Tom Van Flandern & Phipps update
Jack Sarfatti
Author: Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
Date: 1999/10/13
Forum: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.research
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Tom Roberts is correct Van Flandern is wrong - not even wrong on
the GPS and the Phipps thing is also not even wrong.
At the time in 1999 Van Flandern was visiting us at Joe Firmage's ISSO
and I was not familiar with the details of what he alleged. I soon
realized he was gravely wrong. I just want to make that clear for the
record.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> [...] Therefore, the Phipps Alternative is more
> congenial to quantum theory than is Einstein's special theory of
> relativity.
You flog a straw man. The real question is: is the "Phipps Alternative"
congenial to quantum field theory (e.g. QED)?
> Also, the Phipps Alternative does agree with all the classic
> tests of special relativity.
Hmmm. Have you any references for this?
> Van Flandern has evidence for absolute simultaneity
> in the way atomic clocks are synchronized in practise in the GPS.
Say more properly that Van Flandern hallucinates such things and
wishes they were true. The fact that the ECI coordinate system of
the GPS is unique in no way implies that it has "absolute
simultaneity" (in any of the usual meanings). The ECI is unique
because the earth is unique (Duh!).
hanson
NBD, but what matters really is that you advanced thinkers
should cross fertilize each others minds, instead of joining
the incessant attempts by Einstein's Dingleberries for
physics to remain close to their idol Albert's sphincter.
In particular heed Phipps who published already back in the
70's powerful arguments of how to move physics foundations
out of the dark cul de sac of relativity....
Hell, even Einstein urged his Dingleberries ever since the
1920's that they
== "should not search at the same, now well lit places,
where he had been working".
and then a year before he puffed Einstein said to Besso in 1954 :
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
Carry on, Jack
ahahaha... ahahanson
>
"Jack Sarfatti" <sarf...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:0zyHg.11320$1f6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Traveler
>Jack, it is not quite clear below who said what to whom.
>NBD, but what matters really is that you advanced thinkers
>should cross fertilize each others minds, instead of joining
>the incessant attempts by Einstein's Dingleberries for
>physics to remain close to their idol Albert's sphincter.
>
>In particular heed Phipps who published already back in the
>70's powerful arguments of how to move physics foundations
>out of the dark cul de sac of relativity....
>Hell, even Einstein urged his Dingleberries ever since the
>1920's that they
>== "should not search at the same, now well lit places,
> where he had been working".
>and then a year before he puffed Einstein said to Besso in 1954 :
>== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
>== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
>== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
>== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
>Carry on, Jack
>ahahaha... ahahanson
Sarfatti recently wrote me an email to tell me that I'm a vicious
idiot. ahahaha... OK, I call him a well-knmown internet crackpot on my
site. So, I guess we're even. ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Koobee Wublee
hanson wrote:
> Jack, it is not quite clear below who said what to whom.
> NBD, but what matters really is that you advanced thinkers
> should cross fertilize each others minds, instead of joining
> the incessant attempts by Einstein's Dingleberries for
> physics to remain close to their idol Albert's sphincter.
>
> In particular heed Phipps who published already back in the
> 70's powerful arguments of how to move physics foundations
> out of the dark cul de sac of relativity....
> Hell, even Einstein urged his Dingleberries ever since the
> 1920's that they
> == "should not search at the same, now well lit places,
> where he had been working".
> and then a year before he puffed Einstein said to Besso in 1954 :
> == "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
> == on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
> == case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> == theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>
> Carry on, Jack
> ahahaha... ahahanson
Excellent advice to Jack.
Do you have any references to Einstein's quote above regarding 'castle
in the air'?
Sorcerer
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156542574....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Sure do:
"Die letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden, indem man durch Definition
festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu
gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit", welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu
gelangen."
http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~ljc/speciaal.html
Which translated means:
We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required
by a castle in the air to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires
to travel from B to A.
('das Licht' is German for 'a castle in the air').
Androcles
hanson
news:88kue2t3io3ui84ep...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>Jack, it is not quite clear below who said what to whom.
>>NBD, but what matters really is that you advanced thinkers
>>should cross fertilize each others minds, instead of joining
>>the incessant attempts by Einstein's Dingleberries for
>>physics to remain close to their idol Albert's sphincter.
>>
>>In particular heed Phipps who published already back in the
>>70's powerful arguments of how to move physics foundations
>>out of the dark cul de sac of relativity....
>>Hell, even Einstein urged his Dingleberries ever since the
>>1920's that they
>>== "should not search at the same, now well lit places,
>> where he had been working".
>>and then a year before he puffed Einstein said to Besso in 1954 :
>>== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
>>== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
>>== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
>>== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>>
>>Carry on, Jack
>>ahahaha... ahahanson
>
> Sarfatti recently wrote me an email to tell me that I'm a vicious
> on my site. So, I guess we're even. ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
> Louis Savain
>
... ahahaha... yeah, Jack is a cantankerous old fart, comensurate
with his appearance. He has a feely-touchy soul, like most of
advanced thinkers have , including you, Louis. It takes a special
character trait, artistic imagination and a lot of guts to break
openly and publicly with the heuristic catechism of physics and
probe into new land. It's the colorful nature of your prismatic
exposés and notions that make you guys so endearing to
me. Carry on fellows. Riot, the more the better.... and
remember, you are in a winning game. You gotta be right ONLY
once... whereas the Einstein Dingleberries ..... well, let'em be
for the moment... and thanks for the laughs.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
news:1156542574....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/98dc75f1decf460f
>> Jack, it is not quite clear below who said what to whom.
>> NBD, but what matters really is that you advanced thinkers
>> should cross fertilize each others minds, instead of joining
>> the incessant attempts by Einstein's Dingleberries for
>> physics to remain close to their idol Albert's sphincter.
>>
>> In particular heed Phipps who published already back in the
>> 70's powerful arguments of how to move physics foundations
>> out of the dark cul de sac of relativity....
>> Hell, even Einstein urged his Dingleberries ever since the
>> 1920's that they
>> == "should not search at the same, now well lit places,
>> where he had been working".
>> and then a year before he puffed Einstein said to Besso in 1954 :
>> == "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
>> == on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
>> == case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
>> == theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
>>
>> Carry on, Jack
>> ahahaha... ahahanson
>
> Excellent advice to Jack.
> Do you have any references to Einstein's quote above
> regarding 'castle in the air'?
>
google/web: 24,900 hits for --[ Einstein "castle in the air" ]--.
google/web: 727 hits for --[ "Einstein" "physics cannot be based" ]--.
Take care, KBW
hanson
Traveler
ahahaha... Yeah. AHAHAHAHA... Well, in a weird sort of sense, Sarfatti
and I are kindred spirits. Problem is, the ass kisser refuses to let
go of his dumb, Einstein-induced ideas regarding space and time and
the role of math in understanding the fundamental aspects of nature.
The old guy is the ultimate example of how chicken shit and
disconnected one can get over the years when one insits on believing
in a bunch of crap. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
frit...@bellsouth.net
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156542574....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | hanson wrote:
> | > Jack, it is not quite clear below who said what to whom.
> | >
> | >
> | > and then a year before he puffed Einstein said to Besso in 1954 :
> | > == "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
> | > == on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
> | > == case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> | > == theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
> | >
> |
> |
> | Do you have any references to Einstein's quote above regarding 'castle
> | in the air'?
>
>
> Androcles
I think the quote is in A.Pais, Subtle is the Lord... The Science
and Life of Albert Enstein,Oxford, (1982). Maybe Page 467.
Bob Fritzius
Sorcerer
<frit...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1156640442.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1156542574....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | hanson wrote:
| > | > Jack, it is not quite clear below who said what to whom.
| > | >
| > | >snip
| > | >
| > | > and then a year before he puffed Einstein said to Besso in 1954 :
| > | > == "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
| > | > == on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
| > | > == case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
| > | > == theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
| > | >
| > |
| > |snip
| > |
| > | Do you have any references to Einstein's quote above regarding 'castle
| > | in the air'?
| >
| > snip
snip