Just For a Change.
HenriWilson
handle it.
On local radio here yesterday, two announcers had revitalised and were trying
to solve that old riddle which goes:
________
A man is looking at a portrait on the wall and says, "sisters and brothers have
I none, but that man's father is my father's son".
The question is, who is in the portrait?
________
Of course, this is a very simple problem and no one here should take more than
a few seconds to come up with the right answer (excepting, of course, Dinky who
will search for the intrinsic fumble and Varney who will work through the phone
book till he finds a likely candidate).
What has amazed me is the number of people who cannot deduce the correct
answer. Not only that, they cannot see why the answer they give is wrong. Even
when given the right answer, they are incapable of understanding why that is
so. One fellow I spoke to became quite irate and insisted there were two
possible answers. Another claimed that the 'sisers and brothers' bit was
totally irrelevant.
I have now reached the conclusion that most people, particularly the female
variety, have no powers of logic at all...(maybe SRians also fall into this
category). They do not know how to even approach a logical problem........ yet
these people are allowed to vote in elections.
No wonder homo sapiens 'ain't goin' nowhere fast'!!!
I ask, are we physicists so very different from the rest of society?
Apparently the answer is yes.
Henri Wilson.
YBM
> Forget physics for a moment. Let's concentrate on logic and the way people
> handle it.
>
> On local radio here yesterday, two announcers had revitalised and were trying
> to solve that old riddle which goes:
> ________
> A man is looking at a portrait on the wall and says, "sisters and brothers have
> I none, but that man's father is my father's son".
>
> The question is, who is in the portrait?
> ________
I wonder if you could give us the right answer... Could you ?
HenriWilson
No I'll let you work it out, Moron.
Try asking around, you will be amazed how many people simply cannot get it.
Henri Wilson.
Bill Hobba
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:bs2k50ph5fht422t4...@4ax.com...
I ask on what basis do you consider yourself a physicist and on what basis
you consider your sexist diatribe in any way reflects the views of
physicists (of which I am not). If you had even 1% of the brains of Emily
Noether you would see yourself for what you are - a sexist poser with
delusions of grandeur.
Thanks
Bill
YBM
> No I'll let you work it out, Moron.
>
> Try asking around, you will be amazed how many people simply cannot get it.
Hum... I'd guess you don't know the right answer, and I would bet you'll
be unable to give it here (.exe cartoons are not considered as answers)
Satan Loves You
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:405a50bf$0$10165$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net...
Harold Ensle
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:bs2k50ph5fht422t4...@4ax.com...
> handle it.
>
> On local radio here yesterday, two announcers had revitalised and were
trying
> to solve that old riddle which goes:
> ________
> A man is looking at a portrait on the wall and says, "sisters and brothers
have
> I none, but that man's father is my father's son".
>
> The question is, who is in the portrait?
> ________
himself
H.Ellis Ensle
George Kinley
respond by looking at you.
Is that mean everyone is stupid , or they are looking at one
--Gk
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:bs2k50ph5fht422t4...@4ax.com...
Tom Potter
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:bs2k50ph5fht422t4...@4ax.com...
Henri Wilson makes a good point!
Some people are better at solving logical problems than others,
and some are better at composing songs and creating art,
and some are better at performing music and art,
and some are better at engineering the products we need and love,
and some are better at making the things we need and love,
and some are better at servicing the things we need and love,
and some are better at cleaning up the messes we make,
and some are better at planning, organizing, selling, managing,
growing, mining, transporting, etc.
What would the world be like
if we didn't have all these great folks?
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
kenseto
ROTFLOL,
Henri is right. All the runts of the learned SRians in this NG are morons .
They
can't even figure out a simple riddle. It is obvious that the man in the
portrait is himself.
Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:bs2k50ph5fht422t4...@4ax.com...
> and the way people handle it.
We know since long that you can't and that some who
have replied can't either...
>
> On local radio here yesterday, two announcers had
> revitalised and were trying to solve that old riddle
> which goes:
> ________
> A man is looking at a portrait on the wall and says,
> "sisters and brothers have I none, but that man's father
> is my father's son".
>
> The question is, who is in the portrait?
His son.
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> skrev i melding news:105lveh...@corp.supernews.com...
So his father is his fathers son.
Which makes his father his brother of which he has none.
So he must be his own father.
Interesting family. :-)
Paul
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:c3f24g$ktb$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
<shrug> Here's what Henri said:
"A man is looking at a portrait on the wall and says, "sisters and brothers
have
I none, but __that man's father is my father's son__"
Paul, if you keep on using your SR logic you will never get it. :-)
Ken Seto
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Let's call the man looking A, the man in the portrait B, the father of
the man looking C, and the father of the man in the portrait D.
Then Henri's statement becomes: D is the son of C.
Since the only son of C is A (A has no brothers), it follows that D is
A.
Since B is the son of D, it follows that B is the son of A.
Hence we conclude: The man in the protrait is the son of the man who is
looking.
Where is the flaw in this logic, please?
Bye,
Bjoern
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:105m3jh...@corp.supernews.com...
As brilliant as Wilson:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ROTFLOL.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harold Ensle" <hee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:U2w6c.47535$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
... playing Monopoly?
Well done!
Dirk Vd
>
kenseto
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:405B20A8...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
No it doesn't. D and C are the same person....the father of the man looking
and the father of the man in the portrait.
>
> Since the only son of C is A (A has no brothers), it follows that D is
> A.
NO. A and B are they same person. That's why C has only one son.
> Since B is the son of D, it follows that B is the son of A.
NO.....A and B are the same person.
>
> Hence we conclude: The man in the protrait is the son of the man who is
> looking.
Wrong conclusion based of faulty reasoning.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:105mbqp...@corp.supernews.com...
Seto, please stop it?
I can't possible take *all* your shit in one fumble...
Please?
Thanks!
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
You can see what I mean. Even here there are people who cannot deduce or even
understand the right answer.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:bs2k50ph5fht422t4...@4ax.com...
>> Forget physics for a moment. Let's concentrate on logic and the way people
>> handle it.
>>
>>
>> I have now reached the conclusion that most people, particularly the
>female
>> variety, have no powers of logic at all...(maybe SRians also fall into
>this
>> category). They do not know how to even approach a logical problem........
>yet
>> these people are allowed to vote in elections.
>>
>> No wonder homo sapiens 'ain't goin' nowhere fast'!!!
>>
>>
>> I ask, are we physicists so very different from the rest of society?
>> Apparently the answer is yes.
>
>Henri Wilson makes a good point!
>
>Some people are better at solving logical problems than others,
>and some are better at composing songs and creating art,
>and some are better at performing music and art,
>and some are better at engineering the products we need and love,
>and some are better at making the things we need and love,
>and some are better at servicing the things we need and love,
>and some are better at cleaning up the messes we make,
>and some are better at planning, organizing, selling, managing,
>growing, mining, transporting, etc.
>
>What would the world be like
>if we didn't have all these great folks?
That's exactly what I pointed out to one fellow who simply couldn't get the
answer.
The world would be a boring place if we were all the same. Imagine this group
without Ken!
No doubt variety and specialization are prime reasons for man's succesful
evolution.
We are a team of individuals with very diffferent abilities....and they are all
needed.
Strangely, until the last 400 or so years, women were rarely called upon to
apply logic to anything.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>IF you say "HEY STUPID" aloud in public a library , almost everyone will
>respond by looking at you.
>Is that mean everyone is stupid , or they are looking at one
>--Gk
:)
That's a good one!
Henri Wilson.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:bchm50hpevq72g483...@4ax.com...
Yes, we see what you mean: Seto, you and Ensle couldn't deduce
the right answer. Unless you think that the three of you are somehow
physicists, I'd say that this was the anticlimax of the century.
Well done.
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
Score so far:
Ballisticians:10/10
Srians: indeterminate
Aetherians: 0/10
Henri Wilson.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:5fhm50tgutagcij9u...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> That's exactly what I pointed out to one fellow who simply couldn't get the
> answer.
>
> The world would be a boring place if we were all the same. Imagine this group
> without Ken!
Indeed, it would be a group with Wilson at the bottom.
> No doubt variety and specialization are prime reasons for man's succesful
> evolution.
Your kind did not evolve. Village Idiots were created as a
special permanently fixed species with a minimal number of
genes.
> We are a team of individuals with very diffferent abilities....and they are all
> needed.
Absolutely, we all need some entertainment.
> Strangely, until the last 400 or so years, women were rarely called upon to
> apply logic to anything.
To anything:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogicBull.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/BULLfighter.jpg
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
Instead of whining, Bill, why don't you ask a few women to solve the riddle.
You might learn something.
Henri Wilson.
mitch perkins
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:bs2k50ph5fht422t4...@4ax.com...
> > A man is looking at a portrait on the wall and says,
> > "sisters and brothers have I none, but that man's father
> > is my father's son".
> >
> > The question is, who is in the portrait?
>
> His son.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk, sorry about that crap awhile back in Mike Helland's "What
sound.." thread (don't look it up(!), just please accept my apology),
my knowledge is but a planck length of yours. ~:?)
I was all set to post that the man was looknig (I like that better
than "looking") at a portrait of his *dead* brother, but I think you
are unquestionably right. The key is the only statement that makes
sense - "I am my father's son". Thus "that man's father" = "I". The
man to whom I am father is my son. I wonder how long it took you to
figure it out, and if it had anything to do with your being a male
physicist? &;?}
Cheers,
Mitch
Dirk Van de moortel
"mitch perkins" <mitchs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:64dddc3d.0403...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<KzD6c.1259$kh4...@news.cpqcorp.net>...
> > "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:bs2k50ph5fht422t4...@4ax.com...
>
> > > A man is looking at a portrait on the wall and says,
> > > "sisters and brothers have I none, but that man's father
> > > is my father's son".
> > >
> > > The question is, who is in the portrait?
> >
> > His son.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk, sorry about that crap awhile back in Mike Helland's "What
> sound.." thread (don't look it up(!), just please accept my apology),
Ha, that one... never mind, no need to apologize. You did
nothing wrong - you merely expressed a genuine feeling based
on incomplete information - that is 100% okay.
> my knowledge is but a planck length of yours. ~:?)
>
> I was all set to post that the man was looknig (I like that better
> than "looking") at a portrait of his *dead* brother, but I think you
> are unquestionably right. The key is the only statement that makes
> sense - "I am my father's son". Thus "that man's father" = "I". The
> man to whom I am father is my son. I wonder how long it took you to
> figure it out, and if it had anything to do with your being a male
> physicist? &;?}
My first thought was 'myself', but when I tried it out, I noticed
that it didn't work, so I tried with my son, which seemed okay.
If I would have a brother, it could have been my nephew.
Your *dead* brother solution is perfect as well, although some
might be (unrightfully) picky on the usage of 'is' in stead of 'was'.
I am male, but I'm not a physicist :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Mitch
Cheers indeed,
Dirk Vdm
P.s. I don't know why, but that 'looknig' remark up there
somehow gave me an eerie feeling... <quiver>
Harold Ensle
"Harold Ensle" <hee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:U2w6c.47535$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
Oops.......it should be his son.
Yes....I know it is hard to believe that I could make a mistake.
But it happens on occasion.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
I answered rather quickly and I notice (from another post)
that this was your first thought as well.
Of course, I corrected it when I thought about it again.
You see, I am self-correcting. Unfortunately, some people
get so stuck with an idea (e.g. relativity) that they cannot
correct themselves...no matter how much evidence is provided.
H.Ellis Ensle
HenriWilson
Actually, you rasie a good point. The portrait could be his nephew from a now
deceased brother.
The riddle doesn't actually say he didn't once have a brother who is now
deceased.
Henri Wilson.
Eric Gisse
Such as?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <fs...@uaf.edu> wrote in message news:fd0fc2fa.04032...@posting.google.com...
such as "the dog will eat the dice":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Monopoly.html
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
Sorry I goofed. It should be his son.
Ken Seto
kenseto
You are right. I made a mistake. It should be his son.
Ken Seto
John Zinni
>
> Actually, you rasie a good point. The portrait could be his nephew from a
now
> deceased brother.
> The riddle doesn't actually say he didn't once have a brother who is now
> deceased.
A deceased brother, is still a brother.
mitch perkins
> "mitch perkins" <mitchs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:64dddc3d.0403...@posting.google.com...
> > I was all set to post that the man was looknig (I like that better
> > than "looking") at a portrait of his *dead* brother, but I think you
> > are unquestionably right.
> > Cheers,
> > Mitch
>
> Cheers indeed,
> Dirk Vdm
>
> P.s. I don't know why, but that 'looknig' remark up there
> somehow gave me an eerie feeling... <quiver>
EEEYeeechhh! I think I see what you mean. So many times I have
stumbled while employing absurdity in humour. I'll say, "oops, forgot
my knees!", turn around, and there is a person in a wheelchair. Or
else what one meant to have no meaning at all has the worst meaning
possible in the moment. Even worse on usenet, where bald type stands
open to misinterpretation. I thought the above typo looked pretty
funny. Given the chance I would go back and correct it.
Had I posted my dead brother response, I *was* going to point out
that the riddle was a cheat because "is" should be "was". Moot, as
yours is the only correct answer; my (dead or alive) brother would be
my father's son, but his father wouldn't be.
Thanks for responding. I'm having a pretty good time here on sp, I
wish I had some physics to contribute! ~:?) In the spirit of
intellectual honesty, I think I just want to "hang around" with smart
people.
Later,
Mitch
The Ghost In The Machine
<He...@the.edge>
wrote
on Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:24:37 GMT
<bs2k50ph5fht422t4...@4ax.com>:
> Forget physics for a moment. Let's concentrate on logic and the way people
> handle it.
>
> On local radio here yesterday, two announcers had revitalised
> and were trying to solve that old riddle which goes:
> ________
>
> The question is, who is in the portrait?
And why is his wife left out of it? After all, she did most of the work...
:-)
> ________
>
> Of course, this is a very simple problem and no one here should
> take more than a few seconds to come up with the right answer
> (excepting, of course, Dinky who will search for the intrinsic
> fumble and Varney who will work through the phone book till he
> finds a likely candidate).
>
> What has amazed me is the number of people who cannot deduce
> the correct answer. Not only that, they cannot see why the
> answer they give is wrong. Even when given the right answer,
> they are incapable of understanding why that is so. One fellow
> I spoke to became quite irate and insisted there were two
> possible answers. Another claimed that the 'sisers and brothers'
> bit was totally irrelevant.
>
> I have now reached the conclusion that most people, particularly
> the female variety, have no powers of logic at all...(maybe SRians
> also fall into this category). They do not know how to even
> approach a logical problem........ yet
> these people are allowed to vote in elections.
>
> No wonder homo sapiens 'ain't goin' nowhere fast'!!!
>
>
> I ask, are we physicists so very different from the rest of society?
> Apparently the answer is yes.
>
Nice rant, but can you now justify how SR and GR are falsified by an
experiment, preferably a simple one?
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Eric Gisse
<snip>
> > >
> > > I answered rather quickly and I notice (from another post)
> > > that this was your first thought as well.
> > >
> > > Of course, I corrected it when I thought about it again.
> > >
> > > You see, I am self-correcting. Unfortunately, some people
> > > get so stuck with an idea (e.g. relativity) that they cannot
> > > correct themselves...no matter how much evidence is provided.
> > >
> > > H.Ellis Ensle
> >
> > Such as?
>
> such as "the dog will eat the dice":
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Monopoly.html
>
> Dirk Vdm
Ive seen that. Its nice.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Yes OK, we wont worry too much about that.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
Just measure OWLS from a moving source and you will have all the proof you
need.
>
>>
>> Henri Wilson.
>>
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson.
Harold Ensle
Nice??????
Do you realize that it is all made up?
Nobody...and I mean nobody (crackpot
or non-crackpot) ever posted any arguments
like this.
It is simply nonsense that Dirk made up.
Perhaps one might find it humorous if
they like the word "fart", but it just doesn't
mean anything....and stylewise it looks like
something a 10 year old would write.
The biggest laugh is that Dirk is actually
proud of it.
Telling indeed!
H.Ellis Ensle
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harold Ensle" <hee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:iU97c.31477$%06.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Eric Gisse" <fs...@uaf.edu> wrote in message
> news:fd0fc2fa.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:<nHU6c.42038$Mq7.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > I answered rather quickly and I notice (from another post)
> > > > > that this was your first thought as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, I corrected it when I thought about it again.
> > > > >
> > > > > You see, I am self-correcting. Unfortunately, some people
> > > > > get so stuck with an idea (e.g. relativity) that they cannot
> > > > > correct themselves...no matter how much evidence is provided.
> > > > >
> > > > > H.Ellis Ensle
> > > >
> > > > Such as?
> > >
> > > such as "the dog will eat the dice":
> > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Monopoly.html
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Ive seen that. Its nice.
>
> Nice??????
>
> Do you realize that it is all made up?
Of course it is made up - you asked me to put a disclaimer
and I did.
> Nobody...and I mean nobody (crackpot
> or non-crackpot) ever posted any arguments
> like this.
>
> It is simply nonsense that Dirk made up.
> Perhaps one might find it humorous if
> they like the word "fart", but it just doesn't
> mean anything....and stylewise it looks like
> something a 10 year old would write.
It was entirely inspired by your childish 9 year old behaviour
on that thread.
A little example, picked at random:
| > This situation is about a twin who goes away *and*
| > comes back. There is no way such a twin can imagine
| > herself at rest during the whole trip.
Ensle's reply:
| Actually there is. What if each of her atoms is accelerated
| equivalently. She would then have no indication that the
| acceleration had occurred.
What if the dog eats the dice?
>
> The biggest laugh is that Dirk is actually
> proud of it.
>
> Telling indeed!
You should be proud of it :-)
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:aq8q505uasbvlinu9...@4ax.com...
A very illustrating statement!
But Henry doesn't understand why I am smiling. :-)
Paul
kenseto
Henri made a mistake. He should have said that "Just measure OWLS with
two spatially separated and synchronized clocks"
Ken Seto
HenriWilson
wrote:
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
Actually, it could be the son of a son of the father from a second marriage.
Is a 'half brother' a brother?
That'll make you think.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
Not good enough Ken. The source has to be moving wrt the observer.
>
>Ken Seto
>
>
Henri Wilson.
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
It's good enough. Why do you think Einstein had to invent the e-syched
clocks
to get OWLS equal to c? And why do you think that the SRians refused to
test for OWLS with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks? Your
idea of a ballistic theory and c+v and c-v had been refused by many
experiments.
Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
What is even more telling is that you didn't say anything when I ask
for your evidence against relativity, but when I proclaim my approval
for dirk's page you shit all over yourself with anger.
Might there be something to it?
The Ghost In The Machine
<He...@the.edge>
wrote
<tssr509ls04plbeb4...@4ax.com>:
And how does one avoid losing synch with the two clocks?
I'm assuming that your experiment would be either one of the two forms:
[1]: straightline:
O===> ---------------------------- A
or
<===O ---------------------------- A
where the measurement is performed from O to A.
[2]: transverse
^
|
O--------------------------------- A
where the measurement is performed from O to A.
It's an intriguing detail. A third form could subsume both of these,
where either O or A is on a large wheel; synchronization would
therefore take place prior to the actual measurement on another cycle.
Trouble is, that's an accelerated reference frame.
>
>>
>>Ken Seto
>>
>>
>
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
John Zinni
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 09:25:05 -0500, "John Zinni"
<j_zinni...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:idun509s7pen87267...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Actually, you rasie a good point. The portrait could be his nephew from
a
> >now
> >> deceased brother.
> >> The riddle doesn't actually say he didn't once have a brother who is
now
> >> deceased.
> >
> >A deceased brother, is still a brother.
>
> Actually, it could be the son of a son of the father from a second
marriage.
> Is a 'half brother' a brother?
You're reaching a little, don't you think???
Tom Potter
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:51:33 +0800, "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >> Forget physics for a moment. Let's concentrate on logic and the way
people
> >> handle it.
> >>
>
> >>
> >female
> >> variety, have no powers of logic at all...(maybe SRians also fall into
> >this
> >> category). They do not know how to even approach a logical
problem........
> >yet
> >> these people are allowed to vote in elections.
> >>
> >> No wonder homo sapiens 'ain't goin' nowhere fast'!!!
> >>
> >>
> >> I ask, are we physicists so very different from the rest of society?
> >> Apparently the answer is yes.
> >
> >
> >Some people are better at solving logical problems than others,
> >and some are better at composing songs and creating art,
> >and some are better at performing music and art,
> >and some are better at engineering the products we need and love,
> >and some are better at making the things we need and love,
> >and some are better at servicing the things we need and love,
> >and some are better at cleaning up the messes we make,
> >and some are better at planning, organizing, selling, managing,
> >growing, mining, transporting, etc.
> >
> >What would the world be like
> >if we didn't have all these great folks?
>
> That's exactly what I pointed out to one fellow who simply couldn't get
the
> answer.
>
> The world would be a boring place if we were all the same. Imagine this
group
> without Ken!
> No doubt variety and specialization are prime reasons for man's succesful
> evolution.
> We are a team of individuals with very diffferent abilities....and they
are all
> needed.
> Strangely, until the last 400 or so years, women were rarely called upon
to
> apply logic to anything.
And men "were rarely called upon to" have babies.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
Harold Ensle
Why should I? If you think that Dirk's link makes any sense, then
you are obviously incompetent...and would be unable to determine
the validity of any argument.
>but when I proclaim my approval
> for dirk's page you shit all over yourself with anger.
This is obviously a projection, since I expressed no anger
in my post at all. In fact, the only specific emotion mentioned
was laughter.
If this is indicative of your comprehension skills, then again,
any explanations would be wasted on you.
[...]
H.Ellis Ensle
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:tssr509ls04plbeb4...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:08:01 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
>> >news:c3k69q$qko$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>> >>
>> >> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding
>> >news:aq8q505uasbvlinu9...@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 21:00:28 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>> >> > <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>> >> > >Nice rant, but can you now justify how SR and GR are falsified by an
>> >> > >experiment, preferably a simple one?
>> >> >
>> >> > Just measure OWLS from a moving source and you will have all the
>proof
>> >you
>> >> > need.
>> >>
>> >> A very illustrating statement!
>> >> But Henry doesn't understand why I am smiling. :-)
>> >
>> >Henri made a mistake. He should have said that "Just measure OWLS with
>> >two spatially separated and synchronized clocks"
>>
>> Not good enough Ken. The source has to be moving wrt the observer.
>
>It's good enough. Why do you think Einstein had to invent the e-syched
>clocks
>to get OWLS equal to c?
Becasue he believed in an ether.
>And why do you think that the SRians refused to
>test for OWLS with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks?
Because it will almost certainly give a null result.
>Your
>idea of a ballistic theory and c+v and c-v had been refused by many
>experiments.
all wrong.
HenriWilson
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, HenriWilson
><He...@the.edge>
> wrote
>> Not good enough Ken. The source has to be moving wrt the observer.
>
>And how does one avoid losing synch with the two clocks?
>
>I'm assuming that your experiment would be either one of the two forms:
>
>[1]: straightline:
>
>
> O===> ---------------------------- A
> or
> <===O ---------------------------- A
>
>where the measurement is performed from O to A.
>
>[2]: transverse
>
> ^
> |
> O--------------------------------- A
>
>where the measurement is performed from O to A.
>
>It's an intriguing detail. A third form could subsume both of these,
>where either O or A is on a large wheel; synchronization would
>therefore take place prior to the actual measurement on another cycle.
>Trouble is, that's an accelerated reference frame.
>
Ghost, I have told you how to do this.
You need two differently moving sources, an optical system including mirrors
and a 'gate' and just one 'clock'.
The idea is to demonstrate OWLS anisotropy. No lengths or clock rates have to
be accurate.
Henri Wilson.
Harold Ensle
So what? Is this statement true or false? If the statement
is true, then it disproves the above statement by example.
The fact that you cannot understand the argument means
nothing.
Well...I suppose that it could mean that you are incredibly
stupid....but I would hope this is not the case.
[...]
H.Ellis Ensle
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
So you think you can measure OWLS with just one clock?
<shrug>
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
This is stupid. He invented SR to get around the need for an aether.
>
> >And why do you think that the SRians refused to
> >test for OWLS with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks?
>
> Because it will almost certainly give a null result.
This is stupid. If they can get OWLS equal to c using two spatially
separated and synchronized clocks they would be jumping for joy.
Why? Because that would validate the second postulate and refute
the claim of the existence of an aether.
>
> >Your
> >idea of a ballistic theory and c+v and c-v had been refused by many
> >experiments.
>
> all wrong.
Yeah...what you said is all wrong. All you ever do is making assertions
when you are confronted with experimental results.
Ken Seto
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Thanks for admitting this.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
It does.
Henri's statement was: "A man is looking at a portrait on the wall and
says '... but __that man's father is my father's son__'".
Using my definitions above, this translates into "D is the son of C".
Merely asserting that this is wrong will convince no one - you have to
show *why* this is wrong.
> D and C are the same person....
As I proved above, that's wrong.
> the father of the man looking
> and the father of the man in the portrait.
This isn't comptabile with Henri's statement.
> > Since the only son of C is A (A has no brothers), it follows that D is
> > A.
>
> NO. A and B are they same person. That's why C has only one son.
Wrong. See above.
> > Since B is the son of D, it follows that B is the son of A.
>
> NO.....A and B are the same person.
Wrong. See above.
> > Hence we conclude: The man in the protrait is the son of the man who is
> > looking.
>
> Wrong conclusion based of faulty reasoning.
Where is the fault in the reasoning, please?
Bye,
Bjoern
The Ghost In The Machine
<ken...@erinet.com>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:10:31 -0500
<105tpen...@corp.supernews.com>:
He said to demonstrate anisotropy, not to measure it. There's a difference.
Here's one way he could try it.
A large rotating turntable A contains a light emitter, two light
detectors, and a clock. The clock is hooked up to both detectors,
through standard copper cable. A pulsed beam of light shoots
through detector A, then through detector B. The turntable is
rotated and the experiment reperformed.
There are a number of issues -- chief of which is how to prevent
anisotropy through the wires canceling out the anisotropy of the
light beam. AIUI, the signal propagates through copper cable at
about 2/3 of c.
Ideally, the unit would be sensitive enough to pick up anisotropy
resulting from a 100 metric tonne mass standing nearby. Of
course, that brings up other issues -- like how to launch the
turntable into deep enough space to avoid such local anomalies.
(Note that a cube of iron 2.3 m in edge would weigh 100
metric tonnes. A cube of lead would have to only be 2.07 m
in edge. A cube of water would have to be 4.64 m in edge.
Probably the cheapest of the three... :-) )
>
> Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harold Ensle" <hee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:Kww7c.33087$%06.3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
What if the dog would eat the dice?
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:6ib3j1-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
There are experiments performed that demonstrate OWLS isotropic. I
suggest that you make a search in Google. But those experiments do
not confirm that OWLS is c.
Ken Seto.
mitch perkins
> > > Hence we conclude: The man in the protrait is the son of the man who is
> > > looking.
Has anyone noticed that the riddle could easily read, "Of brothers
and sisters have I a freakin' *doggabyte*..." without the slightest
effect on the correct answer? I guess a good riddle leads one astray
from the first word.
Mitch
Eric Gisse
> > What is even more telling is that you didn't say anything when I ask
> > for your evidence against relativity,
>
> Why should I? If you think that Dirk's link makes any sense, then
> you are obviously incompetent...and would be unable to determine
> the validity of any argument.
Try me.
Me being incompetent because I expressed amusement towards something
that insults you is a cute concept. Too bad its beyond wrong.
>
> >but when I proclaim my approval
> > for dirk's page you shit all over yourself with anger.
>
> This is obviously a projection, since I expressed no anger
> in my post at all. In fact, the only specific emotion mentioned
> was laughter.
Then don't be uptight about it.
>
> If this is indicative of your comprehension skills, then again,
> any explanations would be wasted on you.
Stop being uptight.
>
> [...]
>
> H.Ellis Ensle
ste...@nomail.com
: Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<405EF6DD...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
: Mitch
If the man had brothers, it could be a portrait of his nephew.
Your nephew's father could be your father's son. So the first line
is necessary.
Stephen
HenriWilson
Precisely.. which is why women are considerably better at nursing and teaching
young kids.
It's all in the genes, you know...
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
You're as stupid as Seto. You aren't an aetherist by any chance are you?
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:q4ts505fjt5ol122l...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:09:32 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> >> >Henri made a mistake. He should have said that "Just measure OWLS with
>> >> >two spatially separated and synchronized clocks"
>> >>
>> >> Not good enough Ken. The source has to be moving wrt the observer.
>> >
>> >It's good enough. Why do you think Einstein had to invent the e-syched
>> >clocks
>> >to get OWLS equal to c?
>>
>> Becasue he believed in an ether.
>
>This is stupid. He invented SR to get around the need for an aether.
That's right. He found a way to get around the MMX null result without an
aether. His LT's were relative and not absolute. Unfortunately his idea makes
no sense because it makes the so-called contractions observer dependent and not
'real'.
>>
>> >And why do you think that the SRians refused to
>> >test for OWLS with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks?
>>
>> Because it will almost certainly give a null result.
>
>This is stupid. If they can get OWLS equal to c using two spatially
> separated and synchronized clocks they would be jumping for joy.
>Why? Because that would validate the second postulate and refute
>the claim of the existence of an aether.
It would just support source dependency.
>>
>> >Your
>> >idea of a ballistic theory and c+v and c-v had been refused by many
>> >experiments.
>>
>> all wrong.
>
>Yeah...what you said is all wrong. All you ever do is making assertions
>when you are confronted with experimental results.
There are 500000000 muslims out there who have 'experimentsl proof' that heaven
exists. Didn't you know that?
HenriWilson
No Ken. I only wish to show it is not constant.
That is all I need to seriously embarrass the whole physics mafia.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
Not one uses source moving wrt observer.
They add weight to the ballistic model, that's all.
>
>Ken Seto.
>
>
>
>>
>> Here's one way he could try it.
>>
>> A large rotating turntable A contains a light emitter, two light
>> detectors, and a clock. The clock is hooked up to both detectors,
>> through standard copper cable. A pulsed beam of light shoots
>> through detector A, then through detector B. The turntable is
>> rotated and the experiment reperformed.
>>
>> There are a number of issues -- chief of which is how to prevent
>> anisotropy through the wires canceling out the anisotropy of the
>> light beam. AIUI, the signal propagates through copper cable at
>> about 2/3 of c.
>>
>> Ideally, the unit would be sensitive enough to pick up anisotropy
>> resulting from a 100 metric tonne mass standing nearby. Of
>> course, that brings up other issues -- like how to launch the
>> turntable into deep enough space to avoid such local anomalies.
>>
>> (Note that a cube of iron 2.3 m in edge would weigh 100
>> metric tonnes. A cube of lead would have to only be 2.07 m
>> in edge. A cube of water would have to be 4.64 m in edge.
>> Probably the cheapest of the three... :-) )
>>
>> >
>> > Ken Seto
>> >
>>
>> --
>> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>> It's still legal to go .sigless.
>
Henri Wilson.
mitch perkins
Right. I meant *any* riddle leads *me* astray from the first word. &:?)
Mitch
Harold Ensle
>
> > > What is even more telling is that you didn't say anything when I ask
> > > for your evidence against relativity,
> >
> > Why should I? If you think that Dirk's link makes any sense, then
> > you are obviously incompetent...and would be unable to determine
> > the validity of any argument.
>
> Try me.
>
> Me being incompetent because I expressed amusement
Reading comprehension yet again! You changed my statement to:
IF you expressed amusement THEN you are incompetent.
But I stated:
IF you think that Dirk's link makes sense THEN you are incompetent.
You can't even correctly interpret an IF-THEN statement.
How could I possibly explain anything to you, let alone physics.
Tell you what. When (or if) you can demonstrate that you understand
the English language, show me, and I will gladly attempt some
explanation.
BTW here is a hint. I claimed that:
IF you think that Dirk's link makes sense THEN you are incompetent.
The correct way to respond to this statement is to either:
1. Attack the logic. That is: does it actually follow that [thinking
that Dirk's link makes sense] leads to incompetence? In this case,
whether or not your thinking his link makes sense is not the issue,
but whether the above result follows.
2. Attack the assumption. That is: Do you actually think Dirk's link
makes sense? It could be that you did not, but found the article
amusing anyway.
By either of these methods, the conclusion could be invalidated
(given the appropriate content of the arguments).
[I actually don't mean to single you out on this point since
gross negligence in logic is rampant in this group (as Dirk
consistently demonstrates).]
H.Ellis Ensle
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:20:18 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:q4ts505fjt5ol122l...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:09:32 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
>
> >> >> >Henri made a mistake. He should have said that "Just measure OWLS
with
> >> >> >two spatially separated and synchronized clocks"
> >> >>
> >> >> Not good enough Ken. The source has to be moving wrt the observer.
> >> >
> >> >It's good enough. Why do you think Einstein had to invent the e-syched
> >> >clocks
> >> >to get OWLS equal to c?
> >>
> >> Becasue he believed in an ether.
> >
> >This is stupid. He invented SR to get around the need for an aether.
>
> That's right. He found a way to get around the MMX null result without an
> aether. His LT's were relative and not absolute. Unfortunately his idea
makes
> no sense because it makes the so-called contractions observer dependent
and not
> 'real'.
Why then spatially separated e-synched clocks give OWLS equal to c??
>
> >>
> >> >And why do you think that the SRians refused to
> >> >test for OWLS with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks?
> >>
> >> Because it will almost certainly give a null result.
> >
> >This is stupid. If they can get OWLS equal to c using two spatially
> > separated and synchronized clocks they would be jumping for joy.
> >Why? Because that would validate the second postulate and refute
> >the claim of the existence of an aether.
>
> It would just support source dependency.
No it wouldn't. Why? Because source dependency is not isotropic and
they found that the OWLS is isotropic experimentally.
>
> >>
> >> >Your
> >> >idea of a ballistic theory and c+v and c-v had been refused by many
> >> >experiments.
> >>
> >> all wrong.
> >
> >Yeah...what you said is all wrong. All you ever do is making assertions
> >when you are confronted with experimental results.
>
> There are 500000000 muslims out there who have 'experimentsl proof' that
heaven
> exists. Didn't you know that?
ROTFLOL....So you are one of the 500000000 muslim?
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
You are an idiot. They ruled out the ballistic model when they found
that OWLS is isotropic. Why? Because the ballistic model asserts that the
speed of light is NOT isotropic within an inertial frame.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
You are an idiot. How can you show that it is not constant with just one
clock?
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harold Ensle" <hee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:owR7c.53013$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Indeed, as I consistently demonstrate.
And since you so strongly insist:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WhatIf.html
Dirk Vdm
mitch perkins
> You're as stupid as Seto. You aren't an aetherist by any chance are you?
>
> Henri Wilson.
Thank you. No.
Mitch
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
Henri, Nobody in this NG is as stupid as you. For example you assert
the following:
1. Source dependency of the speed of light.
2. Ballistic theory of light.
3. All clocks run at the same rate in all inertial frames. Velocity does not
affect the rate of a clock.
It was pointed out to you that all these assertions have been refuted by
experiments and yet you keep on spewing these garbage day in and
day out. Now that is stupid.:-)
Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
As much as I would love to debate psychology, I only commented because
I wanted to see the evidence you had against relativity. Since you are
more interested in being a jackass than showing evidence, I conclude
you have none.
Faulty logic or not, I will stick to it until the logic is disproven.
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:gs3v50dbid4meh5rj...@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Mar 2004 11:55:07 -0800, mitchs...@yahoo.com (mitch perkins)
>wrote:
>>
>> >Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
>news:<405EF6DD...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>> >
>> >> > > Hence we conclude: The man in the protrait is the son of the man
>who is
>> >> > > looking.
>> >
>> > Has anyone noticed that the riddle could easily read, "Of brothers
>> >and sisters have I a freakin' *doggabyte*..." without the slightest
>> >effect on the correct answer? I guess a good riddle leads one astray
>> >from the first word.
>> >
>> > Mitch
>>
>> You're as stupid as Seto. You aren't an aetherist by any chance are you?
>
>Henri, Nobody in this NG is as stupid as you. For example you assert
>the following:
>1. Source dependency of the speed of light.
>2. Ballistic theory of light.
Those are the same.
>3. All clocks run at the same rate in all inertial frames. Velocity does not
>affect the rate of a clock.
How could it?
Velocity is not absolute. How can you tell if an acceleration is positive or
negative.
>
>It was pointed out to you that all these assertions have been refuted by
>experiments and yet you keep on spewing these garbage day in and
>day out. Now that is stupid.:-)
What experiments, ken?
Who has ever measured OWLS form a moving source?
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:hv3v505a5vcoq7nv3...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:20:18 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>> >news:q4ts505fjt5ol122l...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:09:32 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Henri made a mistake. He should have said that "Just measure OWLS
>with
>> >> >> >two spatially separated and synchronized clocks"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not good enough Ken. The source has to be moving wrt the observer.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's good enough. Why do you think Einstein had to invent the e-syched
>> >> >clocks
>> >> >to get OWLS equal to c?
>> >>
>> >> Becasue he believed in an ether.
>> >
>> >This is stupid. He invented SR to get around the need for an aether.
>>
>> That's right. He found a way to get around the MMX null result without an
>> aether. His LT's were relative and not absolute. Unfortunately his idea
>makes
>> no sense because it makes the so-called contractions observer dependent
>and not
>> 'real'.
>
>Why then spatially separated e-synched clocks give OWLS equal to c??
Because light speed is always c wrt its source.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >And why do you think that the SRians refused to
>> >> >test for OWLS with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks?
>> >>
>> >> Because it will almost certainly give a null result.
>> >
>> >This is stupid. If they can get OWLS equal to c using two spatially
>> > separated and synchronized clocks they would be jumping for joy.
>> >Why? Because that would validate the second postulate and refute
>> >the claim of the existence of an aether.
>>
>> It would just support source dependency.
>
>No it wouldn't. Why? Because source dependency is not isotropic and
>they found that the OWLS is isotropic experimentally.
Not from a moving source, Ken. that's the only real test.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >Your
>> >> >idea of a ballistic theory and c+v and c-v had been refused by many
>> >> >experiments.
>> >>
>> >> all wrong.
>> >
>> >Yeah...what you said is all wrong. All you ever do is making assertions
>> >when you are confronted with experimental results.
>>
>> There are 500000000 muslims out there who have 'experimentsl proof' that
>heaven
>> exists. Didn't you know that?
>
>ROTFLOL....So you are one of the 500000000 muslim?
Not bloody likely.
HenriWilson
Firstly, nobody ever established tat OWLS is isotropic.
Secondly, the experiments that are supposed to verify that view definitely
support source dependency.
HenriWilson
I told you a few messges ago. Light from two relativiely moving sources, a
mirror system, an optical gate, ONE PM and ONE CRO.
>
>Ken Seto
>
Ken, just because everyone who sends you a message begins with "You are an
IDIOT" doesn't mean that the tactic will work the other way round.
Do you think I care if everyone else's version of a classic "idiot" calls me
one?
Henri Wilson.
Bruce Pew
> >
> > "Eric Gisse" <fs...@uaf.edu> wrote in message
> > news:fd0fc2fa.04032...@posting.google.com...
Kids say the darndest things. Art Linkletter would have loved Harold.
>
> What if the dog eats the dice?
>
> >
> > The biggest laugh is that Dirk is actually
> > proud of it.
> >
> > Telling indeed!
>
> You should be proud of it :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:36:56 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:gs3v50dbid4meh5rj...@4ax.com...
> >> On 22 Mar 2004 11:55:07 -0800, mitchs...@yahoo.com (mitch perkins)
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bjoern Feuerbacher <bfeu...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
> >news:<405EF6DD...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >> >
> >> >> > > Hence we conclude: The man in the protrait is the son of the man
> >who is
> >> >> > > looking.
> >> >
> >> > Has anyone noticed that the riddle could easily read, "Of brothers
> >> >and sisters have I a freakin' *doggabyte*..." without the slightest
> >> >effect on the correct answer? I guess a good riddle leads one astray
> >> >from the first word.
> >> >
> >> > Mitch
> >>
> >> You're as stupid as Seto. You aren't an aetherist by any chance are
you?
> >
> >Henri, Nobody in this NG is as stupid as you. For example you assert
> >the following:
> >1. Source dependency of the speed of light.
> >2. Ballistic theory of light.
>
> Those are the same.
So you think that a photon is like a tennis ball? A tennis ball has the
velocity of the source before it is released.... You think that a photon
has the same velocity of the source before it is emitted?
>
> >3. All clocks run at the same rate in all inertial frames. Velocity does
not
> >affect the rate of a clock.
>
> How could it?
> Velocity is not absolute. How can you tell if an acceleration is positive
or
> negative.
Another example of doing physics by assertion. It doesn't matter
to Henri that the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow
compared to the ground clock.
>
> >
> >It was pointed out to you that all these assertions have been refuted by
> >experiments and yet you keep on spewing these garbage day in and
> >day out. Now that is stupid.:-)
>
> What experiments, ken?
Experiments that show that the speed of light is isotropic in all
inertial frames. If the speed of light is source dependent then the
speed of light is not isotropic....unless a photon has the same motion
(velocity) as the source and the detector before it is emitted.
BTW what is the velocity of the source and detector relative to
since you deny the existence of absolute velocity?
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
I give up. You are stupid.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >And why do you think that the SRians refused to
> >> >> >test for OWLS with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because it will almost certainly give a null result.
> >> >
> >> >This is stupid. If they can get OWLS equal to c using two spatially
> >> > separated and synchronized clocks they would be jumping for joy.
> >> >Why? Because that would validate the second postulate and refute
> >> >the claim of the existence of an aether.
> >>
> >> It would just support source dependency.
> >
> >No it wouldn't. Why? Because source dependency is not isotropic and
> >they found that the OWLS is isotropic experimentally.
>
> Not from a moving source, Ken. that's the only real test.
Idiot.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Your
> >> >> >idea of a ballistic theory and c+v and c-v had been refused by many
> >> >> >experiments.
> >> >>
> >> >> all wrong.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah...what you said is all wrong. All you ever do is making
assertions
> >> >when you are confronted with experimental results.
> >>
> >> There are 500000000 muslims out there who have 'experimentsl proof'
that
> >heaven
> >> exists. Didn't you know that?
> >
> >ROTFLOL....So you are one of the 500000000 muslim?
>
> Not bloody likely.
It seems that way to me.:-)
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
No idiot they don't support source dependency unless the photon has the
same velocity as the source before it is emitted. Do you have any evidence
of that?
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:50:12 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:7a4v50d1upapgebag...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:10:31 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >> The idea is to demonstrate OWLS anisotropy. No lengths or clock
rates
> >have
> >> >to
> >> >> be accurate.
> >> >
> >> >So you think you can measure OWLS with just one clock?
> >> ><shrug>
> >> >
> >> >Ken Seto
> >> >
> >>
> >> No Ken. I only wish to show it is not constant.
> >> That is all I need to seriously embarrass the whole physics mafia.
> >
> >You are an idiot. How can you show that it is not constant with just one
> >clock?
>
> I told you a few messges ago. Light from two relativiely moving sources, a
> mirror system, an optical gate, ONE PM and ONE CRO.
So how do you determine the arrival time for each light ray from the two
sources?
BTW what is ONE PM and ONE CRO?
>
> >
> >Ken Seto
> >
>
> Ken, just because everyone who sends you a message begins with "You are an
> IDIOT" doesn't mean that the tactic will work the other way round.
>
> Do you think I care if everyone else's version of a classic "idiot" calls
me
> one?
According to the posts I found every body call you an idiot except for
your buddy Androcles. So I guess you are a genuine classic idiot.
Ken Seto
Harold Ensle
What a well timed demonstration of your negligence.
H.Ellis Ensle
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:tb1260tpqfepfg2fa...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:36:56 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> You're as stupid as Seto. You aren't an aetherist by any chance are
>you?
>> >
>> >Henri, Nobody in this NG is as stupid as you. For example you assert
>> >the following:
>> >1. Source dependency of the speed of light.
>> >2. Ballistic theory of light.
>>
>> Those are the same.
>
>So you think that a photon is like a tennis ball? A tennis ball has the
>velocity of the source before it is released.... You think that a photon
>has the same velocity of the source before it is emitted?
Ken, you believe light travels in a medium like sound does in air. Therefore
your views will remain in complete contrast to relativistic ones. You will
continue to argue till your last breathe.
I am a relativist, (but not of the Einsteinian ilk). There is no evidence of
ant kind of 'aether'...My 'H-aether' maybe, but that is not an absolute thing.
Even SRians believe that light is emitted at c relative to its source.
That means, is an observer at the source could measure the time taken for light
to reach a distant detector, he would calculate the light's velocity to be
always c.
Doesn't that directly support the ballistic theory?
>>
>> >3. All clocks run at the same rate in all inertial frames. Velocity does
>not
>> >affect the rate of a clock.
>>
>> How could it?
>> Velocity is not absolute. How can you tell if an acceleration is positive
>or
>> negative.
>
>Another example of doing physics by assertion. It doesn't matter
>to Henri that the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow
>compared to the ground clock.
There is no fucking 7us/day, Ken. It is a complete hoax, built into the rest of
their crap.
>>
>> >
>> >It was pointed out to you that all these assertions have been refuted by
>> >experiments and yet you keep on spewing these garbage day in and
>> >day out. Now that is stupid.:-)
>>
>> What experiments, ken?
>
>Experiments that show that the speed of light is isotropic in all
>inertial frames.
That's TWLS and is what one would expect under source dependency.
> If the speed of light is source dependent then the
>speed of light is not isotropic....unless a photon has the same motion
>(velocity) as the source and the detector before it is emitted.
As far as we know, a photon doesn't exist before it is emitted.
Maxwell's derivation of c applies only to the observer frame.
>BTW what is the velocity of the source and detector relative to
>since you deny the existence of absolute velocity?
Each other.
Velocity of one object can only be specified relative to another object.
But why all the nonsense about 'frame transforms'. They DON'T happen.
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:ug1260l64i6ltrpsb...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:29:34 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Why then spatially separated e-synched clocks give OWLS equal to c??
>>
>> Because light speed is always c wrt its source.
>
>I give up. You are stupid.
How can I possibly be stupid? Even Paul Andersen and Tom Roberts would have to
agree that light moves at c relative to its source.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >And why do you think that the SRians refused to
>> >> >> >test for OWLS with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because it will almost certainly give a null result.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is stupid. If they can get OWLS equal to c using two spatially
>> >> > separated and synchronized clocks they would be jumping for joy.
>> >> >Why? Because that would validate the second postulate and refute
>> >> >the claim of the existence of an aether.
>> >>
>> >> It would just support source dependency.
>> >
>> >No it wouldn't. Why? Because source dependency is not isotropic and
>> >they found that the OWLS is isotropic experimentally.
>>
>> Not from a moving source, Ken. that's the only real test.
>
>Idiot.
Thankyou!
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Your
>> >> >> >idea of a ballistic theory and c+v and c-v had been refused by many
>> >> >> >experiments.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> all wrong.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yeah...what you said is all wrong. All you ever do is making
>assertions
>> >> >when you are confronted with experimental results.
>> >>
>> >> There are 500000000 muslims out there who have 'experimentsl proof'
>that
>> >heaven
>> >> exists. Didn't you know that?
>> >
>> >ROTFLOL....So you are one of the 500000000 muslim?
>>
>> Not bloody likely.
>
>It seems that way to me.:-)
Well it seems to me you are a gay, dwarf, cripple, hindu, sex offending,
suicide bombing, halucinating, pedophilic, old lady bag snatcher.
(apologies to any readers who are just that)
HenriWilson
Ken did you have the same velocity as your (unfortunate) mother, one thousand
years before you were born?
If you can't ask sensible questions, please don't ask any.
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:612260h7941cfkn4k...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:50:12 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>> >news:7a4v50d1upapgebag...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:10:31 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
>wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> The idea is to demonstrate OWLS anisotropy. No lengths or clock
>rates
>> >have
>> >> >to
>> >> >> be accurate.
>> >> >
>> >> >So you think you can measure OWLS with just one clock?
>> >> ><shrug>
>> >> >
>> >> >Ken Seto
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> No Ken. I only wish to show it is not constant.
>> >> That is all I need to seriously embarrass the whole physics mafia.
>> >
>> >You are an idiot. How can you show that it is not constant with just one
>> >clock?
>>
>> I told you a few messges ago. Light from two relativiely moving sources, a
>> mirror system, an optical gate, ONE PM and ONE CRO.
>
>So how do you determine the arrival time for each light ray from the two
>sources?
You don't. You know they passed through the gate at the same instant. You just
watch them arrive at DIFFERENT TIMES, using a CRO.
>BTW what is ONE PM and ONE CRO?
Go and work in a physics lab for a while.
>>
>> >
>> >Ken Seto
>> >
>>
>> Ken, just because everyone who sends you a message begins with "You are an
>> IDIOT" doesn't mean that the tactic will work the other way round.
>>
>> Do you think I care if everyone else's version of a classic "idiot" calls
>me
>> one?
>
>According to the posts I found every body call you an idiot except for
>your buddy Androcles. So I guess you are a genuine classic idiot.
>
>Ken Seto
>
Henri Wilson.
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:20:52 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:tb1260tpqfepfg2fa...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:36:56 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >> You're as stupid as Seto. You aren't an aetherist by any chance are
> >you?
> >> >
> >> >Henri, Nobody in this NG is as stupid as you. For example you assert
> >> >the following:
> >> >1. Source dependency of the speed of light.
> >> >2. Ballistic theory of light.
> >>
> >> Those are the same.
> >
> >So you think that a photon is like a tennis ball? A tennis ball has the
> >velocity of the source before it is released.... You think that a photon
> >has the same velocity of the source before it is emitted?
>
> Ken, you believe light travels in a medium like sound does in air.
Therefore
> your views will remain in complete contrast to relativistic ones. You will
> continue to argue till your last breathe.
> I am a relativist, (but not of the Einsteinian ilk). There is no evidence
of
> ant kind of 'aether'...My 'H-aether' maybe, but that is not an absolute
thing.
>
> Even SRians believe that light is emitted at c relative to its source.
Yes but they also say that the speed of light is c relative to the detector.
> That means, is an observer at the source could measure the time taken for
light
> to reach a distant detector, he would calculate the light's velocity to be
> always c.
Not if he uses two spatially separated and synchronized clocks.
> Doesn't that directly support the ballistic theory?
NO....in ballistic theory the only way that you can get light to be
isotropic c
in an inertial frame is that the photon has the velocity of the source and
the
detector before it is emitted.
>
> >>
> >> >3. All clocks run at the same rate in all inertial frames. Velocity
does
> >not
> >> >affect the rate of a clock.
> >>
> >> How could it?
> >> Velocity is not absolute. How can you tell if an acceleration is
positive
> >or
> >> negative.
> >
> >Another example of doing physics by assertion. It doesn't matter
> >to Henri that the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow
> >compared to the ground clock.
>
> There is no fucking 7us/day, Ken. It is a complete hoax, built into the
rest of
> their crap.
Another example of doing physics by assertion.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >It was pointed out to you that all these assertions have been refuted
by
> >> >experiments and yet you keep on spewing these garbage day in and
> >> >day out. Now that is stupid.:-)
> >>
> >> What experiments, ken?
> >
> >Experiments that show that the speed of light is isotropic in all
> >inertial frames.
>
> That's TWLS and is what one would expect under source dependency.
No that's both OWLS and TWLS.
Ken Seto
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>>
>> Even SRians believe that light is emitted at c relative to its source.
>
>Yes but they also say that the speed of light is c relative to the detector.
They are dreaming.
>
>> That means, is an observer at the source could measure the time taken for
>light
>> to reach a distant detector, he would calculate the light's velocity to be
>> always c.
>
>Not if he uses two spatially separated and synchronized clocks.
That's the aetherist view.
>
>> Doesn't that directly support the ballistic theory?
>
>NO....in ballistic theory the only way that you can get light to be
>isotropic c
>in an inertial frame is that the photon has the velocity of the source and
>the
>detector before it is emitted.
Well presumeably it has. Where's the problem?
Try throwing a ball off the back of a truck.....
What was its speed before it was thrown?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >3. All clocks run at the same rate in all inertial frames. Velocity
>does
>> >not
>> >> >affect the rate of a clock.
>> >>
>> >> How could it?
>> >> Velocity is not absolute. How can you tell if an acceleration is
>positive
>> >or
>> >> negative.
>> >
>> >Another example of doing physics by assertion. It doesn't matter
>> >to Henri that the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow
>> >compared to the ground clock.
>>
>> There is no fucking 7us/day, Ken. It is a complete hoax, built into the
>rest of
>> their crap.
>
>Another example of doing physics by assertion.
Where is the proof of that 7us?
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >It was pointed out to you that all these assertions have been refuted
>by
>> >> >experiments and yet you keep on spewing these garbage day in and
>> >> >day out. Now that is stupid.:-)
>> >>
>> >> What experiments, ken?
>> >
>> >Experiments that show that the speed of light is isotropic in all
>> >inertial frames.
>>
>> That's TWLS and is what one would expect under source dependency.
>
>No that's both OWLS and TWLS.
Whatever it is, it simply confirms source dependency.
Androcles
Ok...
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Proof of nonsense by absurdity (1)
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
Relativity has to approximate Galilean relativity for v much less than c.
x' = x-vt is simply described below.
0--------------x'x
1-----------x'---x
2--------x'------x
3----x'----------x
< -vt <
To move the other way,
0------------x
1------------x---x'
2------------x------x'
3------------x----------x'
> +vt >
We see that x' = x+vt.
"*IF* we place x'=x+vt, it is blatantly obvious that a point at rest in the
system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time also."
It seems that Einstein has only done half the work.
Through previous very long-winded posts,
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
we find the Paul B. Andersen transforms are
t' = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x' = (x+vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which are the OTHER Lorentz transforms and which also approximate the
Galilean transform x' = x+vt.
Paul isn't particularly proud of them for some reason.
I think it has something to do with the faster you go, the later you arrive.
------------------------------
Proof of nonsense by contradiction (2)
Consider the supposed transverse doppler shift, to be found in the equation
ref (Electrodynamics, section 7)
1-cos(phi).v/c (numerator)
nu' = nu. [ ____________]
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (denominator)
Assume 'v' is a radial velocity vector relative to the observe (having both
speed and direction) in the numerator, otherwise there is no requirement for
the term cos(phi), and for the transverse case phi = pi/2 or 3pi/2 such that
the transverse motion is described, cos(pi/2) = cos(3pi/2) = 0.
Yet in the denominator, 'v' is clearly a speed, having no direction
whatsoever, while 'c' is a velocity, the vector again being along the
observer's line of sight.
If we allow 'v' as a radial velocity in the denominator, then the term
sqrt(1 - (cos(phi).v)^2/c^2) is required.
^ v.cos(3pi/2)
!
O------- <--c, <---v --!
!
Suppose instead we assume 'v' is a transverse velocity to begin with, then
the equation does give the correct result of no shift at all. However, we
have no way of knowing the direction of v is supposed to be at right angles
to the direction of c.
Also of interest is the concept "moving clocks run slow", which, together
with the simple idea that t = 1/f and a clock ticking once per second,
how does a clock that ticks only once every two seconds (runs slow) emit a
frequency of two ticks a second when v = 0.866c ?
t' = (t-vx/c^2/sqrt(1-v^2.c^2)
= t * sqrt(1-v^2.c^2)
= 1 * 0.5
= 0.5
= 1 tick per 2 seconds
(Keep in mind that the equation was derived entirely along the X- axis)
1-0 (numerator)
nu' = 1 . [ _________________]
0.5 (denominator)
= 2 ticks per second.
So according to Einstein,
If A = 1/B, then A*g = 1/(B*g)
and the rest of the world knows A*g = g/B.
---------------------------------------------
Proof of nonsense by contradiction (3)
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
are contradictory statements.
---------------------------------------------
Satisfied, Eric?
Or will you stick to faulty logic that has just been disproven before your
very eyes, three times? If so, see a psychologist.
Androcles
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:03:08 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> Even SRians believe that light is emitted at c relative to its source.
> >
> >Yes but they also say that the speed of light is c relative to the
detector.
>
> They are dreaming.
>
> >
> >> That means, is an observer at the source could measure the time taken
for
> >light
> >> to reach a distant detector, he would calculate the light's velocity to
be
> >> always c.
> >
> >Not if he uses two spatially separated and synchronized clocks.
>
> That's the aetherist view.
No...that includes the ballistic model unless you assumes that the photon
is emitted from the same source at c+v and c-v
>
> >
> >> Doesn't that directly support the ballistic theory?
> >
> >NO....in ballistic theory the only way that you can get light to be
> >isotropic c
> >in an inertial frame is that the photon has the velocity of the source
and
> >the
> >detector before it is emitted.
>
> Well presumeably it has. Where's the problem?
So we are now doing physics by presuming? Even this model has problem.
In order to maintain c in different directions the speed of light must be
emitted
at c+v or c-v in different directions
> Try throwing a ball off the back of a truck.....
> What was its speed before it was thrown?
So now the photon is a ball?
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >3. All clocks run at the same rate in all inertial frames. Velocity
> >does
> >> >not
> >> >> >affect the rate of a clock.
> >> >>
> >> >> How could it?
> >> >> Velocity is not absolute. How can you tell if an acceleration is
> >positive
> >> >or
> >> >> negative.
> >> >
> >> >Another example of doing physics by assertion. It doesn't matter
> >> >to Henri that the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow
> >> >compared to the ground clock.
> >>
> >> There is no fucking 7us/day, Ken. It is a complete hoax, built into the
> >rest of
> >> their crap.
> >
> >Another example of doing physics by assertion.
>
> Where is the proof of that 7us?
Hey stupid it is included in the calculations using the SR math.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It was pointed out to you that all these assertions have been
refuted
> >by
> >> >> >experiments and yet you keep on spewing these garbage day in and
> >> >> >day out. Now that is stupid.:-)
> >> >>
> >> >> What experiments, ken?
> >> >
> >> >Experiments that show that the speed of light is isotropic in all
> >> >inertial frames.
> >>
> >> That's TWLS and is what one would expect under source dependency.
> >
> >No that's both OWLS and TWLS.
>
> Whatever it is, it simply confirms source dependency.
Doing physics by assertion again.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:25:36 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:ug1260l64i6ltrpsb...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 08:29:34 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >
> >> >Why then spatially separated e-synched clocks give OWLS equal to c??
> >>
> >> Because light speed is always c wrt its source.
> >
> >I give up. You are stupid.
>
> How can I possibly be stupid? Even Paul Andersen and Tom Roberts would
have to
> agree that light moves at c relative to its source.
You are stupid...because we were talking about measuring OWLS
in an inertial frame with two spatially separated and synchronized
clocks. I said that if one uses this procedure the speed of light is not c.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
It appears that you don't even know what source dependency means. <shrug>
Ken Seto