recent NOVA show on Newton; in defense of Newton
a_plu...@hotmail.com
2060. It is probably the advent or arrival of the Atom Totality theory
over the entire planet, and not some silly Armageddon of bibles. For
God is Science and science is god.
They mentioned Hooke often and taught me something new. How a scientist
can be a scientist and yet have a despicable personality. Some internet
posters have despicable personalities and should never have entered
science as a profession. The habit of Hooke to rag on Newton and to
claim that every idea of Newton was original to Hooke. It goes to show
that people who make science their career and profession does not halt
or forbid them from illogic and subjective and antiscientific
behaviour.
I believe in the segment where Halley is talking to Newton about what
geometrical figure a inverse square law would produce, that the
nonmention of Kepler is out of place. Kepler worked all of that out. So
this segment is vastly wrong and makes the viewer think that Halley or
Newton never knew of Kepler. They mentioned Galileo, but they should
have mentioned Kepler and also Leibniz fight over calculus.
I believe that Newton fell sick with mercury poisoning. Although he did
reach a very old age, was it 84??
I believe this program is too slanted in their low opinion of alchemy.
One must remember that chemistry was alchemy until recent time. And
Newton's science was mostly what? Was it not the inner tickings of
matter and light? Did not Newton spend more time on optics and light
then on gravity or calculus. So if you want to dig deeper into light
and optics, Newton had to go to matter and matter in his day was
alchemy. I believe what Newton was looking for was the forces in matter
itself. Force at a distance is gravity and Newton was trying to make
progress in what is inside matter. So I think this Nova show on TV
paints a low opinion of Newton, when it should be the opposite in that
Newton was attempting to create a chemistry out of alchemy and was
attempting to create a Faraday Maxwell theory of lines of force some
200 years earlier than when they were discovered.
So I think future editions or revisions of this TV program on Newton
should change the low opinion to that of a higher-opinion of Newton
dabbling in alchemy.
And I think Newton's bones should be inspected to see if he suffered
from mercury poisoning.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
jgr...@seol.net.au
Since he was running the local Weather Bureau, chances are that he was
using mercury (in building thermometers/barometers)
Jim G
Mark Martin
a_plu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> And I think Newton's bones should be inspected to see if he suffered
> from mercury poisoning.
Already been done. Thirty years or so ago a sample of his hair
tested positive for mercury.
-Mark Martin
a_plu...@hotmail.com
Already been done. Thirty years or so ago a sample of his hair
tested positive for mercury.
A.P. writes:
Thanks for the information. Can you post the quantitative result of
that testing. Because I suspect the spell in which Newton attacked his
friends and associates was a time period in his life where he had the
most intake of mercury poisoning. I suspect when one is poisoned by
mercury that their personality becomes viciously worse and ultra
paranoid. So can someone post the quantitative result of mercury found
in Newton's hair.
I suspect others who had mercury poisoning that did not kill them but
altered their personality is somewhat well documented in history.
a_plu...@hotmail.com
I believe in the segment where Halley is talking to Newton about what
geometrical figure a inverse square law would produce, that the
nonmention of Kepler is out of place. Kepler worked all of that out. So
this segment is vastly wrong and makes the viewer think that Halley or
Newton never knew of Kepler. They mentioned Galileo, but they should
have mentioned Kepler and also Leibniz fight over calculus.
A.P. writes further:
In other words this Nova show on TV must have a future revision because
this segment is wrong historically. Halley would ask such a question if
Kepler had never done his work, and if Newton and Halley had never
heard or read of Kepler's work.
So this NOVA show falsely represents the history of Newton and Halley
for they make it appear as though Kepler's discovery that the orbits
were ellipses was totally unknown by Newton and Halley. All that Newton
needed to prove his law of gravity is to show the inverse square
conforms with Kepler's three laws.
So NOVA has the history wrong and must revise it if they ever plan to
show this program again in the future.
a_plu...@hotmail.com
I believe in the segment where Halley is talking to Newton about what
geometrical figure a inverse square law would produce, that the
nonmention of Kepler is out of place. Kepler worked all of that out. So
this segment is vastly wrong and makes the viewer think that Halley or
Newton never knew of Kepler. They mentioned Galileo, but they should
have mentioned Kepler and also Leibniz fight over calculus.
A.P. further writes:
Newton as mentioned in the program never shared his idea of what God
is. I believe Newton had a Descarte idea of God in that the Universe is
a God machine. But Newton could never voice his opinions of God while
he lived except for the calculation of 2060 as Armageddon. But this
Newton armageddon is not the Bible armageddon but the reverse. In other
words, I believe Newton's 2060 is the year in which humanity comes to
realize overall that all religions on Earth are phony baloney and that
Science is God because only science is the truth and no other endeavor
is the truth. God certainly is the truth so that makes Science is god
and god is Science.
Now I do not know whether Spinoza ideas had reached Newton, the Spinoza
pantheism. In a sense Descartes idea of Universal Machinery is
pantheism.
So, what I believe Newton was doing with this date of 2060, was
estimating when humanity will free itself of the shackles of unreason,
irrationality and sensation of religion. When humanity trashcans the
supernatural religion and when humanity finally realizes that Science
itself is god and that god is the entire Universe as one big atom of
plutonium where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies.
So, the atom totality theory was discovered in 1990 and by the time of
year 2060, according to Newton (my hunch) is that by 2060, humanity for
the most part will have embraced Science as god and will have
trashcanned those supernatural bible hogwash. Where a person who wants
to learn about god simply studies physics or biology or chemistry and
not the crap of deluded old men in ancient desert climates.
Mark Martin
a_plu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Thanks for the information. Can you post the quantitative result of
> that testing. Because I suspect the spell in which Newton attacked his
> friends and associates was a time period in his life where he had the
> most intake of mercury poisoning. I suspect when one is poisoned by
> mercury that their personality becomes viciously worse and ultra
> paranoid. So can someone post the quantitative result of mercury found
> in Newton's hair.
>
> I suspect others who had mercury poisoning that did not kill them but
> altered their personality is somewhat well documented in history.
The figure usually quoted is that Newton's hair sample had a mercury
concentration 40x greater than modern toxicology considers a maximum
allowable. What that baseline level is, I don't offhand know.
-Mark Martin
pete
>
> a_plu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > in Newton's hair.
> >
> > I suspect others who had mercury poisoning
> > that did not kill them but
> > altered their personality is somewhat well documented in history.
[Mercury poisoning in Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert?]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=4874102&dopt=Abstract
> The figure usually quoted is that Newton's
> hair sample had a mercury
> concentration 40x greater than modern toxicology considers a maximum
> allowable. What that baseline level is, I don't offhand know.
--
pete
hanson
personal hygiene items used at the time. Even today Hg is used still
in a few medical products. So is another one, Pb, Lead, that is the
operative ingredient in men's hair coloring lotions. That ought to give
you a more independant picture then what is presented in re.. NOVA.
In more sober times, one day, when the green curse has wilted away
we may be bring ourselves to assess/accept facts more soberly than
is possible now, in an epoch where the enviros' shit/doom propaganda
is hanging over us and dictating many popular beliefs... (with their real
intent being only to extort green permit charges and eco-user fees)
hanson
>
"pete" <pfi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:437CEC...@mindspring.com...
>> a_plu...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > in Newton's hair.
>> > I suspect others who had mercury poisoning
>> > that did not kill them but
>> > altered their personality is somewhat well documented in history.
>
>> The figure usually quoted is that Newton's
>> hair sample had a mercury
>> concentration 40x greater than modern toxicology considers a maximum
>> allowable. What that baseline level is, I don't offhand know.
>
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
allowable level" and the lowest level at which any symptoms are
observed (not to mention severe syptoms). But the magnitude of said
"safety factor" varies enormously for different substances and I've no
idea what it is for mercury.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Black Knight
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Vn6ff.18033$rO4.12901@trnddc05...
You are using the same fallacious technique I've been using, hanson.
Reason. It doesn't work. We need to spread FEAR.
Let's put more deadly argon into the atmosphere, they won't know it's an
inert gas. Better yet, neon. More people have heard if it.
Stop the manufacture of neon lights! RED means danger!
People who breathe deadly neon/argon will DIE.
The Western world produces more deadly argon/neon/krypton
than the rest of the entire Solomons/Seychelles/Falklands/Ireland put
together!
Haven't you heard of Superman? Kryptonite made him weak and he DIED.
http://www.chemicalelements.com/bohr/b0018.gif
Look at that deadly atomic structure. It won't react!
We need chemical reaction to produce LIFE! Yet there is already 1% argon in
our atmosphere and it might be growing. We must eliminate it now!
Gases like helium, neon, argon, krypton xenon and radon are NOT noble.
(Or they are, depending on your opinions as to nobility)
Subscribe now to the Society for Eventual Elimination of Deadly INert Gases.
Research is needed NOW!
Subscribe to SEEDING and replenish the Earth with life giving oxygen!
As ye sow, so shall ye reap. The meek shall inherit the whirlwind.
The feeble-minded shall cough up the loot.
Remember the theory of relativity - A money and its fool are soon parted.
Androcles.
hanson
news:0pbff.18966$6A4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> You are using the same fallacious technique I've been using, hanson.
> Reason. It doesn't work. We need to spread FEAR.
> Let's put more deadly argon into the atmosphere, they won't know it's an
> inert gas. Better yet, neon. More people have heard if it.
> Stop the manufacture of neon lights! RED means danger!
> People who breathe deadly neon/argon will DIE.
> The Western world produces more deadly argon/neon/krypton
> than the rest of the entire Solomons/Seychelles/Falklands/Ireland put together!
> Haven't you heard of Superman? Kryptonite made him weak and he DIED.
> http://www.chemicalelements.com/bohr/b0018.gif
> Look at that deadly atomic structure. It won't react!
> We need chemical reaction to produce LIFE! Yet there is already 1% argon in our
> atmosphere and it might be growing. We must eliminate it now!
> Gases like helium, neon, argon, krypton xenon and radon are NOT noble.
> (Or they are, depending on your opinions as to nobility)
> Subscribe now to the Society for Eventual Elimination of Deadly INert Gases.
> Research is needed NOW!
> Subscribe to SEEDING and replenish the Earth with life giving oxygen!
> As ye sow, so shall ye reap. The meek shall inherit the whirlwind.
> The feeble-minded shall cough up the loot.
> Remember the theory of relativity - A money and its fool are soon parted.
> Androcles.
>
Yeah that is all good and right... but it's not that easy no more...
Andro, you remind me of Merlin, the great wizard. But his times have
gone... those times when men were men. Today most are wusses and
scared of their own shadows, by FEAR, that they have **bought** into.
Spreading fear now, as you suggest, has become a very competitive
business for any fear- seller. So much fear is sold these days, that the
fearees must be paid and trained to overcome the fear, and then they
fall right away into the next slot/trap of fear prepared for them by next
fearor who stands in line waiting for them. This is an extremely
profound issue with gargantuan consequences and to make the long
story short, I will make it even shorter, so short that it doesn't matter and
short enough that it does not have to be told. ..... See, no fear!
Naturally there remains the fearful issue of the environmentalists
as seen in the Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
>
ahahahha.... thanks for the laughs, Andro... hahaha
ahaha... ahahanson
>
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well modern physics rags on anything about Newton,
since the only thing modern science does is modern
non-existent Quantum Computers and morden Darwin crap like PBS.
Hooke was like physicists, tte only idea
he ever had in his entire life was to steal a spring from Zeno
and
call it a linear spring.
Black Knight
Einstein said "As has already been shown to the first order
of small quantities (by Galileo, but the secret to creativity
is knowing how to hide your sources so we won't mention him)
the same laws of mechanics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of electrodynamics and optics hold good.
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter
be called the "Principle of Relativity" so that it looks as if I
discovered it) to the status of a postulate, because everything
should be as simple as possible but not simpler and imagination
is more important than knowledge and if we knew what it was
we were doing, it would not be called research, would it and
as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality and god
doesn't play craps or poker dice and he may be subtle, but he isn't
plain mean and I never think of the future, it comes soon enough and
what really interests me is whether god had any choice in the
creation of the world and if you are out to describe the truth, leave
elegance to the tailor and a table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin;
what else does a man need to be happy and it would be possible to
describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense and
common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen
and god does not care about our mathematical difficulties; he
integrates empirically and the whole of science is nothing more
than a refinement of everyday thinking and do not worry about
your difficulties in Mathematics, I can assure you mine are still
greater and two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the the universe"
Does New York stop at this fuckin' train or not?
Androcles
Juan R.
> I believe this program is too slanted in their low opinion of alchemy.
> One must remember that chemistry was alchemy until recent time. And
> Newton's science was mostly what? Was it not the inner tickings of
> matter and light? Did not Newton spend more time on optics and light
> then on gravity or calculus. So if you want to dig deeper into light
> and optics, Newton had to go to matter and matter in his day was
> alchemy. I believe what Newton was looking for was the forces in matter
> itself. Force at a distance is gravity and Newton was trying to make
> progress in what is inside matter. So I think this Nova show on TV
> paints a low opinion of Newton, when it should be the opposite in that
> Newton was attempting to create a chemistry out of alchemy and was
> attempting to create a Faraday Maxwell theory of lines of force some
> 200 years earlier than when they were discovered.
It has been recently proven -with great detail- by historians that
Newton discoveried the law of atraction from his previous work on
affinity (chemical attraction). In fact, Newton program on physics and
math was only a single elementary and unimportant chapter in Newtonian
research.
Yes, many people -who does not know alchemy- states a low opinion of
chemistry and alchemy. Some people even still incorrectly believe that
alchemy was the syntesis of Au!
In fact, early historians and biographers (some of them physicists)
recomended to burn Newton manuscripts except those on physics and math.
Fortunately family did not burn manuscripts and were recovered in the
last 60s. They are being still studied, but already prove that Newton
was not a physicist or a mathematician. He was an alchemist! This novel
opinion is supported by several important historians of science in the
light of modern data.
The rewriting of real Newtonian portrait in the past is easily
explainable. Many people dislike chemistry/alchemy. Even today, in the
so-called informaiton era, a famous chemist -Ilya Prigogine- write in
his own webpage and in his own biography that he is a *chemist* and
several encyclopeadias, some web pages and certain popular books
re-define him as a "Belgian physicist".
Many chemists of the history of science have been presented to public
as 'physicists' (even if they present themselves as chemists in his
lectures, correspondence, biographies, etc; a famous example is Faraday
who presented as chemist, wrote books on chemistry, was coworker of
famous chemist H. Davy, etc). What is more, several outcomes of
chemical science were really the outcome of physics.
For addittional data see
http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/researchzone/history.xml
and references cited therein.
In brief, articles on the topic will be available.
Note: Above is a XML page using last Internet thechnology, and
standards. Some 'old' or nonstandard browers (e.g. MSIE) cannot render
it. See then
http://www.canonicalscience.com
for a brief survey on our use of last Internet technology: XML, DOM,
CSS, MathML, etc.
Very recent advances (1995-2005) in history of science prove that
Einstein is not the true father of relativity:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
A new version (revised and amplied) is in press and will available in
brief.
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
a_plu...@hotmail.com
Juan, tell me, is there evidence that Newton used magnets, I suppose in
his time they would be called lodestone.
I wonder if Newton came across a magnet and iron filings. I know he
came across prisms to break up light.
And when in history of physics is the very first mention of magnets and
iron filings with those lines of force. For it seems to me that it is
unlikely that this chapter in the history of physics of magnets and
lines of force would have been known to even Kepler and Galileo and not
have started with Faraday.
What I am getting at is that the trouble Newton had with reconciling a
force at a distance, when one cannot explain it, then the very next
best thing is to show another example that is different yet related. So
when Newton's critics said, there is nothing between the Earth and Sun
for gravity, then Newton should have demonstrated a magnet and iron
filings with the magnet placed underneath paper with the filings on
top. And to say that like Earth and Sun there is nothing between magnet
and filings.
When we cannot explain a phenomenon then we do the very next best thing
by holding up a different example that has the same phenomenon.
Tell me also, where does Newton get the word "gravity" and does it
relate to magnets and lodestone? Because if magnets were familar to
Newton, seems likely he would have called his new force that of
"magnety or lodestoney".
So can anyone tell me if Newton played around with magnets and when is
the first in depth discussion of magnetism and iron filings.
Traveler
<juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>It has been recently proven -with great detail- by historians that
>Newton discoveried the law of atraction from his previous work on
>affinity (chemical attraction). In fact, Newton program on physics and
>math was only a single elementary and unimportant chapter in Newtonian
>research.
>
>Yes, many people -who does not know alchemy- states a low opinion of
>chemistry and alchemy. Some people even still incorrectly believe that
>alchemy was the syntesis of Au!
The reason that most people associate alchemy with things like
sorcery, black magic and superstition, is that alchemists have always
found it convenient to use weird and mysterious symbols (metaphors and
allegories) to document their science while hiding the secret meaning
from the general public. In fact, Newton and many other thinkers of
his day, including his nemesis, Gottfried Leibniz, were of the opinion
that almost all Greco-Roman myths were alchemical recipes in disguise.
They also considered a good portion of Biblical symbology (Revelation,
menorah, temple vessels, Ezekiel's wheel and beasts, etc... to be
secret scientific knowledge given by God to humanity, to be revealed
before the end days.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Mark Martin
a_plu...@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't know if Newton experimented with magnets, but it is well
known that Peter Peregrinus did extensive studies of magnets all the
way back in the 13th century, which he recorded in a manuscript,
although it wasn't cited much 'til 1600 when William Gilbert refered to
it in his own study, which goes by the title "De Magnete". So it's
certainly possible that Newton was aware of the properties of magnets.
And of course, if not magentism, the attraction of objects apparently
from a distance was known since at least the time of the classical
Greeks, who noted what we now understand as static electricity.
As for the word "gravity", in antiquity there were two types of
vertical motion recognised: gravity, meaning to fall downwards, and
levity, which is upwards, and which we now model as bouyancy.
-Mark Martin
hanson
>
> Einstein said "As has already been shown to the first order
> of small quantities (by Galileo, but the secret to creativity
> is knowing how to hide your sources so we won't mention him)
> the same laws of mechanics will be valid for all frames of reference
> for which the equations of electrodynamics and optics hold good.
>
ahahaha....why not? Einstein having been a fornicator must have
referred to creativity from his frame about his wives' as sources....
>
[Einstein said]
"I treat my wife just like an employee whom one can't fire/terminate.
"I am the triumphant survivor over the Nazis and 2 wives."
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
>
[hanson]
But did he lie here about the number from his frame of reference
since http://www.prairiehill.org/latest/aday/scibiospjs.html says:
.... He [Einstein] also married many extra wives in his life.
>
[hanson]
I dunno about Galileo, the Galic Lion, but certainly the Jewish
wife beater had good reasons to hide his sources, because the
source of Einstein's creativity was none but wife # 1: Mileva Maric
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3519d92d18984b8c
>
[Einstein (palaver omitted) continues]
> "We will raise this conjecture (Andro: the purport of which will
> hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity" so that it looks as if
> I discovered it) to the status of a postulate, because everything
> should be as simple as possible but not simpler and imagination
> is more important than knowledge and if we knew what it was
> we were doing, it would not be called research,"
>
Kinda nice of Einstein here, implying that he didn't know what he was
doing... especially in that everything is relative which has been known
since Vedic Times. But thanks god for Einstein who thru his research
added a shtick & everything became relativistick ever since... ahahaha....
>
[Einstein (palaver omitted) continues]
> "... and god doesn't play craps or poker dice and he may be subtle,
> but what really interests me is whether god had any choice in the
> creation of the world.... it would make common sense [that] the
> collection of prejudices acquired [by] god ...I can assure you mine
> are still [of] greater stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe"
>
[hanson]
..... ahahaha... a truly humble citizen, that Einstein,... him telling
God what to do... just like in the Torah, where Abe does the
same thing. Perhaps Einstein suffered from a religo-ethinc
mental deformation that goes way, way back... ahahahaha....
>
[Andro]
> When asked if New York stops at this train, Galileo replied "Yes".
> Androcles
>
So, Galli said Yes, Abli said No and I say Dunno but I am sure
that the train stops in NY. Been there - seen that - fucking and not.
>
[Einstein's excuse (palaver omitted) ]
"My collaboration on the creation of the atom bomb consisted of
signing a letter to President Roosevelt [to] manufacture an A-bomb.
I was fully aware of the fact that killing during/in war is not any better
than common murder."
>
[hanson]
More such profound Ein-Steins in:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/msg/afa8dacd38bc901e
>
Thanks for the laughs, Andro,
ahaha... ahahanson
donsto...@hotmail.com
after that.
Androcles
> "Black Knight" <Andr...@castle.edu> wrote in message
> news:a3jff.52702$Es4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> Einstein said "As has already been shown to the first order
>> of small quantities (by Galileo, but the secret to creativity
>> is knowing how to hide your sources so we won't mention him)
>> the same laws of mechanics will be valid for all frames of reference
>> for which the equations of electrodynamics and optics hold good.
>>
> [hanson[
> ahahaha....why not? Einstein having been a fornicator must have
> referred to creativity from his frame about his wives' as sources....
>>
> [Einstein said]
> "I treat my wife just like an employee whom one can't fire/terminate.
> "I am the triumphant survivor over the Nazis and 2 wives."
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
>>
> [hanson]
> But did he lie here about the number from his frame of reference
> since http://www.prairiehill.org/latest/aday/scibiospjs.html says:
> .... He [Einstein] also married many extra wives in his life.
He was fucking Jew. He came from a whole line of fornicators.
The whole fucked-up attitude toward sex starts with fig leafs,
the sin of Onan the wanker, Lot "knowing" his daughters,
jealousy, greed, thou shalt nots and all the rest of the psychoses.
It is still continued to this day, Moslem women have to cover their
faces so that the men don't get a hard-on and rape one of them.
The whole idea of a Holy War is so that the younger bloods can
rape the other lots women.
>>
> [hanson]
> I dunno about Galileo, the Galic Lion, but certainly the Jewish
> wife beater had good reasons to hide his sources, because the
> source of Einstein's creativity was none but wife # 1: Mileva Maric
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3519d92d18984b8c
>>
> [Einstein (palaver omitted) continues]
>> "We will raise this conjecture (Andro: the purport of which will
>> hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity" so that it looks as if
>> I discovered it) to the status of a postulate, because everything
>> should be as simple as possible but not simpler and imagination
>> is more important than knowledge and if we knew what it was
>> we were doing, it would not be called research,"
>>
> [hanson]
> Kinda nice of Einstein here, implying that he didn't know what he was
> doing... especially in that everything is relative which has been known
> since Vedic Times.
The bastard even blames Lorentz for his cuckoo transformations in case
someone spots his chicanery. Mind you, Lorentz was phuckwit anyway.
He thought pushing a shopping cart (atomic matrix) through a grocery
store would shrink from air resistance (aether pressure), he hadn't heard
of Newton's equal and opposite law. Michaelson put a stop to that
crap. The thing is, hanson, no matter how crazy the idea, if you wrap
it up with an equation some phuckwits will swallow it. He knew exactly
what he was doing, although it may have been a shock to see how
successful it was.
He WAS a genius. He knew psychology better than anyone I know.
His 1905 paper was intended as a joke, I'm sure it was. Only after it was
accepted did he realize he was on to something good and decided
to capitalize. I can't really blame him, it saved his neck when the Nazis
wanted all Jews dead.
But thanks god for Einstein who thru his research
> added a shtick & everything became relativistick ever since... ahahaha....
Fact is, he had to pretend to suck up to a god. Galileo and Newton
were in the same predicament, only worse, they could have been burned
alive otherwise. I didn't get a job as a consultant when I first went to
the USA because I stuck my nose up at the offer of joining a nearby
Anglican Church. The idiot thought I'd jump at it, being English.
No great loss...
>>
> [Einstein (palaver omitted) continues]
>> "... and god doesn't play craps or poker dice and he may be subtle,
>> but what really interests me is whether god had any choice in the
>> creation of the world.... it would make common sense [that] the
>> collection of prejudices acquired [by] god ...I can assure you mine
>> are still [of] greater stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe"
>>
> [hanson]
> ..... ahahaha... a truly humble citizen, that Einstein,... him telling
> God what to do... just like in the Torah, where Abe does the
> same thing. Perhaps Einstein suffered from a religo-ethinc
> mental deformation that goes way, way back... ahahahaha....
He WAS smart. Later in life he knew just how smart, and had his
little wisecrack about how stupid the phuckwits were for swallowing
his story. I admire him really. The greatest magician there ever was,
he did his magic on paper and few ever realized it. But.... he's been
dead 50 years, I think it's time the joke was over. The comments I really
like are :
"If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith."
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
"Man usually avoids attributing cleverness to somebody else -- unless it is
an enemy."
"If one studies too zealously, one easily loses his pants."
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt."
"If A equals success, then the formula is _ A = _ X + _ Y + _ Z. _ X is
work. _ Y is play. _ Z is keep your mouth shut." -- Albert Einstein
> [Andro]
>> When asked if New York stops at this train, Galileo replied "Yes".
>> Does New York stop at this fuckin' train or not?
>> Androcles
>>
> [hanson]
> So, Galli said Yes, Abli said No and I say Dunno but I am sure
> that the train stops in NY. Been there - seen that - fucking and not.
Albi didn't say no... he just refused to talk about it.
My recollection of NY was a guy on the sidewalk flashing a handful
of pills at me less than 5 minutes after stepping out of my car and
the stench of urine in the subway. All I wanted to do was see part of it.
I drove through Central Park, into Harlem and out again superfast,
then over to the WTC, looked and left. That was enough. London
is MUCH safer, even with the immigrants and much higher speed
traffic, still gridlocked. If you can drive in London and stay alive
you can drive anywhere.
Androcles.
a_plu...@hotmail.com
I don't know if Newton experimented with magnets, but it is well
known that Peter Peregrinus did extensive studies of magnets all the
way back in the 13th century, which he recorded in a manuscript,
although it wasn't cited much 'til 1600 when William Gilbert refered to
it in his own study, which goes by the title "De Magnete". So it's
certainly possible that Newton was aware of the properties of magnets.
And of course, if not magentism, the attraction of objects apparently
from a distance was known since at least the time of the classical
Greeks, who noted what we now understand as static electricity.
As for the word "gravity", in antiquity there were two types of
vertical motion recognised: gravity, meaning to fall downwards, and
levity, which is upwards, and which we now model as bouyancy.
A.P. writes:
I wonder if Newton had read Peregrinus or Gilbert on magnetism. I
wonder if Cambridge where Newton worked had magnets and whether
Cambridge had records about inventory whilst Newton was there.
I suspect that if one were to catalog the time that Newton spent on
gravity compared to the time Newton spent of light and optics, that the
majority of Newton's science activity and thoughts was light and
optics. And his work in alchemy was a quest into how matter produces
light. My suspicions probably mean nothing, except for those who are
curious about the history of physics.
I think the biggest mysteries during Newton's time was light and
chemistry. Funny how Newton discovered universal gravity but was unable
to tell you that fire is the bonding of oxygen to carbon. How we can
have the march of history tell us the orbits of planets yet unable to
tell us what fire in a candle is. I mean, if I lived in the time of the
Ancient Greeks and asked to predict which event in human history would
come first (1) how planets move in orbits or (2) how fire works, I
would have guessed (2) would precede (1). But come to think of it, no,
I would have guessed 1 to precede 2 because science progress is based
mostly on the available instrumentation and we would have telescopes
long before we ever had instruments or devices to peer into the
microscopic. In a sense, astronomy would develop a thousand years
earlier than chemistry because you need advanced instruments to do
chemistry. And perhaps the greatest contribution of alchemy was the
slow and steady march to making instruments for a chemical laboratory.
Not until the time of the French Revolution with Lavoiser does the
world have enough instrumentation that we can say chemistry is born.
Newton was already way advanced of his age with the physics of motion
and gravity, and so the biggest unknown in his time was chemistry, the
science of matter and so it was natural for him to devote most of his
time on alchemy.
Juan R.
a_plu...@hotmail.com ha escrito:
> I suspect that if one were to catalog the time that Newton spent on
> gravity compared to the time Newton spent of light and optics, that the
> majority of Newton's science activity and thoughts was light and
> optics. And his work in alchemy was a quest into how matter produces
> light. My suspicions probably mean nothing, except for those who are
> curious about the history of physics.
This is not correct. His interest in alchemy was not guided by light.
If main activities were not optics or gravity. He devoted only two
years to math and physics.
> I think the biggest mysteries during Newton's time was light and
> chemistry. Funny how Newton discovered universal gravity but was unable
> to tell you that fire is the bonding of oxygen to carbon.
Then oxigen was unknown due to litle sophistication of intrumental!
For Newton light were particles (atoms) of light. during decades
centuries physicists disproven this chemical view and considered light
a different phenomena until Einstein explained photoelectric phenomena
using 'quantums' of light.
> How we can
> have the march of history tell us the orbits of planets yet unable to
> tell us what fire in a candle is. I mean, if I lived in the time of the
> Ancient Greeks and asked to predict which event in human history would
> come first (1) how planets move in orbits or (2) how fire works, I
> would have guessed (2) would precede (1). But come to think of it, no,
> I would have guessed 1 to precede 2 because science progress is based
> mostly on the available instrumentation and we would have telescopes
> long before we ever had instruments or devices to peer into the
> microscopic. In a sense, astronomy would develop a thousand years
> earlier than chemistry because you need advanced instruments to do
> chemistry. And perhaps the greatest contribution of alchemy was the
> slow and steady march to making instruments for a chemical laboratory.
> Not until the time of the French Revolution with Lavoiser does the
> world have enough instrumentation that we can say chemistry is born.
>
> Newton was already way advanced of his age with the physics of motion
> and gravity, and so the biggest unknown in his time was chemistry, the
> science of matter and so it was natural for him to devote most of his
> time on alchemy.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
For addittional data see
http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/researchzone/history.xml
and references cited therein.
In brief, articles on the topic will be available.
Note: Above is a XML page using last Internet thechnology, and
standards. Some 'old' or nonstandard browers (e.g. MSIE) cannot render
it. See then
http://www.canonicalscience.com
for a brief survey on our use of last Internet technology: XML, DOM,
CSS, MathML, etc.
hanson
>
"Androcles", the Black Knight, <Andr...@MyPlace.yep> wrote in
news:I5xff.52922$Es4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk... [3]
>
the MOST SUPERB & PROFOUND EVALUATION, EVER, about Albert:
>
> Einstein WAS smart.
> Later in life he knew just how smart, and he had his little wisecracks
> about how stupid the phuckwits were for swallowing his story.
> "If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith."
> "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
> "Man usually avoids attributing cleverness to somebody else
> -- unless it is an enemy."
>
which was echoed by <donsto...@hotmail.com> who wrote in
news:1132369324.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> That Einstein - what a sleezeball!!!! I'll never view him the same after that.
>
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1b3604a2251de9e0
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1c94f1b9277bcffe
[3] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fa4893768c56f4bb
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha..
ahahaha... ahahanson
donsto...@hotmail.com
pond. And that small pond is physics. Had he been a cybernetic
general systems thinker, by now we'd have mass teleporters with
destinations beyond the causal horizon.
jgr...@seol.net.au
So was Newton's (claimed) personality change due to:
1 mercury poisoning
2 lead
3 arsehole denialis
Jim G
c'=c+v
Juan R.
hanson ha escrito:
Einstein WAS smart. In fact he WAS really smart plaguiarizing the work
of others.
http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/researchzone/history.xml
The page uses XML technology, if you cannot acess it, see
http://www.canonicalscience.com
For some related data on Einstein the SMART plagiarist see
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
Gregory L. Hansen
"The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest."
--
"I fart for joy and I laugh more than if I had cast my old age, as a
serpent does its skin." -- Aristophanes, Peace, 421 BC
Dirk Van de moortel
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message news:1132499670.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Completely plagiarized from Bjerknes.
So you are a thief as well.
Dirk Vdm
Lin Xiong
hi is maybe bjerkness, you fool
hanson
wrote in message news:gp1gf.53152$k17.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> "Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
> news:1132499670.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
[hanson] ha escrito:
ahahahaha... ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
"Androcles", the Black Knight, <Andr...@MyPlace.yep> wrote in
news:I5xff.52922$Es4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk... [3]
>> > >
the MOST SUPERB & PROFOUND EVALUATION, EVER, about Albert:
>> > >
Einstein WAS smart.
Later in life he knew just how smart, and he had his little wisecracks
about how stupid the phuckwits were for swallowing his story.
But.... he's been dead 50 years, I think it's time the joke was over.
The comments [from/by Einstein] I really like are :
"If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith."
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
"Man usually avoids attributing cleverness to somebody else
-- unless it is an enemy."
Androcles.
>> > >
which was echoed by <donsto...@hotmail.com> who wrote in
news:1132369324.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That Einstein - what a sleezeball!!!! I'll never view him the same after that.
>> > >
ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... and all the jucy details are in here:
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1b3604a2251de9e0
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1c94f1b9277bcffe
[3] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/fa4893768c56f4bb
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha..
ahahaha... ahahanson
>>
Einstein WAS smart. In fact he WAS really smart plaguiarizing the work
of others.
http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/researchzone/history.xml
The page uses XML technology, if you cannot acess it, see
http://www.canonicalscience.com
For some related data on Einstein the SMART plagiarist see
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
>
> Completely plagiarized from Bjerknes.
> So you are a thief as well.
> Dirk Vdm
>
HAHAHAHA....awe... Did they crank you, Dirk?... ahahaha....
It looks more and more that your relativity hay-ride wagon is
having thrown matches at and is about to catch fire and may
come to and end, being replaced by newer vehicles...ahaha..
Just look at the publications/posts some of 3-4 years ago and
further back... Only accolades, praise and awe about Albert
were permitted to be in print back thyen... Why the change, Dirk?...
Has all that rela-kacksackering, that endless shoveling of kack
into and out of the same sack by the kacksackers taken its toll?
... and you being mad'n sad now as the confessed "3rd kacksacker".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.research/msg/172e26f6bf46acf4
Is it going to die with the physical demise of the kacksakers....
most of'em already being in wheel chairs?.... ahahahaha..
Louis Savain is going to love this take... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, dudes..... AHAHHAHA...
ahahanson
Juan R.
Curiously, a debate was launched in sci.physics.research about EinsteIn
supposed priorities and nobody was able to *prove* with ***data*** that
Einstein was the father of special or general relativity. Many people
there agree with 'my' point of view.
The work also received interesting comments from several historians of
science who contacted with me.
The new revised and amplied version contains more data and very recent
references [more than 30]. The paper is in press.
For example in the October news journal of the AMS [2005, 52, (9),
1036-1044] Mawhin, Jean states about Poincaré.
"His books on Maxwell theory contain the germs of special relativity
and led him to
analyze, correct, and name the Lorentz transformations. Poincaré
published in 1905 a
note (followed by an extended memoir) on the dynamics of the electron,
containing the
whole mathematics of special relativity. Historians of science still
passionately discuss
the priority between Einstein and Poincaré, and if one follows some
recent
publications, one might conclude that Hercule Poireau might be the only
one able to
uncover the whole story. [...] But it is unquestionable that Poincaré
anticipated the so called Minkowski space-time."
In a new paper (after of polemic article on /Science/), the respected
historian J. Stachel claims that Hilbert obtained the correct GR
lagrangian before Einstein, etc.
Which is also supported by Nobel Fundation
http://nobelprize.org/physics/educational/relativity/history-1.html
Moreover, they admit that Poincaré was the first one proving absence
of absolute motion, etc. Regarding the supposed failure of Poincaré
for obtaining full relativity is precisely that has been shown
incorrect in recent research. I and others have proved that Poincaré
obtained SR before Einstein...
In a recent Physics Today [December 2001 Volume 54, Number 12], the
historian of science Stephen G. Brush said
"The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration for both
Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis
(French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with
his friends in Bern. He might also have read Poincaré's 1898 article
on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was
discussed--a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent
examiner."
Curoiusly years after Einstein claimed that newer read Poincaré and
that his theory of relativity was totally new...
How would we name to a guy who read and copy the work of others and
after claim that his work is novel and revolutionary and that NEWER
read works of Poincaré? C. Jon Bjerknes choosed the word
"plagiarism"...
If anyone want do some serious criticism on the current view Einstein
copied his works from others can do via providing serious evidence and
data and submiting a serious paper to any journal on history of
science.
For example, if you claim that Einstein obtained GR before Hilbert,
present us a published paper by einstien before Hilbert one. If you
wanty claim that Einstein was the first claiming constancy of c or that
time was relative, present us a Einstein's paper published before 1902.
In the contrary way Einstein copied the work of others, and after said
not the true to his colleagues. See for example, correspondence
Einstein-Hilbert reproduced on
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
;-)
Juan R.
with me.
Many historians of science agree with me modern approach to history fo
relativity.
for example celebrated J. Stachel has changed his views and in a new
paper agree that Hilbert obtained the GR before Einstein.
Also The Nobel foundation agree
http://nobelprize.org/physics/educational/relativity/history-1.html
Regarding Poincaré they claim
"On June 5, Poincaré finished an article in which he stated that there
seems to be a general law of Nature, that it is impossible to
demonstrate absolute motion."
However, Poincaré did go beyond and very recent detailed historical
work proves that Poincaré obtained full SR (including the constancy of
c) and that Einstein simply copied him.
In a 2001 Physics Today, the historian of science Stephen G. Brush said
"The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration for both
Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis
(French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with
his friends in Bern. He might also have read Poincaré's 1898 article
on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was
discussed--a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent
examiner."
Also regarding GR, Einstein said not the true to his colleagues. See
for example the correspondence reproduced on last part of
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
My article is in press and received several good evaluations from
several physicists and historians.
How would you name to a guy who copy the work of his colleagues and
after claim in public that his work was fresh and revolutionar?
Bjerknes choosed the word plagiarism...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message news:1133028575.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lin Xiong, . Dirk Van de moortel,
If you don't reply properly, I won't even look at it.
[snip unread]
Al Zenner
> Lin Xiong, . Dirk Van de moortel,
> Curiously, a debate was launched in sci.physics.research about EinsteIn
> supposed priorities and nobody was able to *prove* with ***data*** that
> Einstein was the father of special or general relativity. Many people
> there agree with 'my' point of view.
snip
One day several great scientists met at the edge of a meadow. Each one
of them brought an apple seed. One wearing boots poked a hole in the
ground and each scientist dropped his seed into the little hole. Then
the hole was covered and the scientists went their own way.
About 100 years later I am at the same (relative:-) spot gathering apples.
It doesn't matter to me, nor do I see any legitimate reason anyone would
care at this late date, which seed grew into the tree. I am quite happy
to harvest the fruit knowing each of those personal heros had some hand
in the tree being there for me.
Traveler
IOW, you're just an ass kisser, like Dick van de merde and the others.
ahahaha...
Al Zenner
news:2hcho1phgeums3jq5...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:42:56 -0500, Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
snip
> IOW, you're just an ass kisser, like Dick van de merde and the others.
> ahahaha...
> Louis Savain
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
I already knew you for a fool, thanks for appearing on cue.
I expect to make your day quite often. You might want to
save your (ascii) halitosis for someone who cares or at
least flinches. Aw heck, you'd even settle for someone
who might think twice about what you have to say even if
they change their mind quickly.
Traveler
ahahaha... I cranked you big time. ahahaha...
Al Zenner
news:aa8io1le5um985p58...@4ax.com:
snip <same old same old hallucination>
Savin, if you're actually trying to torque someone you should try
to make it original and interesting. Try to make your posts worth
a chuckle at the very least. So far you come off as merely pathetic.
I realize my standards might be beyond your capabilities, but you
could try to give it a better shot next time. Make it really good
and make it soon, ok kiddo? I'll be watching.
You know, Savin, Einstein has been dead for a while, and even dead
he's a lot smarter than you.
Get it?
On the other hand, if you knew anything at all about physics you
might try to get involved on that level. Personally I prefer physics
to insults, but sometimes the course of a discussion affords no other
reasonable choice. Either approach you decide to take I expect great
improvement in your future posts.
jgr...@seol.net.au
Albert E meets (say Humboldt coming back from the New World):
"May I have one of those seeds? What are they?"
(plants seed)
"Hey World, look what _I_ have produced!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not only was AE a plagiarist, he was too bloody dumb to notice the
mistakes and contradictions in the stuff he was stealing!
Jim G
c'=c+v
Al Zenner
news:1133078218.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Albert E meets (say Humboldt coming back from the New World):
> "May I have one of those seeds? What are they?"
> (plants seed)
> "Hey World, look what _I_ have produced!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Not only was AE a plagiarist, he was too bloody dumb to notice the
> mistakes and contradictions in the stuff he was stealing!
I don't care if AE or someone else noticed that apple seed in
horseshit and picked it out, or whose hands it was in enroute
or who actually planted it to make the tree which bears apples
I use today.
That your opinion is based on something other than the usefulness
of the apples (tools) isn't a problem to me. But I am not going
to get all wrapped up in your nonissue.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Al Zenner" <az...@zenner.com> wrote in message news:Xns971B68...@63.223.5.248...
hm, his opinion is highly based on a lack of usefulness:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
| "If Relativity were 100% correct, long before now everything
| from a cancer cure to no world food shortage (anywhere)
| should have been achieved."
> But I am not going
> to get all wrapped up in your nonissue.
But it can be rather entertaining :-)
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
ahahaha... You're crankier than I thought. ahahahaha...the mark of an
ass kisser. ahahaha... just like Sam Wormley and Dick van de shit...
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:kh0ko11sbtu81tre0...@4ax.com...
Savain, you can do better:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Insanity.html
Dirk Vdm
jgr...@seol.net.au
If AE had ANY intelligence, other than that which he used to fool the
gullible, he would have perceived that his apples (actually conceived
in BULLSHIT, not fertiliser), were rotten (infused with their own
diet).
That a "peer group review" (read coven of the indoctrined) spends it
time in ritual and mutual self-congratulation (at their cleverness in
"understanding" SR/GR), is quite entertaining for the thinkers.
Jim G
c'=c+v
Eric Gisse
jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
> Al Zenner wrote:
> > "jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in
> > news:1133078218.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > Albert E meets (say Humboldt coming back from the New World):
> > > "May I have one of those seeds? What are they?"
> > > (plants seed)
> > > "Hey World, look what _I_ have produced!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > > Not only was AE a plagiarist, he was too bloody dumb to notice the
> > > mistakes and contradictions in the stuff he was stealing!
> >
> >
> > I don't care if AE or someone else noticed that apple seed in
> > horseshit and picked it out, or whose hands it was in enroute
> > or who actually planted it to make the tree which bears apples
> > I use today.
> >
> > That your opinion is based on something other than the usefulness
> > of the apples (tools) isn't a problem to me. But I am not going
> > to get all wrapped up in your nonissue.
>
> If AE had ANY intelligence, other than that which he used to fool the
> gullible, he would have perceived that his apples (actually conceived
> in BULLSHIT, not fertiliser), were rotten (infused with their own
> diet).
I wonder if you know about Einstein's other contributions to physics,
namely to quantum theory and statistical mechanics.
> That a "peer group review" (read coven of the indoctrined) spends it
> time in ritual and mutual self-congratulation (at their cleverness in
> "understanding" SR/GR), is quite entertaining for the thinkers.
You know what else is quite entertaining? The ravings of an old person
who believes ferevently that relativity is wrong yet who cannot himself
grasp the abstract concept of negative numbers.
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
Al Zenner
news:1133134471....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>> That a "peer group review" (read coven of the indoctrined) spends it
>> time in ritual and mutual self-congratulation (at their cleverness in
>> "understanding" SR/GR), is quite entertaining for the thinkers.
> You know what else is quite entertaining? The ravings of an old person
> who believes ferevently that relativity is wrong yet who cannot himself
> grasp the abstract concept of negative numbers.
I also don't care he doesn't like what the man was, and he doesn't like
what the review process was, but I find it amusing that I was discussing
the tools, the work product, and he hasn't been able to figure out any
way to attack those because despite his outrage about them he hasn't a
clue as to what they're about!
Same old same old.
jgr...@seol.net.au
And what is funnier still?????
The whining of a pathetic adolescent who cannot "grasp" the difference
between WHAT something is (eg larger or smaller), and WHERE it is
(coordinate).
Once said Alice in Wonderlander "grasped" that NON abstract, he MIGHT
recognise the AE bullshit for what it is.
Meanwhile said sandpitter has also revealed himself an indoctrinated
accolyte, by failing once AGAIN to give an example of ANY physical
entity of less than zero (nothing)
Jim G
c'=c+v
jgr...@seol.net.au
No worries! All you need do to convince me of SR/GR, is to explain why
atomic clocks do NOT alter their time rate when moon above/moon below
(ie in alterring gravity).
One day someone (NOT indoctrinated) who is not dependent on the HOLY
GRANT, will perform a REAL experiment about c'=c+v ie a race
between two slugs of light from say distance to Saturn, emitted
simultaneously (or at a known interval), one from a source retreating
from earth, and the other source approaching, while in close proximity.
The pulse from the approaching source will arrive at earth first (the
order of a second difference), I will gleefully piss on AE's grave, and
his worshippers can all have their Jonestown.
As for "work product", what a joke. Do you mean a bunch of DHR's
spending millions of man hours (and $) feverishly devising explanations
(and inventing math on the run to back it up), to explain the
contradictions which are observed (almost weekly with the improved
telescopes)?
(Note: don't read about observations of material 30 X c ; it might
bring a tear)
Jim G
c'=c+v
Schoenfeld
Juan R. wrote:
[snip]
Great article. One of the best I've read on usenet for some time.
Eric Gisse
You cannot even grasp negative numbers and you have the stones to say
relativity is false.
Guess what Jim? If you cannot grasp simple algebra of reals, then you
don't have any hope of undersatnding anything else. I see any number of
topics that are entirely unrelated to relativity that you would
dislike, like complex analysis for example.
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Such cannot be proved.
> Regarding the supposed failure of Poincaré
> for obtaining full relativity is precisely that has been shown
> incorrect in recent research. I and others have proved that Poincaré
> obtained SR before Einstein...
>
> In a recent Physics Today [December 2001 Volume 54, Number 12], the
> historian of science Stephen G. Brush said
>
> "The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration for both
> Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis
> (French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with
> his friends in Bern. He might also have read Poincaré's 1898 article
> on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was
> discussed--a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent
> examiner."
We will never know the extent to which Einstein drew on the work of
Poincaré in the development of SR. Einstein was adamant that what held
up his effort to rid the ether from the foundation of physics was his
trouble with finding a place for absolute time in the new theory. He
claimed that he found the solution only when it became clear to him
that time cannot be absolutely defined (yes, that's how he stated it --
no hype at all). If anyone had access to Poincaré's work it was
Poincaré, yet Poincaré did not come up with SR. SR is a theory, not a
farrago of discoveries and popular headlines.
>
> Curoiusly years after Einstein claimed that newer read Poincaré and
> that his theory of relativity was totally new...
>
> How would we name to a guy who read and copy the work of others and
> after claim that his work is novel and revolutionary and that NEWER
> read works of Poincaré? C. Jon Bjerknes choosed the word
> "plagiarism"...
>
> If anyone want do some serious criticism on the current view Einstein
> copied his works from others can do via providing serious evidence and
> data and submiting a serious paper to any journal on history of
> science.
>
> For example, if you claim that Einstein obtained GR before Hilbert,
> present us a published paper by einstien before Hilbert one. If you
> wanty claim that Einstein was the first claiming constancy of c or that
> time was relative, present us a Einstein's paper published before 1902.
This is a perfect example of what goes around comes around. Relativists
and relativity polularists have done immense harm to relativity by
stressing the bizarre aspects of relativity. Einstein was not impressed
by those flashy aspects at all. He was a minimalist-theory hunter, not
a headline hunter.
Einstein found no personal reward to be found in claiming priority of
the constancy of the speed of light. He certainly wasn't the first to
say it, because he claimed it was an existing empirical result known to
physics on which he based SR. Einstein was not out to prove relative
time or E = mc^2. He considered those as VERY minor to his real
accomplishment: All he wanted to do was to reduce the number of
independent ontological objects in the foundation to physics by
eliminating ether (a nonempirical space of absolute rest) as an
irreducible object, distinct from mass particle and EM field. Einstein
regarded the luminiferous ether in Lorentz's theory as violating his
sense of the PoR. What Einstein accomplished ontologically in his two
theories of relativity is apparently so esoteric that few physicists
even appreciate it.
Einstein's motive to generalize SR had nothing to do with black holes
or anything else that the popular media thinks about. He was motivated
to further cleanup the foundation to physics. He thought that the
duality between inertial and noninertial motion was troubling, and he
thought the dualism between particle, with its total diff equation of
motion, and field, with its PDEs, was annoying (the basis of his
unified field theory after GR). Einstein was also bothered by Newton's
absolute rest space by which acceleration was to make sense in Newton's
mechanics. But none of that was interesting to popular audiences.
Thus, SR eliminated from the foundation of physics the use of absolute
velocity and the rest space of the ether. GR eliminated absolute
acceleration and action-at-a-distance gravity.
Al Zenner
news:1133143604.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> One day someone (NOT indoctrinated) who is not dependent on the HOLY
> GRANT, will perform a REAL experiment about c'=c+v ie a race
> between two slugs of light
Implying mass? Don, set this guy straight! LOL
> from say distance to Saturn, emitted
> simultaneously (or at a known interval), one from a source retreating
> from earth, and the other source approaching, while in close proximity.
> The pulse from the approaching source will arrive at earth first (the
> order of a second difference),
Well if you're as smart as you think you are you could just set up an
experiment of your own. Measure the velocity of sunlight as the earth
is approaching the sun and then measure it again as the earth is
receding from the sun, with no "HOLY GRANT" involved. Report back
here once you've done that.
> I will gleefully piss on AE's grave, and
> his worshippers can all have their Jonestown.
You already have your own Jonestown and we're not following. How's the
punch?
Traveler
>I wonder if you know about Einstein's other contributions to physics,
>namely to quantum theory and statistical mechanics.
Einstein was also the idiot who wrote that God does not play dice
with the universe. ahahaha...
But that's not all, Einstein also believed the rantings of his
crackpot friend, Kurt "lunatic" Godel, who announced to the world in
1949 that GR's spacetime allows time travel to past via closed
time-like loops. Einstein became depressed about it because he could
not fathom how his crown achievement would allow something as
ridiculous as time travel. Still Godel convinced him that it was
possible. And this, after several other thinkers, including Sir Karl
Popper (Conjectures), had already pointed out to him that nothing can
move in spacetime.
Obviously Einstein had a poor understanding of his own theories. Or he
was a fraud. Take your pick. ahahaha...
jgr...@seol.net.au
"The math is admittedly simple, but it is still wrong when it is used
to connect to reality".
Anyone else want to join his crew to Lalaland?
(eg Lil' Eric's "algebra"- a+a=2a BUT c+c<2c)
I see a "time" when lil Eric GRASPS the fallacy of mixing negatives of
positional description, with physical entities............:-)
Jim G
c'=c+v
Eric Gisse
jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
> Eric Gisse 19/8/04
>
> "The math is admittedly simple, but it is still wrong when it is used
> to connect to reality".
>
I was talking to Eleaticus' about his Galilean transforms. But since
you are incapable of reading for what is written instead of for what
you want written, you wouldn't know that.
> Anyone else want to join his crew to Lalaland?
>
> (eg Lil' Eric's "algebra"- a+a=2a BUT c+c<2c)
Abstract concepts are hard, huh?
It is NOT my fault that you are unable to keep more than one system of
internally consistant mathematics in your head at a time. I am being
generous in saying you can even do one.
The mathematics are consistant, much like the ravings of those who do
not understand the mathematics.
>
> I see a "time" when lil Eric GRASPS the fallacy of mixing negatives of
> positional description, with physical entities............:-)
The electron and proton cannot be both positively charged.
Once again, your utter incapability of understanding simple algebra
means what you have to say about physics has absolutely zero worth
whatsoever.
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
jgr...@seol.net.au
Al Zenner wrote:
> "jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in
> news:1133143604.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > One day someone (NOT indoctrinated) who is not dependent on the HOLY
> > GRANT, will perform a REAL experiment about c'=c+v ie a race
> > between two slugs of light
>
> Implying mass? Don, set this guy straight! LOL
>
> > from say distance to Saturn, emitted
> > simultaneously (or at a known interval), one from a source retreating
> > from earth, and the other source approaching, while in close proximity.
> > The pulse from the approaching source will arrive at earth first (the
> > order of a second difference),
>
> Well if you're as smart as you think you are you could just set up an
> experiment of your own. Measure the velocity of sunlight as the earth
> is approaching the sun and then measure it again as the earth is
> receding from the sun, with no "HOLY GRANT" involved. Report back
> here once you've done that.
Changes in the velocity of light are noticed every occasion a shift in
wavelength/frequency is noted due to a change in the relative motion of
source and receiver. The DHR lobby claims that this is due to magic;
that frequency alters conversely with wavelength (in order to maintain
c invariable "Because it DOES" (followed by nothing else but
foot-stamping and tantrums)
The TRUTH of the situation of c'=c+v will be recognised when race as
described (with short pulses of light), and it is unequivocally
observed that the pulse (slug) from an approaching source arrives
FIRST.
Your suggestion on earth / sun of course DOES show this, but the
doppler effect is WRONGLY attributed to aforementioned magic.
My race involves no clocks, no measurement of either frequency or
wavelength of the emr constituting the pulses-------------in short,
NOTHING which can be magically and mysteriously attributed to
aether-like properties.
Which is why it is so vehmently avoided by the DHR coven.
Jim G
c'=c+v
PS: The only punch necessary around here, is to ask HOW, when I walk
from one candle towards another, light from both strikes me at the SAME
speed. It invariably knocks the DHR out of the thread
jgr...@seol.net.au
Eric Gisse wrote:
> jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
> > Eric Gisse 19/8/04
> >
> > "The math is admittedly simple, but it is still wrong when it is used
> > to connect to reality".
> >
>
> I was talking to Eleaticus' about his Galilean transforms. But since
> you are incapable of reading for what is written instead of for what
> you want written, you wouldn't know that.
>
> > Anyone else want to join his crew to Lalaland?
> >
> > (eg Lil' Eric's "algebra"- a+a=2a BUT c+c<2c)
>
> Abstract concepts are hard, huh?
>
> It is NOT my fault that you are unable to keep more than one system of
> internally consistant mathematics in your head at a time. I am being
> generous in saying you can even do one.
>
> The mathematics are consistant, much like the ravings of those who do
> not understand the mathematics.
>
> >
> > I see a "time" when lil Eric GRASPS the fallacy of mixing negatives of
> > positional description, with physical entities............:-)
>
> The electron and proton cannot be both positively charged.
One is red, the other blue, and NIETHER is a "less than zero" entity.
They BOTH produce a field/force.
So what, if the forces are in opposite directions.
FYI, forces are ALL "positive" (read exist). Otherwise WORK could never
be done, as DISTANCE is always "positive" (on every occasion I use
"positive", I mean greater than zero, ie exists)
>
> Once again, your utter incapability of understanding simple algebra
> means what you have to say about physics has absolutely zero worth
> whatsoever.
This from someone who can't even grasp, that since c=(f) x (u)
alterring any ONE , changes the result
(which is of course noticed about a billion times a day)
Jim G
c'=c+v
Al Zenner
news:1133224937....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Al Zenner wrote:
>> Well if you're as smart as you think you are you could just set up an
>> experiment of your own. Measure the velocity of sunlight as the earth
>> is approaching the sun and then measure it again as the earth is
>> receding from the sun, with no "HOLY GRANT" involved. Report back
>> here once you've done that.
> Changes in the velocity of light are noticed every occasion a shift in
> wavelength/frequency is noted due to a change in the relative motion of
> source and receiver.
You make this assertion but afford no citation nor do you offer proof. I
guess this is the outgrowth of an inability to comprehend elementary
physics and math along with an inability to set up and run the experiment
I suggested. I see those inabilities have no hold on your spewing
nonsense.
> The DHR lobby claims that this is due to magic;
> that frequency alters conversely with wavelength (in order to maintain
> c invariable "Because it DOES" (followed by nothing else but
> foot-stamping and tantrums)
You're the only one having tantrums and stamping your feet. Do you think
light is conspiring against you by making everyone else believe it has a
constant velocity in a vacuum while you and you alone are the keeper of
some sacred truth that c varies according to motion of the source?
> The TRUTH of the situation of c'=c+v will be recognised when race as
> described (with short pulses of light), and it is unequivocally
> observed that the pulse (slug) from an approaching source arrives
> FIRST.
Michelson-Morley already settled the issue and you dismiss it while
anyone who knows anything about the subject embraces the results.
> Your suggestion on earth / sun of course DOES show this, but the
> doppler effect is WRONGLY attributed to aforementioned magic.
I can't help your confusion between reality and magic. Have you tried
legal medications or therepy?
> My race involves no clocks, no measurement of either frequency or
> wavelength of the emr constituting the pulses-------------in short,
> NOTHING which can be magically and mysteriously attributed to
> aether-like properties.
> Which is why it is so vehmently avoided by the DHR coven.
MM settled the matter in 1887 leaving no need to undertake an even more
complex experiment to cater to your personal inability to accept reality.
Besides, if it were undertaken you'd complain about fraud when it proved
once again that you're wrong.
I am bored with your delusions.
Eric Gisse
W = force * distance. There is an integral definition of work, but I
bet you have issues with that too. Are you and calculus on speaking
terms yet?
For 2 charged particles...
F = q_1*q_2*k/r^2, where k is a constant. It is nonrelativistic so you
shouldn't have a problem with it.
Work is perfectly well-defined for positive and negative charges. Your
inability to understand that simple little fact is not the fault of the
mathematics, rather it is yours.
> >
> > Once again, your utter incapability of understanding simple algebra
> > means what you have to say about physics has absolutely zero worth
> > whatsoever.
>
> This from someone who can't even grasp, that since c=(f) x (u)
> alterring any ONE , changes the result
> (which is of course noticed about a billion times a day)
Oh please.
Fix your own misunderstandings before attempting to correct percieved
ones in others.
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
Henri Wilson
The MMX simply proved that light speed is source dependent.
>> Your suggestion on earth / sun of course DOES show this, but the
>> doppler effect is WRONGLY attributed to aforementioned magic.
>
>I can't help your confusion between reality and magic. Have you tried
>legal medications or therepy?
>
>> My race involves no clocks, no measurement of either frequency or
>> wavelength of the emr constituting the pulses-------------in short,
>> NOTHING which can be magically and mysteriously attributed to
>> aether-like properties.
>> Which is why it is so vehmently avoided by the DHR coven.
>
>MM settled the matter in 1887 leaving no need to undertake an even more
>complex experiment to cater to your personal inability to accept reality.
>Besides, if it were undertaken you'd complain about fraud when it proved
>once again that you're wrong.
>
>I am bored with your delusions.
......No hope for this one Jim....
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Al Zenner
news:umnno11qr6nicnju4...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:05:30 -0500, Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>>Michelson-Morley already settled the issue and you dismiss it while
>>anyone who knows anything about the subject embraces the results.
> The MMX simply proved that light speed is source dependent.
Hello?
"What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light?
The hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source
can easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from
distant supernovae."
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
But of course you'll deny the validity of this as well, eh?
>>I am bored with your delusions.
> ......No hope for this one Jim....
Nice intro.
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Where do you people come from anyway?
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:umnno11qr6nicnju4...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:05:30 -0500, Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>
>>"jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in
>>news:1133224937....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Al Zenner wrote:
>>
>>>> Well if you're as smart as you think you are you could just set up an
>>>> experiment of your own. Measure the velocity of sunlight as the earth
>>>> is approaching the sun and then measure it again as the earth is
>>>> receding from the sun, with no "HOLY GRANT" involved. Report back
>>>> here once you've done that.
See how dumb these fucking morons are?
3,000,000, miles in 6 months.
500,000 miles a month
16666.7 miles a day.
695 miles an hour, less than the speed of sound.
I would not mind betting a moron like that would ask where I get
3,000,000 miles in 6 months from.
>>
>>> Changes in the velocity of light are noticed every occasion a shift in
>>> wavelength/frequency is noted due to a change in the relative motion of
>>> source and receiver.
Quite right, Jim.
>>You make this assertion but afford no citation nor do you offer proof. I
>>guess this is the outgrowth of an inability to comprehend elementary
>>physics and math along with an inability to set up and run the experiment
>>I suggested. I see those inabilities have no hold on your spewing
>>nonsense.
There goes the moron again, he's never heard of Doppler or Sagnac and
sputters
about comprehending elementary physics and math. What a complete arsehole.
>>> The DHR lobby claims that this is due to magic;
>>> that frequency alters conversely with wavelength (in order to maintain
>>> c invariable "Because it DOES" (followed by nothing else but
>>> foot-stamping and tantrums)
>>
>>You're the only one having tantrums and stamping your feet. Do you think
>>light is conspiring against you by making everyone else believe it has a
>>constant velocity in a vacuum while you and you alone are the keeper of
>>some sacred truth that c varies according to motion of the source?
>>
>>> The TRUTH of the situation of c'=c+v will be recognised when race as
>>> described (with short pulses of light), and it is unequivocally
>>> observed that the pulse (slug) from an approaching source arrives
>>> FIRST.
>>
>>Michelson-Morley already settled the issue and you dismiss it while
>>anyone who knows anything about the subject embraces the results.
What a dumbshit!
> The MMX simply proved that light speed is source dependent.
Yep.
>
>>> Your suggestion on earth / sun of course DOES show this, but the
>>> doppler effect is WRONGLY attributed to aforementioned magic.
>>
>>I can't help your confusion between reality and magic. Have you tried
>>legal medications or therepy?
>>
>>> My race involves no clocks, no measurement of either frequency or
>>> wavelength of the emr constituting the pulses-------------in short,
>>> NOTHING which can be magically and mysteriously attributed to
>>> aether-like properties.
>>> Which is why it is so vehmently avoided by the DHR coven.
>>
>>MM settled the matter in 1887 leaving no need to undertake an even more
>>complex experiment to cater to your personal inability to accept reality.
>>Besides, if it were undertaken you'd complain about fraud when it proved
>>once again that you're wrong.
>>
>>I am bored with your delusions.
>
> ......No hope for this one Jim....
Absolutely right, H. Totally arrogant know-it-all fuckwit.
Add 1000 feet per second to 982,080,000 feet per second,
answer 982,081,000 feet per second and the imbecile says do his
experiment, there is no holy grant.
Androcles.
donsto...@hotmail.com
Add 1000 feet per second to 982,080,000 feet per second,
answer 982,081,000 feet per second and the imbecile says do his
experiment, there is no holy grant.
Androcles.
****************************
STICKS AND STONES.........
Henri Wilson
>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>news:umnno11qr6nicnju4...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:05:30 -0500, Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>
>>>Michelson-Morley already settled the issue and you dismiss it while
>>>anyone who knows anything about the subject embraces the results.
>
>> The MMX simply proved that light speed is source dependent.
>
>Hello?
>
> "What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light?
> The hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source
> can easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from
> distant supernovae."
>
>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
>
>But of course you'll deny the validity of this as well, eh?
all plain propaganda.
>
>>>I am bored with your delusions.
>
>> ......No hope for this one Jim....
>
>Nice intro.
Innocent brainwashed people like you turn up regularly.
We have to go right through the whole process again of explaining why
relativity has become a religion .
In fact, it is a hoax.
>
>Where do you people come from anyway?
Anywhere and everywhere. Nobody knows and nobody cares.
Henri Wilson
Better change your signature A.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On 29 Nov 2005 00:36:37 -0800, donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Absolutely right, H. Totally arrogant know-it-all fuckwit.
>>Add 1000 feet per second to 982,080,000 feet per second,
>>answer 982,081,000 feet per second and the imbecile says do his
>>experiment, there is no holy grant.
>>Androcles.
>>
>>****************************
>>
>>STICKS AND STONES.........
>
> Better change your signature A.
>
What do I care if a moron doesn't know any physics?
I plonked stockbauer ages ago.
Sticks and stone may break my bones,
but whips and chains excite me.
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<az...@zenner.com>
wrote
on Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:44:14 -0500
<Xns971CF1...@63.223.5.248>:
> HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
> news:umnno11qr6nicnju4...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:05:30 -0500, Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>
>>>Michelson-Morley already settled the issue and you dismiss it while
>>>anyone who knows anything about the subject embraces the results.
>
>> The MMX simply proved that light speed is source dependent.
Actually, it proves that an absolute aether doesn't
exist and that lightspeed is c relative to the source.
Other experiments show lightspeed is c relative to the
observer as well, regardless of motion of the source with
respect thereto.
Sagnac in particular cannot be explained by an absolute-time
and absolute-space/Galilean coordinate system.
>
> Hello?
>
> "What is the evidence for the invariance of the speed of light?
> The hypothesis that the speed of light is c relative to its source
> can easily be disproved by the one-way transmission of light from
> distant supernovae."
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
Nice explanation, but for H. Wilson it no workey. Why, I'm
not entirely sure, beyond perhaps a vague hand-waving that
all light originating from a moving source (relative to
the observer on Earth) hits gas or something and eventually
slows down (or speeds up!) to make everything c (relative
to the observer on Earth) eventually.
(There's a number of problems with this, of course.)
At that, it's a better explanation than Androcles' -- who
favors turtles, mosquitoes, grandrelations, and mathematical
"proofs" which "disprove" relativity by doing something
rather silly. A brief synopsis of his and H. Wilson's
"work" can be found at
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
although at this point it's getting rather unwieldly to search
through for nuggets -- there's so many thereof. ;-)
>
> But of course you'll deny the validity of this as well, eh?
>
>>>I am bored with your delusions.
>
>> ......No hope for this one Jim....
>
> Nice intro.
>
>> HW.
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>
>> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
>> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
>
> Where do you people come from anyway?
>
A question which is probably well outside the realm
of physics proper, but arguably worth contemplating
nonetheless... :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
surrealis...@hotmail.com
The problem with this viewpoint is that in physics when one describes
something, one uses numbers.
> Once said Alice in Wonderlander "grasped" that NON abstract, he MIGHT
> recognise the AE bullshit for what it is.
> Meanwhile said sandpitter has also revealed himself an indoctrinated
> accolyte, by failing once AGAIN to give an example of ANY physical
> entity of less than zero (nothing)
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
Let there be a coordinate system S at rest in the rest frame of the
ether. Let a light wave travel in the +x direction at speed c. Then let
a particle be emmited from the origin in the +x direction. The relative
velocity of the wave to the particle is c - v = c + (-v), (c>0, v>0).
-v is the velocity of something traveling in the -x direction at speed
v.
-x_1 is a position on the negative side of the x-axis of S at distance
|x_1| from the origin.
Without negative numbers you can't even do Cartesian geometry. Without
negative numbers you can't distinguish between coming and going or
between accelerating and decelerating. Action-reaction forces are equal
in magnitude and opposite in direction (opposite signs). Without
negative numbers you can't even do classical kinematics.
Numbers don't exist in a grab bag. They exist in a number system that
obey certain rules. You can choose from: integers, rationals, reals,
complex, Clifford, etc. What's your pleasure?
surrealis...@hotmail.com
jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
> > > Eric Gisse 19/8/04
> > >
> > > "The math is admittedly simple, but it is still wrong when it is used
> > > to connect to reality".
> > >
> >
> > I was talking to Eleaticus' about his Galilean transforms.
which use negative numbers!
> > But since
> > you are incapable of reading for what is written instead of for what
> > you want written, you wouldn't know that.
> >
> > > Anyone else want to join his crew to Lalaland?
> > >
> > > (eg Lil' Eric's "algebra"- a+a=2a BUT c+c<2c)
> >
> > Abstract concepts are hard, huh?
> >
> > It is NOT my fault that you are unable to keep more than one system of
> > internally consistant mathematics in your head at a time. I am being
> > generous in saying you can even do one.
> >
> > The mathematics are consistant, much like the ravings of those who do
> > not understand the mathematics.
> >
> > >
> > > I see a "time" when lil Eric GRASPS the fallacy of mixing negatives of
> > > positional description, with physical entities............:-)
> >
> > The electron and proton cannot be both positively charged.
>
> One is red, the other blue, and NIETHER is a "less than zero" entity.
> They BOTH produce a field/force.
Show us the algebra of colors.
> So what, if the forces are in opposite directions.
> FYI, forces are ALL "positive" (read exist). Otherwise WORK could never
> be done, as DISTANCE is always "positive" (on every occasion I use
> "positive", I mean greater than zero, ie exists)
W = \int |F . d |X = \int F cos \theta dX
If 90 < \theta < 270, then cos \theta < 0
Al Zenner
news:OvTif.102639$Es4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>>>I am bored with your delusions.
>> ......No hope for this one Jim....
> Absolutely right, H. Totally arrogant know-it-all fuckwit.
Thank you.
Tom Roberts
> The TRUTH of the situation of c'=c+v will be recognised when race as
> described (with short pulses of light), and it is unequivocally
> observed that the pulse (slug) from an approaching source arrives
> FIRST.
Distant supernovas do not behave that way. They spew out material in all
directions at a substantial fraction of c (~10,000 km/sec, determined by
Doppler broadening of emission lines), and radiation from this material
that can be observed here on earth. For SN1987A (170,000 ly away), if
the light traveled with speed c+v for v ~ 0.03 c, then this would imply
that light emitted by material headed straight toward us would arrive
~5000 years ahead of light emitted by material headed perpendicular to
us. In fact, images of SN1987A show an expanding debris cloud and
detailed structure (not just a small point from material headed directly
toward us). In 1997 the debris was 0.6 ly in diameter (i.e. expanding
~0.03 c) and was resolvable by the HST.
Elementary particle decays do not behave that way. The gammas from pi0
decay travel at c relative to the lab, despite the fact that the pi0
travel with v >~ 0.999 c.
There are other examples -- see the FAQ.
c+v is SOUNDLY rejected by observations in the world we inhabit.
I agree with the subject: Einstein was indeed smart. People who ignore
experimental evidence are not.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> [about supernova evidence against c+v]
> all plain propaganda.
So explain the HST images. SN1987A is 170,000 ly away, and the debris is
observed to be expanding ~0.03 c (both by Doppler broadening and direct
images from the HST). If light traveled at c+v, light from the material
headed toward us would arrive ~5000 years ahead of light from material
headed perpendicular to us, and such images would not be possible.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:dmhrga$e...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
Actually Wilson's and Geenfield's God created the light 6000
years ago and already well on its way to us, and he arranged
things in such a way that scientists on Earth would think that it
was created 170000 years ago and that every part of had the
same speed with respect to us. The idea is that only the True
Believers would "See the c+v Light", so to speak.
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
Wrong, shit-for-brains. ahaha... True believers believe in time travel
and the fact (proven by Einstein) that God does not play dice with the
universe. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
jgr...@seol.net.au
Al Zenner wrote:
> "jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in
> news:1133224937....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Al Zenner wrote:
>
> >> Well if you're as smart as you think you are you could just set up an
> >> experiment of your own. Measure the velocity of sunlight as the earth
> >> is approaching the sun and then measure it again as the earth is
> >> receding from the sun, with no "HOLY GRANT" involved. Report back
> >> here once you've done that.
>
> > Changes in the velocity of light are noticed every occasion a shift in
> > wavelength/frequency is noted due to a change in the relative motion of
> > source and receiver.
>
> You make this assertion but afford no citation nor do you offer proof. I
> guess this is the outgrowth of an inability to comprehend elementary
> physics and math along with an inability to set up and run the experiment
> I suggested. I see those inabilities have no hold on your spewing
> nonsense.
Will you allow that c = f x u be applied to the data?
Of course not! Idiot DHR's MUST have the magic that fu = c NO
MATTER WHAT
..........so fu2
>
> > The DHR lobby claims that this is due to magic;
> > that frequency alters conversely with wavelength (in order to maintain
> > c invariable "Because it DOES" (followed by nothing else but
> > foot-stamping and tantrums)
>
> You're the only one having tantrums and stamping your feet. Do you think
> light is conspiring against you by making everyone else believe it has a
> constant velocity in a vacuum while you and you alone are the keeper of
> some sacred truth that c varies according to motion of the source?
Being oblivious to truth and reality, you remain adamant that such
experiments have been done. FYI, c'=c+v experiments have NEVER been
done (on the basis of comparison, which every good empiricist knows is
CONFIRMATION.
Cite ONE experiment measuring light velocity, which does not PRESUME
the "magic".
..........................................
>
> > The TRUTH of the situation of c'=c+v will be recognised when race as
> > described (with short pulses of light), and it is unequivocally
> > observed that the pulse (slug) from an approaching source arrives
> > FIRST.
>
> Michelson-Morley already settled the issue and you dismiss it while
> anyone who knows anything about the subject embraces the results.
Is this a joke?
>
> > Your suggestion on earth / sun of course DOES show this, but the
> > doppler effect is WRONGLY attributed to aforementioned magic.
>
> I can't help your confusion between reality and magic. Have you tried
> legal medications or therepy?
Unlike you, I use logic, thought and observation.
You seem happy with brainwashing and indoctrination.
Your choice; goodonya
>
> > My race involves no clocks, no measurement of either frequency or
> > wavelength of the emr constituting the pulses-------------in short,
> > NOTHING which can be magically and mysteriously attributed to
> > aether-like properties.
> > Which is why it is so vehmently avoided by the DHR coven.
>
> MM settled the matter in 1887 leaving no need to undertake an even more
> complex experiment to cater to your personal inability to accept reality.
> Besides, if it were undertaken you'd complain about fraud when it proved
> once again that you're wrong.
Coward
>
> I am bored with your delusions.
.....and I with your ILLUSIONS (and dogma)
Goodbye
Jim G
c'=c+v
Timo Nieminen
> FYI, c'=c+v experiments have NEVER been
> done (on the basis of comparison, which every good empiricist knows is
> CONFIRMATION.
> Cite ONE experiment measuring light velocity, which does not PRESUME
> the "magic".
Arago, 1806-1810. See D. F. J. Arago, Me'moire sur la vitesse de la
lumie`re, Comptes Rendus Acade'mie des Sciences 36, 38-49 (1853).
So much for "NEVER".
--
Timo
Androcles
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:hb2po11rbei4f40h9...@4ax.com...
God doesn't play craps, but He likes roulette and blackjack
and He craps on relativists.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, Al Zenner
><az...@zenner.com>
> wrote
>on Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:44:14 -0500
><Xns971CF1...@63.223.5.248>:
>> HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>> news:umnno11qr6nicnju4...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:05:30 -0500, Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Michelson-Morley already settled the issue and you dismiss it while
>>>>anyone who knows anything about the subject embraces the results.
>>
>>> The MMX simply proved that light speed is source dependent.
>
>Actually, it proves that an absolute aether doesn't
>exist and that lightspeed is c relative to the source.
It didn't prove that at all, in light of Lorentz..
It merely showed that things contract when moving in the supposed Michelson
aether.
>Other experiments show lightspeed is c relative to the
>observer as well, regardless of motion of the source with
>respect thereto.
Name one Ghost....one we can believe....
>
>Sagnac in particular cannot be explained by an absolute-time
>and absolute-space/Galilean coordinate system.
I have just explained it to George.
Androcles
It's an accretion disk near a black hole that YOU TESTED the strong
field of. You OBSERVED it, remember?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes --Tom Roberts.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040220.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000512.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000206.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000217.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990209.html
Oh wait... there are three of them. Roberts is seeing triple.
Must be some good shit you are smokin', Roberts.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
From my experience with matching quite a few observed variable star curves with
the BaTh predictions, it appears that some kind of speed unification takes
place which causes long distance brightness curves to appear as they would at
no more than around 20-30 LYs from the source.
In other words, fast light no longer catches slow light after this order of
distance.
During the unification process, doppler shift takes place... so that we on
Earth still get an indication of the true velocities associated with the source
(relative to us).
However, one must always keep in mind that everything observed in space is
basically a Willusion. One has to try to interpret the truth FROM that
Willusion.
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henri Wilson
>jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>> The TRUTH of the situation of c'=c+v will be recognised when race as
>> described (with short pulses of light), and it is unequivocally
>> observed that the pulse (slug) from an approaching source arrives
>> FIRST.
>
>Distant supernovas do not behave that way. They spew out material in all
>directions at a substantial fraction of c (~10,000 km/sec, determined by
>Doppler broadening of emission lines), and radiation from this material
>that can be observed here on earth. For SN1987A (170,000 ly away), if
>the light traveled with speed c+v for v ~ 0.03 c, then this would imply
>that light emitted by material headed straight toward us would arrive
>~5000 years ahead of light emitted by material headed perpendicular to
>us. In fact, images of SN1987A show an expanding debris cloud and
>detailed structure (not just a small point from material headed directly
>toward us). In 1997 the debris was 0.6 ly in diameter (i.e. expanding
>~0.03 c) and was resolvable by the HST.
You don't seem to understand that you are blindly accepting all these figures
as though they are necessarily correct.
As I pointed out above, they are all part of the Willusion, the task is to find
the true facts from that willusion.
>
>Elementary particle decays do not behave that way. The gammas from pi0
>decay travel at c relative to the lab, despite the fact that the pi0
>travel with v >~ 0.999 c.
The pions were at rest when they decayed.
.....and anyway, if a golf ball traveling at v breaks in half, both halves
still initially travel at v.
>
>There are other examples -- see the FAQ.
>
>
>c+v is SOUNDLY rejected by observations in the world we inhabit.
In the world we inhabit, 'v' plays no effective part in our observations.
In the space we observe from great distances, 'v' plays a vital part in the
images we see.
>I agree with the subject: Einstein was indeed smart. People who ignore
>experimental evidence are not.
Tell me about ONE experiment that has directly measured ONE WAY light speed
from a moving source.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:08:27 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
> >> The TRUTH of the situation of c'=c+v will be recognised when race as
> >> described (with short pulses of light), and it is unequivocally
> >> observed that the pulse (slug) from an approaching source arrives
> >> FIRST.
> >
> >Distant supernovas do not behave that way. They spew out material in all
> >directions at a substantial fraction of c (~10,000 km/sec, determined by
> >Doppler broadening of emission lines), and radiation from this material
> >that can be observed here on earth. For SN1987A (170,000 ly away), if
> >the light traveled with speed c+v for v ~ 0.03 c, then this would imply
> >that light emitted by material headed straight toward us would arrive
> >~5000 years ahead of light emitted by material headed perpendicular to
> >us. In fact, images of SN1987A show an expanding debris cloud and
> >detailed structure (not just a small point from material headed directly
> >toward us). In 1997 the debris was 0.6 ly in diameter (i.e. expanding
> >~0.03 c) and was resolvable by the HST.
>
> You don't seem to understand that you are blindly accepting all these figures
> as though they are necessarily correct.
> As I pointed out above, they are all part of the Willusion, the task is to find
> the true facts from that willusion.
Hahahaha.
"Willusion".
Your theory is incapable of predicting the reality behind "Willusions",
nor is it capable as acting as a map between the "Willusion" and
reality.
SR, GR and QM on the other hand, do not have to play bullshit games by
proclaiming all of reality to be an illusion.
>
> >
> >Elementary particle decays do not behave that way. The gammas from pi0
> >decay travel at c relative to the lab, despite the fact that the pi0
> >travel with v >~ 0.999 c.
>
> The pions were at rest when they decayed.
Lying again, Henri?
If you haven't read the literature, don't talk about it. If you have,
don't lie about it.
>
> .....and anyway, if a golf ball traveling at v breaks in half, both halves
> still initially travel at v.
>
> >
> >There are other examples -- see the FAQ.
> >
> >
> >c+v is SOUNDLY rejected by observations in the world we inhabit.
>
> In the world we inhabit, 'v' plays no effective part in our observations.
> In the space we observe from great distances, 'v' plays a vital part in the
> images we see.
Every time someone other than yourself does the analysis, the theory
does not match reality.
Every time you do the analysis....oh wait you have never done the
analysis.
>
> >I agree with the subject: Einstein was indeed smart. People who ignore
> >experimental evidence are not.
>
> Tell me about ONE experiment that has directly measured ONE WAY light speed
> from a moving source.
Why is it everyone else's responsibility but your's to do research?
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:54:28 GMT
<oaqpo19su92m17ou3...@4ax.com>:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, Al Zenner
>><az...@zenner.com>
>> wrote
>>on Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:44:14 -0500
>><Xns971CF1...@63.223.5.248>:
>>> HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in
>>> news:umnno11qr6nicnju4...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:05:30 -0500, Al Zenner <az...@zenner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Michelson-Morley already settled the issue and you dismiss it while
>>>>>anyone who knows anything about the subject embraces the results.
>>>
>>>> The MMX simply proved that light speed is source dependent.
>>
>>Actually, it proves that an absolute aether doesn't
>>exist and that lightspeed is c relative to the source.
>
> It didn't prove that at all, in light of Lorentz..
> It merely showed that things contract when moving in the supposed Michelson
> aether.
>
>>Other experiments show lightspeed is c relative to the
>>observer as well, regardless of motion of the source with
>>respect thereto.
>
> Name one Ghost....one we can believe....
AFAICT, there are no experiments you would believe.
There are several which are sufficient for me, but would
be fairly technical and involve, among other things,
moving muons with crude measurement methods, supernovae,
and a laser beam speckling amongst the wall.
All these are suggestive of a c'=c mentality; however,
that is far from sufficient, as SR can never be proven
(no good theory can be proven absolutely, although I for
one consider it shown beyond a reasonable doubt pending
more info). It's a pity the Cassini/Hyugens measurements
were withdrawn; those might at least have shed some light
(in the form of radio communications) on the problem,
properly conducted.
>
>>
>>Sagnac in particular cannot be explained by an absolute-time
>>and absolute-space/Galilean coordinate system.
>
> I have just explained it to George.
Ah, of course. But can you explain it mathematically? Here's
the problem.
A disc of radius r is rotating at an angular velocity w.
(The edge velocity is therefore v = rw.) A cable is
stretched around the periphery of this disc, with a light
source and detector unit placed next to (but facing in
the wrong direction) each other. The light will go around
the disc and into the detector. The velocity within the
cable is some speed k < c = 1.
What is the speed of light as shown by the detector?
rotating coordinate system:
Speed of light is k, goes around the ring at k,
therefore time is 2 * pi * r/k.
stationary coordinate system:
Speed of light is k+v, but the detector is also
moving at v. Therefore, time is still 2 * pi * r/k.
SR/GTR:
http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html
suggests that the time of the signal is
( (1+kv)/(1-v^2) ) * 2 * pi * r/k, as measured by someone
standing next to the disc.
A more interesting metric is the difference in travel times,
if one changes the beam direction between measurements.
For Galilean the difference is obviously not dependent on v,
therefore the delta is absolutely 0.
However, for SR/GTR, as measured from the stationary
reference frame, the delta is 4*pi*r*v/(1-v^2) -- and this
effect does not depend at all on the speed of the signal
through the cable, merely on the edge speed of the disc
and its radius.
Since ring-laser gyroscopes are in use -- see, for instance,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/may-jun/siuru.html
for a piece by Colonel William D. Siuru, JR., USAF (Ret) on a
military website -- I'd say Galileo isn't working all that
well here to explain the effect.
Disclaimer: I've not performed experiments on this myself.
Assuming a 3 inch radius (76.2mm) disc spinning at 10,000 RPM
oen gets an edge speed of 79.8 m/s, or 2.66 * 10^-7 c. The
effect would therefore be on the order of 255 nanoseconds.
The main issue at this speed would be dynamic balancing.
[rest snipped]
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>>>Other experiments show lightspeed is c relative to the
>>>observer as well, regardless of motion of the source with
>>>respect thereto.
>>
>> Name one Ghost....one we can believe....
>
>AFAICT, there are no experiments you would believe.
I will believe them if they are believable.
>There are several which are sufficient for me, but would
>be fairly technical and involve, among other things,
>moving muons with crude measurement methods, supernovae,
>and a laser beam speckling amongst the wall.
>
>All these are suggestive of a c'=c mentality; however,
>that is far from sufficient, as SR can never be proven
>(no good theory can be proven absolutely, although I for
>one consider it shown beyond a reasonable doubt pending
>more info). It's a pity the Cassini/Hyugens measurements
>were withdrawn; those might at least have shed some light
>(in the form of radio communications) on the problem,
>properly conducted.
Didn't I read somewhere that the Jupiter probe has annihilated SR?
>>>Sagnac in particular cannot be explained by an absolute-time
>>>and absolute-space/Galilean coordinate system.
>>
>> I have just explained it to George.
>
>Ah, of course. But can you explain it mathematically? Here's
>the problem.
I'm working on it Ghost. It ain't easy.
Ghost, we are only discussing four mirror sagnacs.
Fibre optic ones are to hard to follow. They effectively contain an infinite
number of mirrors that reflect at an infinitesimal angle.
Interestingly, however, one article about FoGs said that if they use c instead
of c/n for the speed of light inside the fibre, they get the SR prediction.
That ratio is about the same as 1/sqrt2, which appears in the BaTh analysis.
>Since ring-laser gyroscopes are in use -- see, for instance,
>http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/may-jun/siuru.html
>for a piece by Colonel William D. Siuru, JR., USAF (Ret) on a
>military website -- I'd say Galileo isn't working all that
>well here to explain the effect.
I don't think ring lasers use the sagnac principle at all.
>
>Disclaimer: I've not performed experiments on this myself.
>Assuming a 3 inch radius (76.2mm) disc spinning at 10,000 RPM
>oen gets an edge speed of 79.8 m/s, or 2.66 * 10^-7 c. The
>effect would therefore be on the order of 255 nanoseconds.
>
>The main issue at this speed would be dynamic balancing.
>
>[rest snipped]
Ghost, I think there is a lot more to sagnac than anyone has previously
anticipated.
I am currently considering that light has a 'mass equivalent' and is subject to
centrifugal force in a rotating sagnac. That would do all kinds of strange
things to fringes.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:thqpo15ktdcjhsht2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:18:36 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> [about supernova evidence against c+v]
> >> all plain propaganda.
> >
> >So explain the HST images. SN1987A is 170,000 ly away, and the debris is
> >observed to be expanding ~0.03 c (both by Doppler broadening and direct
> >images from the HST). If light traveled at c+v, light from the material
> >headed toward us would arrive ~5000 years ahead of light from material
> >headed perpendicular to us, and such images would not be possible.
>
> From my experience with matching quite a few observed variable star curves with
> the BaTh predictions, it appears that some kind of speed unification takes
> place which causes long distance brightness curves to appear as they would at
> no more than around 20-30 LYs from the source.
>
> In other words, fast light no longer catches slow light after this order of
> distance.
>
> During the unification process, doppler shift takes place... so that we on
> Earth still get an indication of the true velocities associated with the source
> (relative to us).
>
> However, one must always keep in mind that everything observed in space is
> basically a Willusion. One has to try to interpret the truth FROM that
> Willusion.
The 6000 years explanation in all its glory, just like I predicted :-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedUni.html
Excellent, Rabbidge :-)
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:08:27 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>
I am still ignoring you geese but will define 'Willusion' for Tom's sake.
A Willusion is a specific type of illusion applicable to observations of very
distant objects. It describes image 'distortions' in time and space caused by
light's variable speed and travel times between moving sources and the
observer.
Henri Wilson
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
<mkrqo1lpir7c8ulos...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
>><HW@>
>> wrote
>
>>>>Other experiments show lightspeed is c relative to the
>>>>observer as well, regardless of motion of the source with
>>>>respect thereto.
>>>
>>> Name one Ghost....one we can believe....
>>
>>AFAICT, there are no experiments you would believe.
>
> I will believe them if they are believable.
>
>>There are several which are sufficient for me, but would
>>be fairly technical and involve, among other things,
>>moving muons with crude measurement methods, supernovae,
>>and a laser beam speckling amongst the wall.
>>
>>All these are suggestive of a c'=c mentality; however,
>>that is far from sufficient, as SR can never be proven
>>(no good theory can be proven absolutely, although I for
>>one consider it shown beyond a reasonable doubt pending
>>more info). It's a pity the Cassini/Hyugens measurements
>>were withdrawn; those might at least have shed some light
>>(in the form of radio communications) on the problem,
>>properly conducted.
>
> Didn't I read somewhere that the Jupiter probe has annihilated SR?
Probably. There's a lot of crap out there. :-) Google didn't
find anything for me, though.
It shouldn't make any difference. Pick any number of mirrors
one likes.
A fiberoptic cable bends the light internally, so that it
doesn't refract out of the cable, regardless of how the
cable is bent (within mechanical limits). It's not quite
a mirror, but one can model it as such. There are also
larger "lighttubes" which are designed to direct incoming
sunlight to where the designer wants; these are not usually
employed in scientific endeavors but the concept might be
useful here.
>
> Interestingly, however, one article about FoGs said that
> if they use c instead of c/n for the speed of light
> inside the fibre, they get the SR prediction.
> That ratio is about the same as 1/sqrt2, which appears in
> the BaTh analysis.
I'd have to analyze this. The formula is *independent* of v,
anyway; therefore one can take the limit without difficulty.
>
>>Since ring-laser gyroscopes are in use -- see, for instance,
>>http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/may-jun/siuru.html
>>for a piece by Colonel William D. Siuru, JR., USAF (Ret) on a
>>military website -- I'd say Galileo isn't working all that
>>well here to explain the effect.
>
> I don't think ring lasers use the sagnac principle at all.
What principle do they use, then? Willusions?
And then there's GPS, which uses SR/GTR concepts to get
its work done...but obviously GPS can't use SR/GTR either,
as "nobody's ever shown an experiment disproving BaTh".
>
>>
>>Disclaimer: I've not performed experiments on this myself.
>>Assuming a 3 inch radius (76.2mm) disc spinning at 10,000 RPM
>>oen gets an edge speed of 79.8 m/s, or 2.66 * 10^-7 c. The
>>effect would therefore be on the order of 255 nanoseconds.
>>
>>The main issue at this speed would be dynamic balancing.
>>
>>[rest snipped]
>
>
> Ghost, I think there is a lot more to sagnac than anyone has previously
> anticipated.
> I am currently considering that light has a 'mass equivalent' and
> is subject to centrifugal force in a rotating sagnac. That would
> do all kinds of strange things to fringes.
Light *does* have a mass-equivalent in Galilean theory. It won't make
any difference to the predictions thereof, since there's no difference
in the space/time intervals between the rotating coordinate system and
the stationary one.
In short, Galileo theory's totally [censored] here. It predicts 0.
The effect is easily measured (and exploited) and is not 0.
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>
> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
surrealis...@hotmail.com
You do not understand the importance of the negative principle (a
principle stating an impossibility). In this case we have the negative
principle that it is impossible for an experiment to produce a result
contradicting the assumption of the constancy of the one-way speed of
light in a vacuum in an inertial frame.
The point being that such a principle is used to make predictions of
what a two-way measurment would make. Even a principle that cannot be
directly tested can still act as a constraint on the theoretical
system.
Tom Roberts
> In other words, fast light no longer catches slow light after this order of
> distance.
Magic is not physics.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
donsto...@hotmail.com
******************
"Any sufficiently advanced physics is indistinguishable from magic."
- Waldo C. Clarke
Tom Roberts
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:08:27 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> You don't seem to understand that you are blindly accepting all these figures
> as though they are necessarily correct.
> As I pointed out above, they are all part of the Willusion, the task is to find
> the true facts from that willusion.
Magic is not physics.
>>Elementary particle decays do not behave that way. The gammas from pi0
>>decay travel at c relative to the lab, despite the fact that the pi0
>>travel with v >~ 0.999 c.
>
> The pions were at rest when they decayed.
Sure they are.
Asserting that everyone else is wrong is not physics.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2005 17:17:26 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:08:27 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> I am still ignoring you geese but will define 'Willusion' for Tom's sake.
>
> A Willusion is a specific type of illusion applicable to observations of very
> distant objects. It describes image 'distortions' in time and space caused by
> light's variable speed and travel times between moving sources and the
> observer.
Every time someone else does the analysis it turns out your theory is
untenable.
Every time you do the analysis...oh wait, I have never seen you analyze
your theory and see what it actually predicts.
Androcles
Asserting the observation of accretion disks near black holes are evidence
of strong fields is not physics. Lies, yes, physics, no.
Androcles.
hanson
news:1133366049.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com wrote:
> > Magic is not physics.
>
[Stocky]
> "Any sufficiently advanced physics is indistinguishable from magic."
> - Waldo C. Clarke
>
But, most of 'em in these NGs do treat the 100 year old Einstein
stuff as if it were magic to them.... even if it has only produced
"Magic that is not physics".... said even master Einstein,
the grand con artist, himself:
"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."
-- Albert Einstein in a 1954 letter to Michele Besso.
Stocky, Einstein apparently knew something about the
"global brain" and he was certainly disturbed by the self-
evident, obvious fact that nature is discrete and self-similar.
But his steam roller kept him waltzing around and around in
the cul de sac of the kind of relativity that he had created...
ahahahaha... ahahanson
tadchem
Almost...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke
"Almost only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades." - proverb
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:18:36 +1000, Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 29 Nov 2005, jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
> >
> >> FYI, c'=c+v experiments have NEVER been
> >> done (on the basis of comparison, which every good empiricist knows is
> >> CONFIRMATION.
> >> Cite ONE experiment measuring light velocity, which does not PRESUME
> >> the "magic".
> >
> >Arago, 1806-1810. See D. F. J. Arago, Me'moire sur la vitesse de la
> >lumie`re, Comptes Rendus Acade'mie des Sciences 36, 38-49 (1853).
> >
> >So much for "NEVER".
>
> describe it
Do your own research. It defys my understanding how you can always
expect others to do your work for you, then shit all over them when you
don't like what they tell you.
Tom Roberts
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>> The pions were at rest when they decayed.
>
> Sure they are.
I meant "sure they are moving.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Timo Nieminen
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:18:36 +1000, Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2005, jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, c'=c+v experiments have NEVER been
>>> done (on the basis of comparison, which every good empiricist knows is
>>> CONFIRMATION.
>>> Cite ONE experiment measuring light velocity, which does not PRESUME
>>> the "magic".
>>
>> Arago, 1806-1810. See D. F. J. Arago, Me'moire sur la vitesse de la
>> lumie`re, Comptes Rendus Acade'mie des Sciences 36, 38-49 (1853).
>>
>> So much for "NEVER".
>
> describe it
What, you can't read the paper yourself? With Newtonian ballistic light,
it was assumed that the angle of refraction would depend on the speed of
the incident light; therefore, the relative velocities of sources of light
could be measured by measuring the change in refraction angle. The
experiment was done.
--
Timo