what
> it is, a false theory. And guess what, they will probably win the
> Nobel for proving GR false. Too bad for me, who merely used logic and
> no fancy equipment except of course that overdeveloped product of
> evolution called my brain, to prove it false,
Proved it false to whom?
Convinced anyone but yourself?
PD
I did. It was wrong. I cannot help it if you don't know what you're
talking about in statistics as well as physics.
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your studity is getting tiresome... What is an assistant janitor
doing here anyway. Here is the summary. If you cannot follow it,
then God help you.
The null hypothesis is: GR has no error. Since 3.8 falls within
5.0+/-1.2, the null hypothesis CANNOT BE rejected. This is not the
same as ACCEPTING the null hypothesis.
If the 3.8 fell outside a range of say 5.0 +/-1.1, then the null
hypothesis CAN BE REJECTED, proving it false.
In SUMMARY, the 5.0+/-1.2 observation, only allows GR NOT TO BE
REJECTED with that particular data. When better data is obtained, the
possibility that it CAN BE REJECTED remains. ERGO, GR predictions of
planetary orbital precesssions is NOT VALID PROOF of GR, as you have
been dubiously claiming since you joined the USENET. That is a long
history of either error or plain stupidity. But knowing you, I don't
think anybody will be surprised.
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> Maybe you'd like to explore that further. What redshift is measurable
> in gamma ray bursts?
Are you saying there is NO red shift? ARE YOU?
>
> Proved it false to whom?
> Convinced anyone but yourself?
>
Your memory is atrocius. You forgot how I called you all monkeys for
failing to answer the David Twin paradox (DTP)? And everybody just
sat still, waiting for the storm to quiet? Storm is still there. Why
don't you try to embarass me for once by showing how SR analyses of
DTP shows the paradox is correct. If you will claim (which as you
always do) that you have answered it, give us the link (you like links
don't you?)
Ok monkey boy, give it all you've got. SHOW ME THE ANALYSIS.
Strich 9
Matthew Johnson;1207528 Wrote:
>
>
> Oh, stop showign off your complete ignorance of the entire scientific
> method. PD
> does NOT "worship without question" any of your fictional "rubber
> rulers".
>
> You just can't admit that you don't know squat about physics. Nor that
> it is YOU
> who engages in the mindless worship of the physicist you don't even
> understand
> -- Newton.
>
> [snip]
Another example of the fine writing of RM pseudoscientists.
--
Strich 9
Dirk Van de moortel
[snip]
> Your studity is getting tiresome... What is an assistant janitor
> doing here anyway. Here is the summary. If you cannot follow it,
> then God help you.
>
> The null hypothesis is: GR has no error. Since 3.8 falls within
> 5.0+/-1.2, the null hypothesis CANNOT BE rejected. This is not the
> same as ACCEPTING the null hypothesis.
>
> If the 3.8 fell outside a range of say 5.0 +/-1.1, then the null
> hypothesis CAN BE REJECTED, proving it false.
>
> In SUMMARY, the 5.0+/-1.2 observation, only allows GR NOT TO BE
> REJECTED with that particular data. When better data is obtained, the
> possibility that it CAN BE REJECTED remains. ERGO, GR predictions of
> planetary orbital precesssions is NOT VALID PROOF of GR, as you have
> been dubiously claiming since you joined the USENET. That is a long
> history of either error or plain stupidity. But knowing you, I don't
> think anybody will be surprised.
A stunning beauty:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecileScience.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
No suppporting experiment or obseration can prove a theory.
Unsupporting experiments and observations can only disprove
a theory, and *you* are the infinite imbecile who has been
referring to a *supporting* observation to *disprove* the theory.
Evidence:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreBananas.html
We got you with your pants down, coward :-)
Dirk Vdm
PD
> On Aug 9, 3:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Maybe you'd like to explore that further. What redshift is measurable
> > in gamma ray bursts?
>
> Are you saying there is NO red shift? ARE YOU?
No. What I was questioning was your assertion that the "Hubble effect"
could clearly be measured to determine the distance. So I asked you
what redshift is *measurable* in gamma ray bursts. And in particular,
I'm curious what redshift was *measured* for the gamma ray burst in
2/2007 that you allege provides evidence against GR.
>
>
>
> > Proved it false to whom?
> > Convinced anyone but yourself?
>
> Your memory is atrocius. You forgot how I called you all monkeys for
> failing to answer the David Twin paradox (DTP)?
And I asked you what "David Twin paradox"? You mean David Sepalla's
posts to this newsgroup? If that's so, there's no paradox there,
either -- as respondents to his posts indicated. Other than that, the
"David Twin paradox" doesn't show up anywhere in a literature search
or a Google search.
> And everybody just
> sat still, waiting for the storm to quiet? Storm is still there. Why
> don't you try to embarass me for once by showing how SR analyses of
> DTP shows the paradox is correct.
I'm not trying to embarrass you. Do you imagine this newsgroup is all
about one set of people trying to embarrass another?
PD
Two comments:
1. One would be foolish to reject a hypothesis outright by comparing
3.8 and 5.0+/--1.1, for reasons that I've already described. A signal
(something counter to a null hypothesis) is usually required to be a
three-sigma effect at least. Thus 3.8 and 5.0+/-0.4 would customarily
be grounds for flagging a significant disagreement, but not 3.8 and
5.0+/-1.1. So much for your grasp of statistics.
2. Experimental evidence NEVER serves as a *proof* of a theory. Never.
Experimental evidence *supports* a theory. Theories are never proven.
They are provisionally accepted until there is significant
experimental evidence that they are wrong. Competing theories are
judged by which one is supported by more experimental evidence. This
is central to the scientific method. If you did not understand this
about the scientific method, and you are critiquing GR because you see
nothing that *proves* GR, then perhaps it best to return to the
introductory chapters in your 9th grade science book.
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are a statistical ignoramus. The value of the PPO for earth does
not prove GR. It only allows it not to be rejected until better data
is obtained. For example, if incompetent PD obtains a PPO for earth
of 5.0+/-5.0, you cannot say that this is proof of GR, even though the
3.8 falls within the large range. Obviously better data is needed, in
this case, and in the actual case.
Keep on arguing your stupid premises that the others can see. Maybe
you will get demoted from your assistant janitor position.
iqgo...@gmail.com
> On Aug 9, 3:19 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 3:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Maybe you'd like to explore that further. What redshift is measurable
> > > in gamma ray bursts?
>
> > Are you saying there is NO red shift? ARE YOU?
>
> No. What I was questioning was your assertion that the "Hubble effect"
> could clearly be measured to determine the distance. So I asked you
> what redshift is *measurable* in gamma ray bursts. And in particular,
> I'm curious what redshift was *measured* for the gamma ray burst in
> 2/2007 that you allege provides evidence against GR.
>
>
measurable? How can you assert a red shift if you don't know what you
are talking about?
iqgo...@gmail.com
> On Aug 9, 3:19 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 3:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not trying to embarrass you. Do you imagine this newsgroup is all
> about one set of people trying to embarrass another?
>
embarassment
iqgo...@gmail.com
> On Aug 9, 3:19 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 3:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> And I asked you what "David Twin paradox"? You mean David Sepalla's
> posts to this newsgroup? If that's so, there's no paradox there,
> either -- as respondents to his posts indicated. Other than that, the
> "David Twin paradox" doesn't show up anywhere in a literature search
> or a Google search.
>
Twins A and B leave two planets and travel at constant velocity
towards each other at total relative velocity v. Twin A sees B moving
towards him and aging slower, and vice versa. When they finally meet,
who is younger? (Note: Please explain your answer. No monkey one
liners without explanation please.)
The link is:
http://www.physicsbanter.com/physics-general-discussion/109874-twin-fallacy-revisited.html
http://www.physicsbanter.com/theory-relativity/110033-why-monkeys-relativity-stumped-simple.html
See your answers and your monkey colleagues. They'll beat you for
bringing this up again.
Dirk Van de moortel
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Aug 11, 8:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 3:19 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 9, 3:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> And I asked you what "David Twin paradox"? You mean David Sepalla's
>> posts to this newsgroup? If that's so, there's no paradox there,
>> either -- as respondents to his posts indicated. Other than that, the
>> "David Twin paradox" doesn't show up anywhere in a literature search
>> or a Google search.
>>
> I knew you are demented. Here is the DAVID TWIN PARADOX:
>
> Twins A and B leave two planets and travel at constant velocity
> towards each other at total relative velocity v. Twin A sees B moving
> towards him and aging slower, and vice versa. When they finally meet,
> who is younger? (Note: Please explain your answer. No monkey one
> liners without explanation please.)
If the twins had the same age and were not moving with respect
to each other before they left, they have the same age when they
meet and have stopped moving with respect to each other.
Explanation: symmetry.
If can't swallow that, explain your objections.
Dirk Vdm
PD
> On Aug 11, 8:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 3:19 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 3:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Maybe you'd like to explore that further. What redshift is measurable
> > > > in gamma ray bursts?
>
> > > Are you saying there is NO red shift? ARE YOU?
>
> > No. What I was questioning was your assertion that the "Hubble effect"
> > could clearly be measured to determine the distance. So I asked you
> > what redshift is *measurable* in gamma ray bursts. And in particular,
> > I'm curious what redshift was *measured* for the gamma ray burst in
> > 2/2007 that you allege provides evidence against GR.
>
> You say there is red shift
No, I didn't. You asked me if I was saying there is NO red shift. I
responded by saying, No, I'm not saying that. I haven't said one way
or the other whether there is a red shift.
YOU are the one that said that the redshift is measurable and that
this "hubble effect" would rule out the gamma ray burst coming from
behind Andromeda. I'm asking YOU to back up that statement.
You seem to be backpedaling furiously.
PD
> On Aug 11, 8:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 9, 3:19 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 3:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to embarrass you. Do you imagine this newsgroup is all
> > about one set of people trying to embarrass another?
You didn't answer my question. Do you imagine this newsgroup is all
PD
> On Aug 11, 8:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 9, 3:19 pm, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 3:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And I asked you what "David Twin paradox"? You mean David Sepalla's
> > posts to this newsgroup? If that's so, there's no paradox there,
> > either -- as respondents to his posts indicated. Other than that, the
> > "David Twin paradox" doesn't show up anywhere in a literature search
> > or a Google search.
>
> I knew you are demented. Here is the DAVID TWIN PARADOX:
>
> Twins A and B leave two planets and travel at constant velocity
> towards each other at total relative velocity v. Twin A sees B moving
> towards him and aging slower, and vice versa. When they finally meet,
> who is younger?
I'll repeat the answer that has been given to you several times.
1. They meet and have the same age.
2. This is perfectly consistent with what both observers see. Twin A
sees Twin B far away and older, but aging more slowly, so that when B
arrives, they are the same age. Twin B sees Twin A far away and older,
but aging more slowly, so that when A arrives, they are the same age.
3. If you think it is a paradox that Twin A could see Twin B far away
and older, and Twin B could see Twin A far away and older, then you
need to figure out what happened far away when the twins were far
apart and started approaching each other. That is, the only time prior
to their reunion when they KNEW they were the same age is when they
were last together, at the point of departure. Now you need to figure
out what happened when they separated from each other to arrive at
being far apart, and then what happened when they turned around. This
is actually fully explained in most basic books on special relativity,
and so if you need a pointer to what to read, I'd be happy to point
that out for you.
And why do you call it the David Twin Paradox? You are the only person
on these newsgroups that has ever called it that, and it is not called
that anywhere in the literature or in a Google search.
As for your links, I believe you are misconstruing being ignored with
stunning the physics community into silence. If you think that the
physics community feels an obligation to shout down every bit of
nonsense that is posted by the likes of you, you vastly overestimate
your own importance.
If you post something that exhibits a *profound* lack of understanding
of the basics, the mostly likely and the most constructive response
will be advice that you read up a little more on the basics. No one
owes you an education in the form of a rebuttal if you haven't made
any effort to become competent on even the simplest things.
PD
> (Note: Please explain your answer. No monkey one
> liners without explanation please.)
>
> The link is:
>
> http://www.physicsbanter.com/physics-general-discussion/109874-twin-f...
>
> http://www.physicsbanter.com/physics-general-discussion/110184-relati...
>
> http://www.physicsbanter.com/theory-relativity/110033-why-monkeys-rel...
iqgo...@gmail.com
> ... I haven't said one way or the other whether there is a red shift...
>
then SHUT UP if you don't have an answer. don't PRETEND you have one,
like you always do.
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> I'll repeat the answer that has been given to you several times.
> 1. They meet and have the same age.
> 2. This is perfectly consistent with what both observers see. Twin A
OLDER? Did you say OLDER????? hey STUPID, define TWIN? clue: TWIN =
SAME AGE.
now redo your answer. try to get it right this time! i have the
answer. do you want to peek?
PD
I pretended nothing. YOU were the one that made the claim. I asked you
a question about YOUR claim. If you have an answer, then provide it.
If you don't, then SHUT UP, just as you've suggested that I do.
PD
PD
> On Aug 11, 1:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'll repeat the answer that has been given to you several times.
> > 1. They meet and have the same age.
> > 2. This is perfectly consistent with what both observers see. Twin A
> > sees Twin B far away and older...
>
> OLDER? Did you say OLDER????? hey STUPID, define TWIN? clue: TWIN =
> SAME AGE.
Nope. Not when they're far apart. They may very well have been the
same age when they departed from each other, but they are no longer
the same age far apart, which you can determine by following what
happens during their separation, just as I told you.
This is where you seem to be having a definite problem. You apparently
have it fixed in your head that "twin" means "same age" regardless of
motion or separation. This is precisely the *presumption* of absolute,
common time that you should not make, as that is inconsistent with the
laws of physics.
It does no good to suppose that twins, by definition, are two bodies
that are the same age regardless of circumstance, as such things do
not exist in our universe. Their comparative age is dependent on their
circumstance, such as their motion and how they got separated.
My goodness, no WONDER you have a problem with the Twin Paradox, the
"David" version or otherwise. It's just incompatible with your
assumption of what a twin is.
> now redo your answer. try to get it right this time! i have the
> answer. do you want to peek?
No need to redo my answer. My answer is already correct. You may,
however, need to bone up a little on special relativity to understand
better what it says.
PD
Sam Wormley
>
> OLDER? Did you say OLDER????? hey STUPID, define TWIN? clue: TWIN =
> SAME AGE.
>
Some Background for Igloo
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
iqgo...@gmail.com
The David Twin paradox starts with the PREMISE of TWINS. Define
PREMISE? Clue: PREMISE not equal to CONCLUSION. (Of course, circular
reasoning is used plenty in Relativity. Hard to break the habit?)
iqgo...@gmail.com
Yes I made the claim, but you are neither REBUTTING or AGREEING. Let
me know when you have decided.
iqgo...@gmail.com
WRONG. You are making new assumptions. They are TWINS in different
planets. Who said anything about them departing. Can you not see the
PREMISE? They are not DEPARTING, they are MEETING.
WRONG assumptions, WRONG answer.
Do you need HELP? (Hint: You do. Physics senior professors at top
universities are known to go silent on these questions. An assistant
janitor from a lowly university obviously will not solve the problem
from a relativistic angle.)
PD
I'm not jumping at your whim. You made the claim. I asked you to back
it up. So far all you are doing is squirming to avoid doing that. This
has the appearance of your desperately trying to throw the ball in the
other court.
Of course, if you'd like to make all sorts of random claims and then
demand that people agree or provide evidence that you're full of it, I
suppose this could be a source of amusement for you. Expect that some
will call your bad bluff.
PD
PD
Starting with a premise that is counter to the laws of physics is not
constructive. It's a little like starting with the PREMISE of
absolutely synchronized clocks or starting with the PREMISE of a
perfectly rigid rod. Those are fine for idle daydreams and
speculations, but they have nothing to do with reality.
You apparently are under the perception that this is all an exercise
in postulates and logic, with perhaps a little mathematics thrown in.
You DO know what makes science different than philosophy or
mathematics, don't you?
PD
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Any gamma ray burst coming from outer space experiences RED shift.
This is COMMON knowledge. Let me educate you: red shift is not
confined to visible light only. Red shift merely means DECREASE in
FREQUENCY. It can occur with any type of wave, and for light, it has
been documented. There is a formula discovered by HUBBLE.
iqgo...@gmail.com
Let me refresh (this is getting to be repetitive) your memory, in
another thread, you asked for more details of my PREMISE, and after I
gave you one, you were still unable DUMBFOUNDED. Have you FORGOTTEN
again? You are either stupid or intoxicated. Do you want to argue the
PREMISE, or simply provide your ANSWER?
(HINT: changing the premise to make the problem EASIER for you is not
a valid solution.)
PD
Twins born on separate planets? That's an interesting supposition...
If they were born on the same planet and somehow got to those separate
planets, by which process do you erase any physical effects that
happened to the twins on the way there?
Here, let me help. Let's not call them twins. Let's call them Alfred
and Bkrzt, one a native of one planet and the other a native of the
other planet, from the outset. Now, before they set out toward each
other, they have to communicate to each other what their respective
ages are, so that they can be sure they are the same age. Now, how do
they go about that communication to verify they are the same age?
Now, assuming that you've answered how they do that, then what happens
to their relative ages when they speed up from their relatively
stationary positions to start approaching each other. If you insist
that the ages stay the same, then again I would ask you how the
physical effects on Alfred and Bkrzt get erased in so doing?
iqgo...@gmail.com
> Twins born on separate planets? That's an interesting supposition...
>
LOSER! I said, we are not to change the assumptions.
Here is the detailed premise. Lucky for Einstein, clones and test
tube babies were unkown in his time. Unlucky for you, you are left
defending a losing turf...
An evil genius positions his spaceship midway between two relatively
stationary planets A and B. He sends two probes pA and pB with two
clone embryos c121-A and c121-B to the planets. (Any problem with
TWINS here?) Need I say the speed of the probes are equal? Upon
arrival at the planets, the impact triggers the growth of the twins.
(Any problem with TWINS here?) With each twin is an instruction. Upon
seeing the explosion of a distant supernova X-888, they are to start
their travel towards the other planet. (Any problem with TWINS here?)
Being a genius and not a janitor, the supernova is chosen because it
is so remote and positioned appropriately that its light reaches the
planets simultaneously. After ejection of the probes, the genius
leaves for planet Victoria X, where he plans to send more probes.
Now, when A and B meet, how are their ages related?
PD
Of course. What you said is that the *measured* red shift RULES OUT
the gamma ray burst coming from behind Andromeda and clearly
constrains the gamma ray burst to come from Andromeda, thereby posing
a problem for GR. What I asked you about is what the *measured* red
shift is, since you are certain it rules out the burst being from well
behind Andromeda.
PD
Choosing an unphysical premise is not a way to probe the validity of a
physical theory.
I'm happy to start with a physical premise.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
A fumble a day keeps the doctor away?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotDeparting.html
Do realize how you sound and behave like your fellow imbecile
Spaceman?
Dirk Vdm
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I said by measuring the red shift, the distance of the source of the
gamma ray burst can be ascertained, thereby telling us whether it came
from within or without Andromeda, because you said your fellow RMs are
unsure where the burst came from. You mean RMs cannot measure red
shift?
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Define UNPHYSICAL? Better yet, identify the line in the premise which
is UNPHYSICAL, aside from the puns of course? Let me see...
Spaceship is physical..
Midway is physical...
Clone is physical...
Growth is physical...
Supernova is physical...
Travel is physical...
Janitor is still physical...
Hmmm, i think you are hallucinating again! Btw, do you ned me to
repost the premise so you can find it?
I guess the MONKEYS are once again STUMPED by the DAVID VARIANT of the
TWIN paradox... fallacy i mean...