Is relativity I L L O G I C A L?
S T R I C H
Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on. But don't take my word. Let
me prove it, right now. Let me start with a basic postulate. Let's
see where it takes us...
"Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
measurements."
TRUE or FALSE?
Dono
> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto,
:-) :-)
Dirk Van de moortel
68e88392-c2a8-41ef...@f32g2000vbf.googlegroups.com
> Strich says it is.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NiceAndEasy.html
> Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> Androcles,
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html
> Koobee,
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffGeoAero.html
> Ken Seto,
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html
> and so on.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> But don't take my word.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OnlyICan.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NiceAndEasy.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourWaterloo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DisprovenForGood.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImpossibleTask.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DictionaryPhysics.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TerminologyPanic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimplyAdmit.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Misquote.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrapReconstruction.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotDeparting.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidPremises.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecileScience.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreBananas.html
> Let
> me prove it, right now. Let me start with a basic postulate. Let's
> see where it takes us...
Does it take us to your mother?
http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Strich/850720037
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on.
<laughing>
Do you suppose any of the folks you've named could pass a first year
physics examination? I doubt it!
S T R I C H
Since all the monkeys seem to be in agreement with our first
statement, though none was smart enough to verbalize the word 'true',
we can proceed with our next step. I hope the monkeys pay close
attention so they can avoid further tantrums when they realize they
have missedd the story line. This is deceptively simple, but in a few
moments it will blow up in their faces.
"The speed of light is the same for any observer"
TRUE or FALSE?
Sam Wormley
> TRUE or FALSE?
<laughing>
I'll wait for your answer, David.
doug
S T R I C H wrote:
You will continue even without answers. This is your standard plan.
But you are now repeating yourself. You lost the "strich logic"
attempt and then you lost the "I will refute all the experiments"
attempt and then you lost the "I will prove something about the
muons" attempt and then you lost the "But it looks like it was
FTL" attempt.
Androcles
"S T R I C H" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:68e88392-c2a8-41ef...@f32g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
No such postulate.
The First Postulate of Crank Einstein's Relativity reads:
"Examples of this sort, (see A below) (see B below)(see C below)
(see D below).
(E) We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter
be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate"
Does any crank know what the "example of this sort" is?
Hint: In the previous paragraph it says "Take, for example..."
a really good clue for the illiterate and stupid.
Examples of this sort, (A) together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' (B)
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. (C) They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small
quantities, (D) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid
for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
(E) We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and
also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable
with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple
and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on
Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous
ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with
special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty
space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
Extra bullshit (A) -- "suggest that, together with the unsuccessful attempts
to discover any motion of the earth
"relatively" (- wonder what that means)
to the ``light medium,'' (the unnamed Michelson Morley interferometer
experiment)
Extra bullshit (B) -- suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well
as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest."
Extra bullshit (C) -- They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to
the first order of small quantities
Extra bullshit (D) -- "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.
WHAT is the example (without all the fucking suggestions)?
Excerpt from previous paragraph:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet".
Does anybody know what "relative motion" is?
Previous (and first) paragraph:
It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable
phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the
magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two
cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For
if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the
neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite
energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are
situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no
electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor,
however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative
motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
Wow! After slicing away the verbal diarrhea with Ockham's Razor the nugget
remaining, the Holy First Postulate, is good old Galilean relativity, an
axiom, with some suggestions added.
What it is NOT is "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo
change are not affected", as blustered in Wackypedia.
A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial". Here is the result of the research and how it was carried out.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
Furthermore, Einstein did not MEAN inertial.
"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves
from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t MEGAYEARS, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 DAYS slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the
equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely
similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical
conditions."
No way in hell is travelling along "a continuously curved line" inertial.
Furthermore,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img26.gif
The inverse velocities are dy/dt = 1/0 and dz/dt = 1/0.
These inverse velocities should give the fuckwits a clue as to how useless
Einstein really was... but they remain clueless.
Androcles
On Mar 25, 2:54 pm, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on. But don't take my word. Let
> me prove it, right now. Let me start with a basic postulate. Let's
> see where it takes us...
>
> "Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
> measurements."
>
> TRUE or FALSE?
Since all the monkeys seem to be in agreement with our first
statement,
=======================================
You are in too much of a hurry and want instant gratification.
Give the Neanderthals a day or too, some of them haven't
woken up and turned their computers on yet. Just slow down.
Sir Frederick
wrote:
The very fact of existence is illogical, let alone any aspect.
Perhaps there is a 'superlogic' that is beyond human ken.
Androcles
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:1j4ls4t6bcr9a06ou...@4ax.com...
It's much simpler than that. There are some people in this world that
are called "liars". Einstein was one of them.
Dono
David Strich is a shithead: TRUE.
Jens Stueckelberger
> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on.
Sure, but many more, also very smart people, say otherwise:
Hawking, Thorne, Will, Penrose, Newman, Witten, etc. Since I have
mentioned more smart people than you I guess that I win - i.e. by your
criterion, relativity is not illogical. Thanks for providing the argument.
Androcles
"Jens Stueckelberger" <JStueck...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:gqe7uv$uro$1...@news.motzarella.org...
That's your idea of a logical argument?
You are my idea of what a shitheaded snipping troll is.
Fuck off, imbecile.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
you are a troll; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
Gad-Noe
wrote:
no, they are not smarter but better situated in the society with
higher salary (allowing them to pay expensive commercials) and with
more authority, more influence = delta(imbalance)/imbalance. one swing
of my lever and all of them will fall like apples subjected to
newton's invalid gravity.
G. L. Bradford
||
\/
a)S------------------|c|>
b)S----------------|c|>
c)S--------------|c|>
d)S------------|c|>
e)S----------|c|>
f)S--------|c|>
g)S------|c|>
h)S----|c|>
i)S--|c|>
j)S|c|>
||
\/
(t)
|j||i||h|g|f|e|d|c|b|a|
S|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|>
(|t||t||t||t||t||t||t||t||t||t|)
GLB
harry
"S T R I C H" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e88ffda-394d-4488...@r15g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on. But don't take my word. Let
> me prove it, right now.
I look forward to see something like a Greek philosopher's proof - with
smart phrasings almost anything can be "proved". :-)
> Let me start with a basic postulate. Let's
> see where it takes us...
>
> "Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
> measurements."
>
> TRUE or FALSE?
: Since all the monkeys seem to be in agreement with our first
: statement, though none was smart enough to verbalize the word 'true',
: we can proceed with our next step. I hope the monkeys pay close
: attention so they can avoid further tantrums when they realize they
: have missedd the story line. This is deceptively simple, but in a few
: moments it will blow up in their faces.
: "The speed of light is the same for any observer"
: TRUE or FALSE?
That's not even defined in the terms of inertial frames; probably you intend
to make use of its sloppyness to suggest a lack of logic (which isn't the
same issue, really). Let's improve it a bit to remove some common
ambiguities (without pretending that it's bullet proof, as few sentences
are):
The measured speed of light in vacuum is the same in any standard inertial
frame when effects of gravitation can be neglected.
That looks quite true to me. Of course, "measured" and "standard" are
implied due to the operational meanings in physics, but when regarding the
same from a logical viewpoint, it may be better to state these explicitly.
Cheers,
Harald
Eric Gisse
Physics isn't an exercise of deductive logic. Try again Dave.
Daryl McCullough
>
>Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
>Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on.
But those are all extremely stupid people.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Dono
wrote:
So what? David Strich is even stupider :-)
Androcles
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:49caac97$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
>
> "S T R I C H" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8e88ffda-394d-4488...@r15g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 2:54 pm, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
>> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on. But don't take my word. Let
>> me prove it, right now.
>
> I look forward to see something like a Greek philosopher's proof - with
> smart phrasings almost anything can be "proved". :-)
Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
lists:
1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof
Not included:
11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster).
17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2).
and the ultimate counter proof:
18 Proof by "You'r'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).
Proof 18 is my favorite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-17. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-17 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).
BURT
wrote:
Relativity is the appearence of opposite motion. Move toward something
and it appears to move in the opposite direction "in space" toward
you.
Th Earth rotates in the opposite direction than the Sun crosses the
sky.
Mitch Raemsch
pmb
> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on.
Those people are far from being smart.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
There exist a unique kind of inertial system that can be used to make
real measurements...the centre of mass one of the involved bodies. An
H atom (Bohr, 1913), the ECI of the GPS and the Solar System are the
best examples. All the ideal infinite inertial systems conceived as
the ones moving with some constant velocity with respect to some REAL
inertial system are totally useless.
Then, my answer is FALSE. Only the REAL inertial system (the centre of
mass one of some determined body set) can be used to make REAL
measurements. Since many years I am denoting them as Hierarchical
Inertial Systems (HIS). By the way, a HIS can only be used to describe
the movements of the bodies belonging to its body set. Don't try to
find the Sun's trajectory in the ECI! You will end like Dono using
Tolomy epycicles!
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
ICIMAF, CITMA
Havana, Cuba
pmb
> On Mar 25, 2:54 pm, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> > Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on. But don't take my word. Let
> > me prove it, right now. Let me start with a basic postulate. Let's
> > see where it takes us...
>
> > "Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
> > measurements."
>
> > TRUE or FALSE?
>
> Since all the monkeys seem to be in agreement with our first
> statement, though none was smart enough to verbalize the word 'true',
Nobody verbalizes it because they know better than to fall for this
kind of thing. I.e. we know that the purpose of this thread is to
begin with vague questions about things that look true off hand but
realty are loaded questions since the person asking them has something
in mind. The person asking questions like this usually doesn’t make a
compete argument since if they did so the entire argument laid out
would have obvious errors. Only when taken piecemeal and loosely
phrased does it seem that it can lead to a problem
E.g. you started a thread that refers to "relativity" which literally
means both special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR). Your
question lacks context, i.e.
"Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
measurements." Is true only when the spacetime is flat.
The principle of relativity states "The laws of physics are the same
in all inertial frames of reference." Only when the spacetime is flat
does it translate to "Any inertial reference frame is equally valid
for the performance of measurements."
Then you posted the question “"The speed of light is the same for any
observer. TRUE or FALSE?" – The second postulate of relativity states
that the speed of light has the same value in all inertial frames,
i.e. is a Lorentz invariant. However that doesn’t mean that non-
inertial observers will measure the same value.
We’ve seen it all. Most people aren't as naive/ignorant as Androcles,
Koobee, Ken Seto etc.
If you were more precise with your questions and made it clear what
your purpose was in asking them then we’d be more willing to answer
them. Otherwise we can’t be certain that you’ll take them out of
context or twist them. As it stands, your questions are vague and
either answer of true or false for each can be used to twist the true
to arrive at bogus conclusions.
Pete
Androcles
"pmb" <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:25dfb5a0-6287-43b6...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
===================================
Spoken like a true cunt, Piggy Brown. It's just not "fare"
you didn't get any intelligence, is it?
Androcles
Pete
"Pure water has a very low conductivity so there is no reason to expect
that adding soap should increase its conductivity." -- Piggy Brown
The conductivity of sea water is 4.788 S/m at 20 deg C, that of
drinking water is 0.0005 to 0.05 S/m at 20 deg C and that of deionized
water is 5.5 × 10-6 S/m.
If you spend as much time studying physics as you do spamming
newsgroups, you might just learn what the fucking numbers mean,
you dozy prick.
On March 6 2009 Brown-nose Piggy claimed he was mistaken, not
lying, after he had claimed and argued Einstein's postulate and
conclusion were equivalent, after I pointed it out to his fellow piggies.
For this the yankee christian calls other idiots. His present squealing
is no different, his true character has not changed.
SANITY WARNING (Brown-nosed Piggy)
Einstein's postulate: "light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body" bears no resemblance whatsoever to Brown's:
“the speed of light is c in every inertial frame."
Brown makes no apology for misrepresenting Einstein, instead he
mumbles ""light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c” which has identical content to “the speed of light is c
in every inertial frame."
Einstein himself says "Nun bewegt sich aber der Lichtstrahl relativ
zum Anfangspunkt von k im ruhenden System gemessen mit der
Geschwindigkeit V - v, so daß gilt: t = x'/(V-v)."
Brown will not understand this, he confuses "fair" with "fare"
even in English. The official translation is:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that t = x'/(c-v)."
Brown cannot distinguish a postulate from a conclusion.
Brown is guilty of lying and has lost all credibility by attempting to
defend the liar Green.
He is a cheat with zero integrity to be treated with contempt by all.
Even Harald van lintel slapped him.
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
idiot
Whether it is god's left eyeball or a sulcus in a rooster's asshole,
relativity works perfectly prediction vs. observation. Unless you
have something better, asshole, you have nothing.
Go ahead, schmuck - plug in your model and see what answer comes out.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm
Mercury perihelion precession
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
<http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/Einstein_Unruffled_Relativity_passes_stringent_new_tests>
<http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://ianparker.g3z.com/Relativity/
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
kp
Immortalist
> "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>
> news:49caac97$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
>
>
>
> > "S T R I C H" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The argument from fallacy, also known as argumentum ad logicam or
fallacy fallacy, is a logical fallacy which assumes that if an
argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false.
It has the general argument form:
If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.
Examples:
Tom: "All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. This means Ginger
is a cat.".
Bill: "Ah you just committed the affirming the consequent logical
fallacy. Sorry, you are wrong, which means that Ginger is not a cat".
Tom: "OK — I'll prove I'm English — I speak English so that proves
it".
Bill: "But Americans and Canadians, among others, speak English
too. You have committed the package-deal fallacy, assuming that
speaking English and being English always go together. That means you
are not English".
Of course, the mere fact that the argument from fallacy can be invoked
against a position does not automatically "prove" the position either,
as this would itself be yet another argument from fallacy. An example
of this false reasoning follows:
Joe: Bill's assumption that Ginger is not a cat uses the argument
from fallacy. Therefore, Ginger absolutely must be a cat.
Explanation
The argumentum ad logicam can be seen as a variant of the ad hominem
fallacy, because it relies on the opposing speaker's seeming lack of
credibility, a factor which is usually irrelevant to the actual
correctness of a given theory (although it can help bolster the
evidence in an inductive argument).
doug
Well, maybe smart compared to strich.
harry
"pmb" <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:03bc37ec-2af3-49d0...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 2:54 pm, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> > Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on. But don't take my word. Let
> > me prove it, right now. Let me start with a basic postulate. Let's
> > see where it takes us...
>
> > "Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
> > measurements."
>
> > TRUE or FALSE?
>
> Since all the monkeys seem to be in agreement with our first
> statement, though none was smart enough to verbalize the word 'true',
[..]
: The principle of relativity states "The laws of physics are the same
: in all inertial frames of reference." Only when the spacetime is flat
: does it translate to "Any inertial reference frame is equally valid
: for the performance of measurements."
Interesting! I didn't notice an essential difference between those two
phrases - can you give an example?
Thanks,
Harald
Androcles
"Examples of this sort, (see A below) (see B below)(see C below)
(see D below).
(E) We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter
be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate"
Does any crank know what the "example of this sort" is?
Hint: In the previous paragraph it says "Take, for example..."
a really good clue for the illiterate and stupid.
Examples of this sort, (A) together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' (B)
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. (C) They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small
quantities, (D) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid
for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
(E) We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and
also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable
with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
Han de Bruijn
Huh, repeat that ! Hawking, Penrose: "very smart people" ??
I've read the book "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose, and it's
one of the most _worthless_ writeups I've encountered in my whole life.
Same remark for "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. Do I have
to mention the popularized drivel produced by Paul Davies as well ?
Han de Bruijn
Peter Webb
> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> me prove it, right now. Let me start with a basic postulate. Let's
> see where it takes us...
>
> "Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
> measurements."
>
> TRUE or FALSE?
>
I'm not even sure what it means.
If you mean you get the same measurements in all inertial frames of
reference, not its not true. Measuring the length of an object at rest and
near the speed of light will give different measurements.
Jonathan Doolin
> http://www.google.com/search?q=argument+from+fallacy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
COOL! This is sometimes called a straw-man argument, right?
pmb
wrote:
In a curved spacetime there is geodesic deviation so you can tell if
the spacetime is flat or curved. Observations will be different if the
spacetime is flat. Also objects like charged particles have electric
fields,. which aren't localized. The field couples to the spacetime
curvature. This results in free charged particles not moving on
geodesics.
Pete
pmb
Another thought. He wrote, "Any inertial reference frame is equally
valid for the performance of measurements." This assumes that one
understands what an inertial frame is. In a curved spacetime one has
locally inertial frames where "local" means restricted in both space
*and* time. A charged particle is non-localized (its field extends to
infinity). Therefore experiments which use charged particles cannot be
done in a locally inertial frame. Even if one restricts the spatial
extent of the frame the presence of spacetime curvature can be
detected if one waits long enough, i.e. if the temporal dimension is
not localized.
Wait! Do you hear that? Androicles' brain just exploded. LOL!
Pete
jem
More often it's called gibberish.
S T R I C H
"Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
measurements."
"The speed of light is the same for any observer"
Note that the first does not imply measurement results are the same
for any inertial frame. And the second can be reworded such that
"The speed of light is the same as measured in any inertial frame" for
those with a fetish for the word inertial.
Note that these two propositions are the same as the two postulates of
special relativity. Thus I did not expect much wailing from the
status quo. Of course, they have this uneasy feeling that something
is going to befall them, thus the expected panic in their responses.
Let me repeat the propositions:
===============================
"Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
measurements."
"The speed of light is the same as measured in any inertial frame."
===============================
TRUE/FALSE?
Dono
> snip imbecilities<
>
> TRUE/FALSE?
David OStrich is an imbecile : TRUE.
Sam Wormley
What do you think David?
papa...@hotmail.com
Wrong question, Punching Bag. Actually, Einstein wording in his
original paper is as follows:
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of
two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a
moving body.
Study this and then get back to us.
Miguel Rios
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -
You must be on THC again Cheech. Einstein wrote in German, the
language of science at the time. So there is no way your quote came
from his original paper. Study German and then get back when you have
the fluency of a 6 year old.
PD
> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on. But don't take my word. Let
> me prove it, right now. Let me start with a basic postulate. Let's
> see where it takes us...
>
> measurements."
>
Valid for what? Getting the same numbers for physical measurements?
Certainly not. Galileo even knew that. He knew that you'd get
different velocities for objects in different inertial reference
frames. He even knew that you'd get different shapes of trajectories
in different inertial reference frames, straight and linear in one
frame and parabolic in another. Einstein certainly knew that too.
Everybody knows that.
Perhaps it helps to ask what sentences MEAN rather than to just assume
it means something else, with which you can try to pick a fight about.
PD
PD
> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on. But don't take my word. Let
> me prove it, right now. Let me start with a basic postulate. Let's
> see where it takes us...
>
> "Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
> measurements."
>
> TRUE or FALSE?
Yet another example of the game, one that is played by several folks
here.
It goes like this:
- I will repeat a statement that I have seen posted somewhere that is
part of something accepted by physicists.
- I will notice that the sentence is written in English, and therefore
construe that to mean that I can take that sentence to mean any damn
thing I want it to.
- I will then put forward that construed meaning as the inescapable,
sole conclusion that can be drawn, and thereby pick a fight.
- If challenged on the construed meaning, I will defend steps (1) and
(2).
PD
PD
And for the record, this particular game using this particular
sentence is already one thoroughly exhausted by "Sue", who actually
plays the game with more art, since "Sue" adds a random sampling of
links from "Sue's" personal link collection, as though having web
links adds credibility to the game.
Since Strich9 is neither original with this particular game in this
particular context, nor doesn't even play it as well as the precedent-
holder, this pushes the Lame-Meter well into the red.
PD
papa...@hotmail.com
What a great job you do to make a fool of yourself, right Punching
Bag.
The original in german paper is Einstein, Albert (1905-06-30). "Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper". Annalen der Physik 17: 891–921. You
can read it on
http://www.pro-physik.de/Phy/pdfs/ger_890_921.pdf.
On page 895 you can read:
"1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustande der physikalihschen
Systeme andern, sind unabhangig davon, auf welches von zwei relativ
zueinander in gleichformiger Translationsbewegung befindlichen
Koordinatensystemen diese Zustandsanderungen bezogen werden."
Whose translation is:
1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory
motion.
Then it follows:
"2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im "ruhenden" Koordinatensystem mit
der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhangig davon, ob dieser
Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewgten Korper emittiert ist."
Whose translation is:
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body.
So you see Punching Bag, once again you are on the ground.
Miguel Rios
Eric Gisse
On a related note, do you remember how he was screaming at me for a
few weeks about how his particular interpretation of one section of
the Gravity Probe B website meant that the official website said the
result was negative?
Within the last month or so, Everitt [I think] updated the page to
reflect the status of the project, specially showing how GR is
confirmed but not quite to the level originally hoped for.
Now Dave is shrieking about how the offical website doesn't count.
I can't help but wonder what the goal of the game is. I'm happy to
play it in my own way because it amuses me, and gives me ample reason
to think about these subjects and write about them.
Unlike a LOT of the other folks here, I'm getting something out of
this. My writing ability has consistently improved if nothing else. I
think I gotta be the only one who has managed to direct this newsgroup
into a tool of serious education.
Dorn.Strich
>
> On page 895 you can read:
>
> "1. Die Gesetze, nach denen sich die Zustande der physikalihschen
> Systeme andern, sind unabhangig davon, auf welches von zwei relativ
> zueinander in gleichformiger Translationsbewegung befindlichen
> Koordinatensystemen diese Zustandsanderungen bezogen werden."
>
> Whose translation is:
>
> 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
> not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
> the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory
> motion.
>
> Then it follows:
>
> "2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im "ruhenden" Koordinatensystem mit
> der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhangig davon, ob dieser
> Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewgten Korper emittiert ist."
>
> Whose translation is:
>
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
> with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
> stationary or by a moving body.
>
> So you see Punching Bag, once again you are on the ground.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That may be the literal translation. Are you saying that the modern
translation, which I have summarized above is wrong? If so, say that
the propositions ar FALSE.
Otherwise, say it is TRUE. Do not be schizophrenic like PD who will
say it is true and false at the same time, or that real and not real
are not mutually exclusive, or that non-local effects propagate
locally!
Dorn.Strich
> ... this pushes the Lame-Meter well into the red...
Is that another schizo idea of yours? Really diagnostic PD. You
really make your own words and reality.
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where is this positive result you are lying about again?
papa...@hotmail.com
Well the point, Punching Bag, is that you don't know what you are
talking about and it clearly shows, so the fact that you ask for a yes/
no answer is laughable.
For instance you wrote:
"Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
measurements."
Einstein phrase is:
"The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory
motion."
Einstein is talking physics. On the other hand, your phrase makes no
sense at all. But for sure your IQ prevents you to understand this,
even if all of us write hundreds of posts to explain it to you. You
need to study some basic science before trying to attack relativity.
As it is now you are showing your complete ignorance on these
subjects.
Miguel Rios
pmb
> In summary, we have two propositions:
>
> "Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
> measurements."
> "The speed of light is the same for any observer"
>
> Note that the first does not imply measurement results are the same
> for any inertial frame. And the second can be reworded such that
> "The speed of light is the same as measured in any inertial frame" for
> those with a fetish for the word inertial.
>
> Note that these two propositions are the same as the two postulates of
> special relativity. Thus I did not expect much wailing from the
> status quo. Of course, they have this uneasy feeling that something
> is going to befall them, thus the expected panic in their responses.
Those kinds of comments always come from crackpots.
pmb
> Are you saying that the modern
> translation, which I have summarized above is wrong? If so, say that
> the propositions ar FALSE.
>
> Otherwise, say it is TRUE.
We all agree that, at least classically, the postulates of special
relativity have not been demonstrated to be wrong. There. Now get on
with your argument please and stop this posturing. It's childish to
keep on what you've been doing so far!
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Where is this positive result you are lying about again?
The answer hasn't changed since the last time you asked, Dave.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
C W F Everitt et al 2008 Class. Quantum Grav. 25 114002
doug
Dorn.Strich wrote:
It is pretty sad when strich is reduced to outright lying and denial.
Strich's blustering is funny but it is getting old for entertainment.
Eric Gisse
Speculating about his mental health is a new and fun game.
I'll be sure to look and see what new and inane things he has written
during my lab downtime today.
Androcles
"Jonathan Doolin" <good4...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e183805c-a0a2-4bed...@s38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
A strawman (also known as an Aunt Sally) argument is where
a dummy argument is set up with the express purpose of knocking
it down.
You hang up a pinata and give the kids a bat, then you say
"Bet you can't beat candy out of that donkey!"
http://tinyurl.com/3l63bg
"All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. This means Ginger
is a cat" is a strawman argument.
"All cats are animals. Ginger is a cat. This means Ginger
is an animal " is NOT a strawman argument.
Slightly more difficult is
"No cats are animals. Ginger is not a cat. This means Ginger
is an animal."
or
"All cats are animals. Ginger is not a cat. This means Ginger
is not an animal."
Harder still,
No cats are animals. Ginger is not an animal. This means Ginger
is not a cat.
"Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
is a strawman argument, it is easy to knock down.
Like the pinata, there is nothing left when that is done.
Hence relativity is I L L O G I C A L.
pmb
> "The speed of light is the same as measured in any inertial frame" for
> those with a fetish for the word inertial.
>
The use of the term "fetish" tells us that you don't understand
special relativity very well. The invariance of the speed of light
*does not* hold for noninertial frames. Therefore so if you left out
the qualifier "inertial" then it wouldn't be valid.
If you need our approval before you dare make a point then I'll answer
your questions;
"Any inertial reference frame is equally valid for the performance of
measurements."
This is not a postulate of special relativity. It has no meaning to
say that a measurement is valid or invalid so it can't be phrased as a
postulate. A measurement is simply a measurement. It makes no
difference how you make the measurement of from what frame. So I guess
you could say that its trivially correct. But since it can't be
falsified it cannot be said to have any meaning in a true/false sense.
If you propose a criteria which allows one to create an experiment to
determine whether its true or false then we'll answer that question ..
if you dare pose it that is.
"The speed of light is the same as measured in any inertial frame."
Since this is equivalent to the second postulate of SR (and therere
refers to measurements made in flat spacetime) then its assumed be
true *by definition.* I.e. a postulate is something assumed be be true
until proven otherwise.
Happy? Are you now willing to make your point and then explain why you
need our approval?
pmb
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you can't make your argument without insulting others then please
leave and stop this nonsense
pmb
> That may be the literal translation. Are you saying that the modern
> translation, which I have summarized above is wrong?
Yes.
> If so, say that the propositions ar FALSE.
This is a bogus assumption. I.e. just because your statement is not
the first postulate of SR it doesn't mean its wrong. In fact what you
posted isn't a postulate at all. Its just something that is trivially
true. It's not a postulate since it makes no reference to what may or
may not be observed in nature. It only says that there are no frame
dependant restrictions on how measurements are made. That's not a law
of physics.
Care you make your point now?
pmb
others) for a moment. Its for that reason I don't trust people asking
questions in the manner he did, i.e. without making an argument in its
entirety and the purpose of doing so.
I now see that his statement has no physical content whatsoever and
thus cannot be said to be a postulate. It has the same content as
someone saying, "People can tell us that Androcles is an idiot in any
language they choose." Lol!!
Pete
Dirk Van de moortel
6341a832-090a-4f68...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com
Duh.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OnTHC.html
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's pretty easy.
"People can tell us that Piggy Brown is an anencephalitic in any
language they choose." Lol!
Dorn.Strich
Cheech, if you think my proposition is false, then why are you such a
coward and not say it so outright? Remember the simple question, true
or false?
Dorn.Strich
Miguel aka Cheech does not seem to agree. Why don't you cranks get
together and make up your minds what the two propositions should be?
Dorn.Strich
Those are two Eric. Are you doing double-lies now? Which one is it?
Dorn.Strich
Do suggest a better wording of the first postulate! The original, as
translated from German, is typical for a scatter-brained schizophrenic
and is too wordy. Give us an example of a better first proposition.
Show us a relativist brain in action.
papa...@hotmail.com
Why should any one here do anything for you?
Are you nice in asking questions? NO! you are not. You insult people
and dare to affirm that with your 200 IQ you are above any scientist,
mathematician on Earth live or dead.
Are you asking to get an answer that will help you to understand
better SRT? NO! you are just trolling as you have been for almost a
year!
It is not working you see. You are an open book regarding this
behaviour.
Miguel Rios
papa...@hotmail.com
Your proposition is not even false. It has nothing to do with Einstein
postulates. That you are unable to detect that, speaks volumes about
your knowledge about the subject that you pretend to debunk. Read
Einstein original paper before talking more nonsense. The paper is
available at:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Miguel Rios
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cheech, it's my thread, so if you cannot handle the pressure, you can
always find a hammock and doze off.
doug
Since it is "your" thread why don't you just go along and post the
rest of your "logic" so we can all laugh at it together. If you
post the whole thing, you will see your mistakes much more quickly
or do you just enjoy being shown to be an idiot so much that you
like to stretch it out as much as possible. By the way, how is
refuting the experiments coming? You were lying on that as well.
Dorn.Strich
Doug, criminals are also banned from my thread. However, since there
are no police here to enforce it, here is me exercising an alternative
option:
*plonk*
PD
Very good, keep that up. Pretty soon you'll be talking with yourself,
which is what you really want to do anyway.
PD
Dorn.Strich
That is far from my worry. As they say, make a decent product and
people will beat a way to your door. Relativity is being proven
false, and like a moth to a light you cannot help but click...
PD
They say this fella draws lots of crowds too:
http://www.clown-ministry.com/images/SteveSmith-chof93.jpg
Dirk Van de moortel
c55c9$49cb42c9$82a1e228$28...@news1.tudelft.nl
> Jens Stueckelberger wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:54:05 -0700, S T R I C H wrote:
>>
>>> Strich says it is. Many other smart people here says it is, such as
>>> Androcles, Koobee, Ken Seto, and so on.
>>
>> Hawking, Thorne, Will, Penrose, Newman, Witten, etc. Since I have
>> mentioned more smart people than you I guess that I win - i.e. by your
>> criterion, relativity is not illogical. Thanks for providing the argument.
>
> Huh, repeat that ! Hawking, Penrose: "very smart people" ??
>
> I've read the book "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose, and it's
> one of the most _worthless_ writeups I've encountered in my whole life.
> Same remark for "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. Do I have
> to mention the popularized drivel produced by Paul Davies as well ?
There is no doubt about how smart they are, although they
obviously had no idea how many people would evolve from
normal to plain stupid after having read their books. They could
(and probably should) have known better. The books should
have had a warning: "Not for the layman - for professionals only."
This popsci is arguably responsible for 90% of the crackpots
we have the pleasure to deal with here on Usenet. Not bad,
really :-)
Dirk Vdm
doug
Dorn.Strich wrote:
Strich does not like it when people point out his lies and his mistakes.
He is only he to insult and try to belittle people. It is fun to watch
strich make a fool of himself.
Notice that he had no answers for his failed claims about being able
to refute experiments. He whined that the authors were not famous
enough but, when he, in his delusions, thought something supported
him, the fame of the authors suddenly was not so important.
It will be interesting to see him try to bully his way along the
thread to an unsupported conclusion and then try to claim that
everyone agreed with every step so it must be correct. This is
the same thread he did about a year ago. No success for strich
there either. I guess the experiments will come after that and
then he will return to the muon example.
doug
Dorn.Strich wrote:
Since strich has repeatedly failed miserably in his attempts, it is
more like being drawn to a train wreck. In strich's case the wrecks
come pretty often.
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -
And what is the relevance of your schizophrenic logic to our
discussion?
doug
Dorn.Strich wrote:
Strich is here as a clown to entertain us. We like to watch him dance.
Dorn.Strich
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Penrose is an intellectual wannabe. He has not produced a single
useful creation in his life. His book merely represents the sacrifice
of useful trees for no purpose. Hawking is a real intellectual.
However, he channeled his gift incorrectly. He believed in
relativity. Thus his lack of a Nobel.
PD
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And what is the relevance of your schizophrenic logic to our
> discussion?
I'm so sorry that so much of what I say whizzes right past your ear.
There's another man I saw a month or so ago that had the same problem.
He had a big towel draped across his chest and they were feeding him
jello with a rubber-coated spoon.
PD
Jeff▲Relf
Not knowing better, Mr. Strich feels that non-locality
( e.g. the E.P.R. experiment ) disproves Special Relativity.
The answer, of course, has to do with what is known a priori
( e.g. paired photons have opposite spins, Special Relativity, etc. ),
what isn't knowable ( e.g. the unCertainty principle ), etc.
PD
> Gisse and PD have failed to understand Mr. Strich's argument.
> Not knowing better, Mr. Strich feels that non-locality
> ( e.g. the E.P.R. experiment ) disproves Special Relativity.
Strich9 makes this "argument" purely for argument's sake, as he has no
idea what "nonlocality" means in quantum mechanics. One has to wonder
what other reason Strich9 would have for making an argument involving
terms he doesn't understand the meaning of. Of course, now I'm mildly
curious whether you yourself have any idea what nonlocality means,
other than what you put as your address on your welfare application.
Dirk Van de moortel
591d6b35-2090-4301...@v39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
Your mother didn't serve any purpose either:
http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Strich/850720037
Dirk Vdm
S T R I C H
wording of my propositions, Bear in mind, I am not reproducing the
two postulates of SR verbatim. Otherwise there is no point in asking
if they are true or false, because the monkeys will chorus to a
resounding 'true'. I have nothing against the wording of the original
postulates, except that they are schizophrenically verbose. Occam
will have a field day trimming those laces. So here are the two
propositions, reworded for simplicity and curved to the suggestions of
the monkeys...
===============================
"All inertial frames are equally valid for the performance of all
physical experiments and measurements."
"The speed of light is the same as measured in any inertial frame."
===============================
TRUE/FALSE?
Anybody who thinks these are false, please stand up now!
Tom Potter
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:49CADB9E...@hate.spam.net...
>
> Whether it is god's left eyeball or a sulcus in a rooster's asshole,
> relativity works perfectly prediction vs. observation. Unless you
> have something better, asshole, you have nothing.
Uncle Al makes a good point.
When computing god's left eyeball,
a sulcus in a rooster's asshole,
designing time travel machines, worm holes,
and warp drives, modeling the
beginning and end of the universe,
dark matter, gravitons, black holes,
and knowing the mind of God,
Relativity is the way to go.
However if one wants to design
a bridge, a machine, a suspension system,
a building, a radio, a computer,
a motor, a pump, a generator, or a GPS System,
one should best use models that do the job.
Unless you have something better than
Maxwell's and Newton's models,
you have nothing,
except two orifices that discharge stuff that stinks.
--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com/
http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
Eric Gisse
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And what is the relevance of your schizophrenic logic to our
> discussion?
You are a clown that dances exclusively for our amusement. Your
presense serves no other purpose.
Michael Moroney
>Since strich has repeatedly failed miserably in his attempts, it is
>more like being drawn to a train wreck. In strich's case the wrecks
>come pretty often.
Strich is like an intersection of two busy roads with a traffic light...
....that displays green in all directions.
Sit back and watch the wrecks happen.
Eric Gisse
Yes, Dave. Those are two references confirming the same thing.
I admire your ability to count, as it is a marked improvement over
your previous efforts.
Eric Gisse
> Gisse and PD have failed to understand Mr. Strich's argument.
His argument is that all of physics is wrong. Not much to understand.
> Not knowing better, Mr. Strich feels that non-locality
> ( e.g. the E.P.R. experiment ) disproves Special Relativity.
He feels that the rumbling of his ass cheeks when he farts disproves
special relativity. Neither are relevant, however strongly he feels
about it.
Androcles
"S T R I C H" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d96d529c-b3e5-404f...@l10g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
=================================
Not even close, that's "modern relativity" by wackypedia, not
Special Relativity by Einstein.
Unfortunately there is no way to blame one person except you.
Daryl McCullough
I don't think that's true. Crackpots are not created by
popularizations, it's a personality flaw. Of course,
popularizations may influence *which* particular bugbear
the crackpot decides to dedicate his spare time to
attacking: relativity, evolution, global warming,
quantum mechanics, Godel's theorem, Cantor's theorem,
etc.
Don't blame it on the popularizers. My guess is that
people who decide to actually learn physics, or quantum
mechanics or set theory, or whatever are very often
enticed into the field by reading popularizations
when they were young.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
pmb
> On Mar 26, 12:13 pm,pmb<pm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 26, 11:38 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are you saying that the modern
> > > translation, which I have summarized above is wrong? If so, say that
> > > the propositions ar FALSE.
>
> > > Otherwise, say it is TRUE.
>
> > relativity have not been demonstrated to be wrong. There. Now get on
> > with your argument please and stop this posturing. It's childish to
> > keep on what you've been doing so far!
>
> Miguel aka Cheech does not seem to agree. Why don't you cranks get
> together and make up your minds what the two propositions should be?
I don't care what Miguel agrees with. Make your point and stop this
nonsense. What are you so afraid of?
Androcles
"pmb" <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7271372d-d54f-478d...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 1:32 pm, "Dorn.Strich" <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 12:13 pm,pmb<pm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 26, 11:38 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are you saying that the modern
> > > translation, which I have summarized above is wrong? If so, say that
> > > the propositions ar FALSE.
>
> > > Otherwise, say it is TRUE.
>
> > We all agree that, at least classically, the postulates of special
> > relativity have not been demonstrated to be wrong. There. Now get on
> > with your argument please and stop this posturing. It's childish to
> > keep on what you've been doing so far!
>
> Miguel aka Cheech does not seem to agree. Why don't you cranks get
> together and make up your minds what the two propositions should be?
I don't care
=============
That's right. You don't, you fucking useless ignorant troll and disgusting
pile of shit.
pmb
> Do suggest a better wording of the first postulate!
The first postulate of relativity was stated by Einstein simply as
follows
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
-------------------------------
... the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
-------------------------------
What’s so difficult about that?
Modern phrasing extends this to all the laws of physics, not just
those of EM, optics and mechanics. The modern phrasing of the first
postulate can be found in many modern physics texts. It essentially is
as follows -
All the laws of physics, and all the numerical constants that appear
in them, are exactly the same in all inertial reference frames.
Would you now care to make your point or are you going to keep
avoiding it?
pmb
>
> - Show quoted text -
It’s nice to know that I'm getting on your nerves so bad, psycho. In
Boston we call that "Free rent" - Lol!!!
Free rent means that you're totally obsessed with those people who
don't give you a second thought.
Later psycho. Lol!!!
Jens Stueckelberger
nobodies who enjoy feeding their egos by acting like know-it-alls in this
public forum. Mr. Sour Grapes: You are nothing - live with it.