The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)

[Alen]

The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)

Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram,
and the Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray
a really existing spacetime. This time I have added a page
to my website on which these arguments are presented
as illustrations on actual spacetime diagrams. The page
also contains some text, but the diagrams speak for
themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order
to understand what they are saying. The failures of the
spacetime diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime,
are all marked in red on the diagrams.

http://www.alenspage.net/SpacetimeDiagram.htm

I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like
Henri Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected
the SR light postulate outright as an impossible fabrication,
or whatever, have always been correct. A universal velocity
of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
real spacetime. My solution for implementing the light
postulate does not change that fact, because it produces
only an APPARENT universal velocity of light, but not
a real universal velocity of a single light pulse.

Alen

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:9f404e84-3c42-4a55...@p5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com

"Light pulse no 2 has no presence in the moving frame"
You still haven't got the foggiest idea about what a point in the
diagram represents. It is clear that you are even *more* stupid
than Henri Wilson, Androcles and others.
You are getting worse by the day :-|

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
> A universal velocity
> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
> real spacetime.

On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for this
impossibility?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message news:9f404e84-3c42-4a55...@p5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)

Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram,
and the Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray
a really existing spacetime. This time I have added a page
to my website on which these arguments are presented
as illustrations on actual spacetime diagrams. The page
also contains some text, but the diagrams speak for
themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order
to understand what they are saying. The failures of the
spacetime diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime,
are all marked in red on the diagrams.

http://www.alenspage.net/SpacetimeDiagram.htm

 

=============================================

The ray does not return to vt as your diagram shows it should.

It continue on going to the left until it reaches 0.

  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

Don’t correct Einstein’s idiocy for him otherwise you are not

showing SR as it really is. The length of the rod extends from

0’ to x’,  so its length is  x’-0’   = (x-vt) - (0-vt) = x.

The ray returns to 0, not 0’ as you’ve shown but not what Einstein

has written.

The length of the moving rod is then made LONGER,

x’ is divided

by a number less than 1.

I don’t need to tell you Dork Van de faggot is an idiot, but perhaps

you should be aware that Einstein and Minkowski were both idiots.

 

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Uwe Hayek]

What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?

Little Green Fairies that make motionless objects collide ?

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 10/12/2012 12:52 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>> A universal velocity
>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>> real spacetime.
>>
>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for this
>> impossibility?
>>
> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
>

The fact that it is observed in experiment. This should be enough to
admit the possibility.

Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?

[Uwe Hayek]

On 10/12/2012 8:00 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 12:52 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>>> A universal velocity
>>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>>> real spacetime.
>>>
>>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for this
>>> impossibility?
>>>
>> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
>>
>
> The fact that it is observed in experiment.

Two way speed of light is NOT THE SAME as one way speed of light.

And length contraction makes it impossible to measure.

That makes it unobservable.

> This should be enough to
> admit the possibility.

> Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?
>

The mechanism is an impossible one.

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 10/12/2012 1:06 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 8:00 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 12:52 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>>>> A universal velocity
>>>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>>>> real spacetime.
>>>>
>>>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for this
>>>> impossibility?
>>>>
>>> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
>>>
>>
>> The fact that it is observed in experiment.
>
> Two way speed of light is NOT THE SAME as one way speed of light.

Two-way speed of light measurement plus isotropy measurement completely
constrains one-way speed of light. This you should be able to convince
yourself of on a beer napkin.

Plus, even if a two-way light speed indicates that that it is universal,
this should indicate the possibility. The *possibility* being allowed,
then the onus is on the one claiming that there IS NO possibility to
prove that.

>
> And length contraction makes it impossible to measure.
>
> That makes it unobservable.
>
>> This should be enough to
>> admit the possibility.
>
>> Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?
>>
>
> The mechanism is an impossible one.

Why is it impossible?

And how would you go about showing that there is no possible mechanism?
That is, that it CANNOT BE that light has the same speed universally,
independent of mechanism? Prove that. Or at least argue it.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 10/12/2012 8:17 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 1:06 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 8:00 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 12:52 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>>>>> A universal velocity
>>>>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>>>>> real spacetime.
>>>>>
>>>>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for
>>>>> this
>>>>> impossibility?
>>>>>
>>>> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that it is observed in experiment.
>>
>> Two way speed of light is NOT THE SAME as one way speed of light.
>
> Two-way speed of light measurement plus isotropy measurement completely
> constrains one-way speed of light. This you should be able to convince
> yourself of on a beer napkin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#One-way_speed_of_light

QUOTE
However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A
to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured,...
UNQUOTE

> Plus, even if a two-way light speed indicates that that it is universal,
> this should indicate the possibility. The *possibility* being allowed,
> then the onus is on the one claiming that there IS NO possibility to
> prove that.
>
>>
>> And length contraction makes it impossible to measure.
>>
>> That makes it unobservable.
>>
>>> This should be enough to
>>> admit the possibility.
>>
>>> Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?
>>>
>>
>> The mechanism is an impossible one.
>
> Why is it impossible?

It is quite obvious that if you would measure identical photons, in two
differently moving frames, and obtain the same result, that something
must have interfered with the measuring process.

Since relativity proves that rods and clocks are variable, it
overwhelmingly points to the measuring process.

The photon does not adapt its speed to the frame, the frame's measuring
devices adapt to exactly measure c.

> And how would you go about showing that there is no possible mechanism?

It does not work that way : I showed you a possible mechanism.

You show me your mechanism that contradicts mine.

> That is, that it CANNOT BE that light has the same speed universally,

If light speed adapted itself to every frame, there would be no need for
length contraction or time dilation.

> independent of mechanism?
Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that
means you haven't understood it.

"It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
it:" " - lord Kelvin

> Prove that. Or at least argue it.

I just did.

Uwe Hayek.

[Big Dog]

On 10/12/2012 1:57 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 8:17 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 1:06 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 8:00 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 12:52 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2012 5:27 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>>>>>> A universal velocity
>>>>>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>>>>>> real spacetime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> impossibility?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What is the argument for it's *possibility* ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that it is observed in experiment.
>>>
>>> Two way speed of light is NOT THE SAME as one way speed of light.
>>
>> Two-way speed of light measurement plus isotropy measurement completely
>> constrains one-way speed of light. This you should be able to convince
>> yourself of on a beer napkin.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#One-way_speed_of_light
>
>
> QUOTE
> However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A
> to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured,...
> UNQUOTE

Yes, what I talked about was the combination of TWO measurements, which
completely constrains the one-way speed of light.

>
>
>> Plus, even if a two-way light speed indicates that that it is universal,
>> this should indicate the possibility. The *possibility* being allowed,
>> then the onus is on the one claiming that there IS NO possibility to
>> prove that.

And this statement still stands.

>>
>>>
>>> And length contraction makes it impossible to measure.
>>>
>>> That makes it unobservable.
>>>
>>>> This should be enough to
>>>> admit the possibility.
>>>
>>>> Now, what is the argument for its IMpossibility?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The mechanism is an impossible one.
>>
>> Why is it impossible?
>
> It is quite obvious that if you would measure identical photons, in two
> differently moving frames, and obtain the same result, that something
> must have interfered with the measuring process.

Why is it obvious? Please don't respond with "Because it's impossible."
I've already asked you WHY you think it's impossible.

>
> Since relativity proves that rods and clocks are variable, it
> overwhelmingly points to the measuring process.

Eh?

>
> The photon does not adapt its speed to the frame, the frame's measuring
> devices adapt to exactly measure c.
>
>> And how would you go about showing that there is no possible mechanism?
>
> It does not work that way : I showed you a possible mechanism.

No, you are the one that claims that it is impossible. Back up your claim.

>
> You show me your mechanism that contradicts mine.

This mechanism is documented. Have you not read about relativity? Do you
need pointers for the mechanism of relativity?

>
>
>> That is, that it CANNOT BE that light has the same speed universally,
>
> If light speed adapted itself to every frame, there would be no need for
> length contraction or time dilation.

So what? You've just said that it is impossible for light to be measured
to have value c in two frames, and then you just now have proposed a
scheme by which it is possible. So what exactly are you claiming?

>> independent of mechanism?
> Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that
> means you haven't understood it.

Bullshit. Here you are baiting to be spoonfed on usenet again. Would you
like some pointers to good materials on relativity, or do you need your
meat cut for you?

>
> "It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
> particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
> it:" " - lord Kelvin

It seems to me that things have progressed a little bit since Kelvin,
who also was completely flummoxed about why atoms don't radiate and why
the earth was far older than he thought it could be.

>
>> Prove that. Or at least argue it.
>
> I just did.

How so? You proved no impossibility whatsoever. You just said you had a
different idea how it could be possible.

>
> Uwe Hayek.

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/12/12 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
> The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)
>

I got one for you, Alen.

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/practice/enterprise_supernova.gif

[Big Dog]

On 10/12/2012 2:18 PM, Big Dog wrote:

>> Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that
>> means you haven't understood it.
>
> Bullshit. Here you are baiting to be spoonfed on usenet again. Would you
> like some pointers to good materials on relativity, or do you need your
> meat cut for you?
>
>>
>> "It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
>> particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
>> it:" " - lord Kelvin
>
> It seems to me that things have progressed a little bit since Kelvin,
> who also was completely flummoxed about why atoms don't radiate and why
> the earth was far older than he thought it could be.
>
>>
>>> Prove that. Or at least argue it.
>>
>> I just did.
>
> How so? You proved no impossibility whatsoever. You just said you had a
> different idea how it could be possible.
>
>>
>> Uwe Hayek.
>

It amuses me, "Uwe", that your idea of a proof of impossibility takes
various forms:

"You have not supplied a mechanism that I believe. Therefore it is
impossible."
"You haven't proven that you understand the mechanism you claim.
Therefore it is impossible."
"I have an alternate mechanism for how it is possible. Therefore your
mechanism is impossible and the whole thing is impossible."

It's like you finding a pile of shit in your mother's front yard, and I
suggest that your mother's dog Bobo laid the pile of shit there. You say
that's impossible. I ask you to prove that it's impossible. You say that
you believe instead that the neighbor's dog Bruno laid the pile of shit
there, which proves that it is impossible that Bobo laid the shit,
because both dogs couldn't have laid the shit. Furthermore, you say,
since it is proven that Bobo didn't lay the pile of shit, then the pile
of shit has been proven not to exist.

It's not so much your dim grasp of physics that is so highly amusing,
it's your general dimness of wits. No matter what your mother says. Or
Bobo, for that matter.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k59vo9$vsb$1...@speranza.aioe.org

Take it one step further.
Since he has shown that the pile of shit has been proven not to exist,
and since you claim that it was laid by Bobo, he also has proven that
Bobo cannot exist.

>
> It's not so much your dim grasp of physics that is so highly amusing,
> it's your general dimness of wits. No matter what your mother says. Or
> Bobo, for that matter.

But there is no Bobo in his universe.

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VMudnRhO6p9c4eXN...@giganews.com

Yes, there's a lot of really excellent and beautiful diagrams in those notes at
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~takeuchi/relativity/notes/
Good webplace.

Dirk Vdm

[xxein]

xxein: I guess that you only know a relativity theory of measurement
and not a physic.

[Y]

Nice work, but I think you need to find real explanations for why past
and future do not exist. Unfortunately, I think this is impossible
using math or physics. Besides, I find your explanations quite
convoluted as well as contradictory.

The reason why I do not think past and future exist is as follows.

The past and future are psychological rather than physical realities.
Generally, the human brain is capable of remembering and recalling
information. We call this memory. What I think memory does is absorb
information - via the cause and effect of motion.

For example. To create a memory, something moves, and the brain
somehow records this motion.

While the brain is physically effected by sense data, it is additional
layers of thinking that places motion against a timeline.

There is no doubt that mo

[Uwe Hayek]

On 10/12/2012 9:18 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 1:57 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#One-way_speed_of_light
>>
>>
>>
>> QUOTE
>> However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A
>> to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured,...
>> UNQUOTE
>
> Yes, what I talked about was the combination of TWO measurements, which
> completely constrains the one-way speed of light.

Learn English. "ONLY the two way speed of light can UNAMBIGUOUSLY be
measured"

That means the measured one way speed of light is ambiguous, therefore
cannot be exactly determined.

>>
>>
>>> Plus, even if a two-way light speed indicates that that it is universal,

This is incorrect. Therefore your conclusion is also.

Again, again and again you prove that you have absolutely no insight in
physics whatsoever, and are unable to reason in a logical way.

>>
>> Since relativity proves that rods and clocks are variable, it
>> overwhelmingly points to the measuring process.
>
> Eh?

What part of time dilation or length contraction you do not understand ?

>>
>> The photon does not adapt its speed to the frame, the frame's measuring
>> devices adapt to exactly measure c.
>>
>>> And how would you go about showing that there is no possible mechanism?
>>
>> It does not work that way : I showed you a possible mechanism.
>
> No, you are the one that claims that it is impossible. Back up your claim.
>
>>
>> You show me your mechanism that contradicts mine.
>
> This mechanism is documented. Have you not read about relativity? Do you
> need pointers for the mechanism of relativity?
>
>>
>>
>>> That is, that it CANNOT BE that light has the same speed universally,
>>
>> If light speed adapted itself to every frame, there would be no need for
>> length contraction or time dilation.
>
> So what? You've just said that it is impossible for light to be measured
> to have value c in two frames, and then you just now have proposed a
> scheme by which it is possible. So what exactly are you claiming?
>
>>> independent of mechanism?
>> Everything has a mechanism. If you cannot explain the mechanism that
>> means you haven't understood it.
>
> Bullshit. Here you are baiting to be spoonfed on usenet again. Would you
> like some pointers to good materials on relativity, or do you need your
> meat cut for you?
>
>>
>> "It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not understand a
>> particular point in physics" is, "Can we make a mechanical model of
>> it:" " - lord Kelvin
>
> It seems to me that things have progressed

The correct word is regressed. And not by a small amount.

a little bit since Kelvin,
> who also was completely flummoxed about why atoms don't radiate and why
> the earth was far older than he thought it could be.
>
>>
>>> Prove that. Or at least argue it.
>>
>> I just did.
>
> How so? You proved no impossibility whatsoever. You just said you had a
> different idea how it could be possible.

Discussion with you are pointless.

I think we are discussing semantics, and we have a different viewpoint.

I am interested in the ontology or the mechanism, you only in the local
measurement that your textbook prescribes.

I fully agree that you say "two way speed of light is isotropic in all
frames". But the mechanism is that clocks and rods are variable. Light
does not adjust its speed to the frame. And that EXCLUDES the one way
speed of light to be isotropic. Because then light has to adapt its
speed to any frame, and there should be no need for time dilation and
length contraction.

Uwe Hayek.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 13, 3:45 pm, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 9:18 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>
> > On 10/12/2012 1:57 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:

> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#One-way_spee...

SR is not a bad theory. It is a rotten theory. You are right, a pulse
of light passing over two observers in relative motion cannot adjusts
its speed as there is no known mechanism by which it can. Therefore,
if light speed is same in all frames then their measuring instruments
must undergo change. However, since all uniform motions are equivalent
and since even SR admits that there is no change in proper time and
proper length, observers moving with different speeds must measure
different speed of light.
It is for this reason; constant speed of light is a postulate and a
wrong one.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:9f404e84-3c42-4a55...@p5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com

> The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)
>
> Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram,
> and the Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray
> a really existing spacetime. This time I have added a page
> to my website on which these arguments are presented
> as illustrations on actual spacetime diagrams. The page
> also contains some text, but the diagrams speak for
> themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order
> to understand what they are saying. The failures of the
> spacetime diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime,
> are all marked in red on the diagrams.
>
> http://www.alenspage.net/SpacetimeDiagram.htm
>
> I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like
> Henri Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected
> the SR light postulate outright as an impossible fabrication,
> or whatever, have always been correct.

See how correct they are at
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AdditionDoesNotExist.html

Dirk Vdm

[Alen]

On Oct 13, 2:03 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"

> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A typical, instantaneous, Vdm reaction :)

Alen

[Alen]

What do you think my entire post is actually about?

Alen

[Bill Snyder]

Your delusions of adequacy.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:4aui78lgfe5eb6e2l...@4ax.com

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 07:16:06 -0700 (PDT), Alen
> <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 13, 2:27 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Alen wrote:
>>>
>>>> A universal velocity
>>>> of a single light pulse in all frames at once cannot exist in
>>>> real spacetime.
>>>
>>> On what basis do you make this statement? What is the argument for
>>> this impossibility?
>>
>> What do you think my entire post is actually about?
>
> Your delusions of adequacy.

Combined with the illusion of supremacy.
Deadly.

Dirk Vdm

[Y.Porat]

-----------------------
indeed
no curvature and no schmervature of space

that was a flop of Einstein
space is by definition nothing
so it has no properties whatsoever
except hosting mass
AND IT IS MASS WHO DOES THE RICK OF ANY ATTRACTION FORCE
(OR REPULSION FORCE )
force is done by force messengers from mass !!

see the Y Porat Circlon idea

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------------

[jem]

What do you think it's about, Babble Boy? I mean when expressed in
words you actually know the meanings of.

[Alen]

I think it's about your total and utter blindness,
whether real or a deliberate posture, I don't know,
to things a child could understand.

Alen

[Alen]

On Oct 14, 7:45 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Bill Snyder" <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote in message

> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That really applies to you lot, Dirk, and
is the reason you are all blind to the stark,
staring obvious.

Alen

[jem]

Correction, Babble Boy, make that "things the delusional can
understand". Only to the insane, Babble Boy, is incoherence
understandable.

[Alen]

> understandable.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh lol - a perfect description of the
advocates of the orthodox 'counterintuitive'
(such a nice, harmless word - which can
even make insanity look sane :))

Alen

[Big Dog]

On 10/13/2012 6:39 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> SR is not a bad theory. It is a rotten theory. You are right, a pulse
> of light passing over two observers in relative motion cannot adjusts
> its speed as there is no known mechanism by which it can.

Why do you think it must adjust in any way?

Keep in mind that the same car observed by two different observers has
two different speeds, without any adjustment of the car's speed needed
at all.

So why do you think that having the *same* speed as seen by two
different observers requires an adjustment? Adjustment FROM what TO what?

Note that the law v'=v+u has been disqualified experimentally.

[Big Dog]

On 10/13/2012 5:42 AM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 9:18 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 1:57 PM, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#One-way_speed_of_light
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> QUOTE
>>> However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A
>>> to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured,...
>>> UNQUOTE
>>
>> Yes, what I talked about was the combination of TWO measurements, which
>> completely constrains the one-way speed of light.
>
> Learn English. "ONLY the two way speed of light can UNAMBIGUOUSLY be
> measured"
>
> That means the measured one way speed of light is ambiguous, therefore
> cannot be exactly determined.
>

Well, if you want to interpret a Wikipedia sentence that way, you will
certainly do what you're going to do.

Those people who read the real literature on the experimental results of
course know better.

Your complaint is equivalent to "Well, here's what Popular Science says
about the experimental results and I choose to take Popular Science's
word on it."

[Uwe Hayek]

On 10/12/2012 4:49 PM, Alen wrote:
> The Failure of Minkowski Spacetime (This Time Illustrated)
>
> Until now I have argued verbally that the spacetime diagram, and the
> Minkowski spacetime it represents, cannot portray a really existing
> spacetime. This time I have added a page to my website on which these
> arguments are presented as illustrations on actual spacetime
> diagrams. The page also contains some text, but the diagrams speak
> for themselves, so it is not necessary to read the text in order to
> understand what they are saying. The failures of the spacetime
> diagram, and the associated Minkowski spacetime, are all marked in
> red on the diagrams.
>
> http://www.alenspage.net/SpacetimeDiagram.htm
>
> I would add, here, that all those so-called crackpots, like Henri
> Wilson, Androcles, and others who have rejected the SR light
> postulate outright as an impossible fabrication, or whatever, have
> always been correct. A universal velocity of a single light pulse in
> all frames at once cannot exist in real spacetime. My solution for
> implementing the light postulate does not change that fact, because
> it produces only an APPARENT universal velocity of light, but not a

> real universal velocity of a single light pulse.

For the local observer it is not apparent. To him, they are real
measurements.

But the statement : "The laws of physics remain the same for all
inertially moving observers" should have been "The /hitherto known/ laws
of physics remain the same for all inertially moving observers"

QUOTE
I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter that there were two
possibilities. We have already discussed one, which is that the
principle of the relativity of motion is wrong—meaning that we could
indeed distinguish absolute motion from absolute rest. This would
reverse a principle that has been the linchpin of physics since Galileo.
I personally find this possibility abhorrent, but as a scientist I must
acknowledge that it is a real possibility. Indeed, if the results of
AGASA, the Japanese cosmic-ray experiment, hold up, such a breakdown in
special relativity may have already been seen.
UNQUOTE
Smolin, Lee (2008-02-28). The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String
Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next (p. 226). ePenguin.
Kindle Edition.

The narrow-minded relativists here will get hit by an absolute frame
with the size of a Universe. That is gonna hurt.

Uwe Hayek.

[Vilas Tamhane]

You are right. We can always fall back to some imaginary rest frame.
At least in our universe it can be treated as a rest frame.
Actually in practice, we don’t find any relative motion; unless we
loose our record of accelerations. A man moving in the spaceship never
says that spaceship is moving w.r.t. him. So the relative motion
between the spaceship and the man is mathematical. In reality,
spaceship can never move with different velocities with respect to
differently moving people. So the concept of relative motion is
mathematical and therefore relates to coordinate frames. Reality is
different and there is a direction to motions such as v1->v2->v3 and
so on. In this chain, it can be determined that v2 (object with v2)
cannot move with respect to v1 and v3 cannot move w.r.t. v2.

[Big Dog]

On 10/15/2012 12:56 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> You are right. We can always fall back to some imaginary rest frame.
> At least in our universe it can be treated as a rest frame.
> Actually in practice, we don’t find any relative motion; unless we
> loose our record of accelerations. A man moving in the spaceship never
> says that spaceship is moving w.r.t. him. So the relative motion
> between the spaceship and the man is mathematical. In reality,
> spaceship can never move with different velocities with respect to
> differently moving people.

Tamhane, forget spaceships.
Someone throws a rock from the back of a pick-up truck.
With respect to the driver of a car following the truck, the speed of
the rock is 22 km/hr. With respect to a spectator standing on the
street, the speed of the rock is 45 km/hr. Are you telling me that this
is impossible?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:df58e11d-0036-470b...@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com

> On Oct 15, 10:30 pm, Uwe Hayek <haye...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 4:49 PM, Alen wrote:

>>> Babble babble

>> Grunt grunt

> Oink oink

Alen, Hayek and Tampoon... three of our recent dearest in a row :-)
Androcles, where ARE you?

Dirk Vdm

[Vilas Tamhane]

Forget the pick-up truck. I throw a rock on your face. Did a rock
moved towards you or you moved towards it (without making any effort)?

[Big Dog]

On 10/15/2012 1:20 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Oct 15, 11:07 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2012 12:56 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>
>>> You are right. We can always fall back to some imaginary rest frame.
>>> At least in our universe it can be treated as a rest frame.
>>> Actually in practice, we don’t find any relative motion; unless we
>>> loose our record of accelerations. A man moving in the spaceship never
>>> says that spaceship is moving w.r.t. him. So the relative motion
>>> between the spaceship and the man is mathematical. In reality,
>>> spaceship can never move with different velocities with respect to
>>> differently moving people.
>>
>> Tamhane, forget spaceships.
>> Someone throws a rock from the back of a pick-up truck.
>> With respect to the driver of a car following the truck, the speed of
>> the rock is 22 km/hr. With respect to a spectator standing on the
>> street, the speed of the rock is 45 km/hr. Are you telling me that this
>> is impossible?

Note you did not answer this question. Are you telling me that the rock
cannot have both speeds with respect to the two observers?

>>
>>> So the concept of relative motion is
>>> mathematical and therefore relates to coordinate frames. Reality is
>>> different and there is a direction to motions such as v1->v2->v3 and
>>> so on. In this chain, it can be determined that v2 (object with v2)
>>> cannot move with respect to v1 and v3 cannot move w.r.t. v2.
>
> Forget the pick-up truck. I throw a rock on your face. Did a rock
> moved towards you or you moved towards it (without making any effort)?
>

That entirely depends. If you were in a truck going 60 mph and I was
following you at 60 mph, and you threw a rock out from the back of the
truck 60 mph backwards relative to the truck, then the rock is not
moving horizontally with respect to the ground at all. But if I get to
where the rock is before it reaches the ground, I'm going to feel the
rock hitting me at 60 mph. -- But that's because *I'm* moving relative
to the ground, not because the rock is. Now, in the collision between me
and the rock, is that because the rock moved into me or because I moved
into the rock? Remember, YOU threw the rock.

Let me ask you a related question. A meteorite is observed plowing into
the earth with great speed, about 67,000 mph. Now, is that because the
meteorite was traveling that fast through space, or because the
meteorite was drifting through space and the earth is traveling through
space at 67,000 mph? And how would you tell?

Lastly, if you can answer the second question, apply that insight to the
first question, noting that the ground is attached to the earth.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Totally irrelevant to what I am saying. Why there is no direct answer
to my question?
I am not measuring relative speed. I am stressing that mathematics of
relative motion is correct but does not represent reality. It is an
illusion. When you are in the stationary train and when another train
slowly moves past you, according to relativity you cannot decide which
train is actually moving. In fact even your senses deceive you. You
can only talk of relative motion between the trains. Is it reality?
Will you tell your son who is sitting by your side that “Look bob, we
have started our journey to our home?”

[Peter Webb]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
news:b4e1af77-d82b-4c63...@ql4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

____________________________________________
I can't see what question you have asked.

I am not measuring relative speed. I am stressing that mathematics of
relative motion is correct but does not represent reality. It is an
illusion. When you are in the stationary train and when another train
slowly moves past you, according to relativity you cannot decide which
train is actually moving. In fact even your senses deceive you. You
can only talk of relative motion between the trains. Is it reality?
Will you tell your son who is sitting by your side that “Look bob, we
have started our journey to our home?”

_____________________________________________
No, because if we are stationary with respect to the train station and our
home is also stationary with respect to the train station, then we haven't
got any closer to home and hence haven't started our journey. Obviously.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 16, 7:05 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:

Take a look above. Any way I asked Big Dog if I throw a stone on his
face, will he say that it was he who moved towards the stone. From
your above answer it appears that the answer is indeterminate. In fact
the way a particular train actually moved, there is a definite answer
to my question and that is, it was stone that was in actual motion.
Bring in a fact about recorded acceleration and illusion of relativity
vanishes.

[Big Dog]

The direct answer is it is physically irrelevant whether the rock moves
toward the face or the face moves toward the rock or both move toward
each other, and in fact there IS NO "real" answer other than relative
motion. This is the point of the example I gave you, so that it is CLEAR
that there is no "real" answer.

> I am not measuring relative speed. I am stressing that mathematics of
> relative motion is correct but does not represent reality. It is an
> illusion. When you are in the stationary train and when another train
> slowly moves past you, according to relativity you cannot decide which
> train is actually moving.

That's in fact right. Consider that even the track that the train is
riding on may or may not be moving, and YOU CANNOT TELL. There is
absolutely no physical way to confirm whether the track is "really"
moving, any more than you can tell whether the rock you just threw is
"really" moving even though you just threw it.

> In fact even your senses deceive you. You
> can only talk of relative motion between the trains. Is it reality?
> Will you tell your son who is sitting by your side that “Look bob, we
> have started our journey to our home?”

You can certain determine that you have begun to move RELATIVE TO YOUR
HOME, but you cannot determine whether the train is really moving
because you're not sure your home is not moving as well.

[Vilas Tamhane]

> > Will you tell your son who is sitting by your side that �Look bob, we
> > have started our journey to our home?�

>
> You can certain determine that you have begun to move RELATIVE TO YOUR
> HOME, but you cannot determine whether the train is really moving
> because you're not sure your home is not moving as well.

Physics that doesn’t try to find reality attached to motion by the
history of acceleration is a physics of illusion.

[hanson]

ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ROTFLMAO.... "Fatso",
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", is living in his VW-bus or in a trailer park

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 16, 8:02 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ROTFLMAO.... "Fatso",
> the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &

> fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fing....@gmail.com>

> hence "Fatso", is living in his VW-bus or in a trailer park
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> because he wrote:
> > you cannot determine whether the train is really
> > moving because you're not sure your home is
> > not moving as well.

He must be repenting for making such a silly comment but you see he
has no alternative. He already knows that admitting reality about
motion will be catastrophic to his beloved theory and his neo god,
Einstein.
1. If he agrees that relative motion is an indeterminate state based
on ignorance of history of accelerations, then relative motion cannot
be the basis for any sound theory.
2. Once we know that who is actually moving then it is quite likely
that SR effects are applicable only to the frame that undergoes
acceleration. This is what Lorentz thought.
3. However since all inertial frames are equivalent, there cannot be
any persistent effect in the frame that was set in motion. So Einstein
modified the concept and decided that in order to explain MMX, it is
necessary to poke nose into other frame rather than measure his own
rod and check the rate of his own clock.
4. But once a god always a god. So apparent effect were converted in
to real effects. Deification of Einstein was particularly necessary
to deceive gullible followers as the god was a cranky and his gospel
bordered on insanity.

[hanson]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ROTFLMAO.... "Fatso",
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &

fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>

hence "Fatso", is living in his VW-bus or in a trailer park

because:
Fatso said: you cannot determine whether the train is
Fatso said: really moving because you're not sure
Fatso said: your home is not moving as well.
>
"Vilas Tamhane" wrote:
Fatso must be repenting for making such a silly comment
but you see Fatso has no alternative. Fatso already knows

that admitting reality about motion will be catastrophic to
his beloved theory and his neo god, Einstein.
1. If he agrees that relative motion is an indeterminate state based
on ignorance of history of accelerations, then relative motion cannot
be the basis for any sound theory.
2. Once we know that who is actually moving then it is quite likely
that SR effects are applicable only to the frame that undergoes
acceleration. This is what Lorentz thought.
3. However since all inertial frames are equivalent, there cannot be
any persistent effect in the frame that was set in motion. So Einstein
modified the concept and decided that in order to explain MMX, it is
necessary to poke nose into other frame rather than measure his own
rod and check the rate of his own clock.
4. But once a god always a god. So apparent effect were converted in
to real effects. Deification of Einstein was particularly necessary
to deceive gullible followers as the god was a cranky and his gospel
bordered on insanity.
>

hanson wrote:
Fatso, like all Einstein Dingleberries viz. Sam Warmey,
Spermeless VD Mortel, Peeter Webb etc, have all
fallen victim to kike- and kikeophil brainwashing and
have become damaged goods. Relativists are labeled
by the kikes as "Goyim" which means "Cattle for Jews".
>
So Vilas, keep on having fun with cranking & riling up
these sorry bastards who find solace in their worship
of Albert's sphincter in whose ass-hair they dangle &
sway as Einstein Dingleberries in the warm & cozy
breeze of Einstein's Gedanken farts.... ahahahaha...
>
Ask these ED's every now and then what or which
relativistic effect they have ever PERSONALLY
encountered during their lives. They are always
very quiet on that.
>
Equally quiet are all these Einstein Dingleberries
when you tell and show them in Einstein's own
words that
>
_ Einstein was a SR/GR Relativity denier _
>
Here, for their benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."

|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
>
Take care, Vilas, and thanks for the laughs... & tell
them to argue with Einstein, their idol, instead of you.
ahahaha... ahahahahahanson

[Big Dog]

On 10/16/2012 10:39 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> He must be repenting for making such a silly comment but you see he
> has no alternative. He already knows that admitting reality about
> motion will be catastrophic to his beloved theory and his neo god,
> Einstein.
> 1. If he agrees that relative motion is an indeterminate state based
> on ignorance of history of accelerations, then relative motion cannot
> be the basis for any sound theory.

This highlights the problem I stated earlier. Relative motion is not
indeterminate. Relative motion is independent of frames. Whether a body
can be said to have *absolute* motion is indeterminate. You then say
that any theory that has only indeterminate *absolute* motion cannot
possibly be sound. That is YOUR philosophical assumption, which is
simply not reflected in physical laws.

> 2. Once we know that who is actually moving then it is quite likely
> that SR effects are applicable only to the frame that undergoes
> acceleration. This is what Lorentz thought.

Here you are muddling words. Inertial reference frames do not accelerate
or get accelerated. I think this emphasizes the point made by other
posters that when you do not know what "reference frame" even means,
then you make muddled conclusions based on muddled interpretations of words.

[hanson]

ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ROTFLMAO.... "Fatso",
the wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitch with the bark &

fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
hence "Fatso", ... continues with " muddling words...and
makes muddled conclusions based on muddled interpretations
of words".
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, who is an Einstein Dingleberry carries on with
his muddling DESPITE the fact that Einstein, who was
honest enough, after 50 years of "brooding", and not
like Fartso, to become
>
_ Einstein, the SR/GR Relativity denier _
>
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,

Take care, Fatso, and thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha... ahahahahahanson

[Big Dog]

On 10/15/2012 9:24 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Take a look above. Any way I asked Big Dog if I throw a stone on his
> face, will he say that it was he who moved towards the stone. From
> your above answer it appears that the answer is indeterminate.

That's correct, it is indeterminate.

> In fact
> the way a particular train actually moved, there is a definite answer
> to my question and that is, it was stone that was in actual motion.

Don't be silly. I gave you an example where you threw the stone and it
was clear the stone was NOT moving and yet there was a collision between
the stone and my face at 60 mph.

Now, you may say that you were not talking about throwing the stone from
the back of a moving pick-up truck, but a different case entirely. And
my response is that WHATEVER you are standing on may be moving (and you
don't KNOW one way or the other). And so the answer is still
indeterminate, whether you have thrown the stone from the back of a
pick-up truck, or while standing on the ground, or while standing on
anything else.

> Bring in a fact about recorded acceleration and illusion of relativity
> vanishes.

Acceleration records only a change in relative motion. It does not EVER
tell you that you are now moving or now not moving. Because you may have
been moving before and the change in motion (acceleration) may have
removed that.

[Big Dog]

On 10/16/2012 9:23 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Physics that doesn’t try to find reality attached to motion by the
> history of acceleration is a physics of illusion.
>

You may think so, Tamhane. Essentially what you're saying is that if
physics doesn't associate reality to absolute motion, then as far as
you're concerned it is not a physics of reality.

It doesn't seem to penetrate that what physics has noticed is that there
IS NO observational distinction between acceleration and deceleration,
and that a number of very simple cases illustrates that. And physics has
noticed that the only motion that really matters in all physical laws is
*changes* in *relative* motion. Careful examination of physical laws
shows this to be the case.

Thus, this absolute motion that you seem to cling to is extraneous
baggage, not essential to physical laws, not discernible by experiment.
Your rebuttal seems to be that you have a *philosophical* attachment to
the concept, without which you can make no sense of physics, even though
others have no problem. Therefore you dismiss any physics that does not
also incorporate the concept.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Duh.
*Philosophical* attachment to the concept, you say?
Don't flatter them. It's *psychological* attachment -- at best.

Dirk Vdm

[G=EMC^2]

Also acceleration increases inertia,and inertia is the same as
gravity.So the flow of time is slowed by acceleration.Photons can not
age. Electron cloud spinning at c can not age. TeBert

[Vilas Tamhane]

I merely explained nature of relative motion and I will not repeat
what I said. If it has gone over your head or if you are taking
pleasure in your performance as an advocate then continue.

[Vilas Tamhane]

This post of yours doesn’t even deserve a reply.

[Vilas Tamhane]

You are wrong. I am certainly interested in knowing acceleration to
find out the situation at hand. This decides if I am moving with the
train or the destination is moving towards me. In general common sense
is often used to resolve the matter. In an abnormal case, it is
necessary to know who actually accelerated.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Proving my point ENTIRELY :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 17, 7:44 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:

You don’t have any point Dirk! You are just a buffoon here.

[Big Dog]

On 10/17/2012 8:30 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> I merely explained nature of relative motion and I will not repeat
> what I said. If it has gone over your head or if you are taking
> pleasure in your performance as an advocate then continue.
>

And I am pointing out that your understanding of relative motion is not
at ALL what scientists think of it. Moreover, what relative motion means
is something that is taught to FRESHMAN students. So if your
understanding of relative motion is substantially different than what
FRESHMAN students are taught about it, then I would say that the problem
is really at an elementary level.

You can choose to correct that problem, or not.

[Big Dog]

Why not? It's basic, FRESHMAN level, classical mechanics.

Do you disagree with basic, freshman level, classical mechanics?

[Big Dog]

Tamhane, I can't help you any further with this. This is a freshman
concept, and is central to ordinary, vintage, classical mechanics.

If you have problems with this, your problem is not with relativity but
with simple, freshman, classical mechanics.

I'm shocked -- SHOCKED, I tell you -- that you passed freshman physics
classes to become an engineer.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:5bfadd5e-b0eb-4cd5...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com

... having GREAT fun at the expense of a loony tampoon :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k5mh91$io3$2...@speranza.aioe.org

That is the problem. He canNOT make that choice anymore.
He passed that Androclean, Wilsonian, Setonian (...) psychological
barrier. No way back. ;-)

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:k5mka7$re1$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

===========================================

“Tampoon” must be the new name for Pig Dog, unless Dork

means himself...

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Vilas Tamhane]

Who do you think you are to point out my understanding? From your post
it is clear that you are incapable of understanding and discussing
anything that in not in the text book. It is obvious that you are
incapable of thinking out of the box.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Your arrogance is directly related to your lack of intelligence.
Before you post here I advise you to concentrate on the basics and try
to understand the meaning instead of just taking everything without
thinking. Basics do not need high level of intelligence.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Oct 17, 8:53 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Please don’t restrict yourself to one liner. I laugh when you laugh
but Dirk, when you write seriously, I weep.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:fe852de5-1f38-4811...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

> On Oct 17, 8:53 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> Proving my point ENTIRELY :-)
>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>>> You don’t have any point Dirk! You are just a buffoon here.
>>
>> ... having GREAT fun at the expense of a loony tampoon :-)
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Please don’t restrict yourself to one liner. I laugh when you laugh
> but Dirk, when you write seriously, I weep.

You don't.
I always write seriously. Even *that* you fail to recognise.

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

That's fine, Tamhane, then it is clear that you concur that your
disagreement is not with relativity but with simple, freshman, classical
physics, and you would like to think "out of the box" with regard to
simple, freshman classical physics topics.

I don't have much interest in talking about disagreements with simple,
freshman, classical physics.

[Big Dog]

I agree with that statement. Basics do not need high level of intelligence.

Still, you disagree with basic, freshman level, classical mechanics. I
don't think there's much to dispute about that fact.

So what are we to do about that?

[Mahipal]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:47:24 PM UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Oct 17, 8:07 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/17/2012 8:45 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 17, 5:35 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On 10/15/2012 9:24 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> > >>> Take a look above. Any way I asked Big Dog if I throw a stone
> > >>> on his face, will he say that it was he who moved towards the
> > >>> stone. From your above answer it appears that the answer is
> > >>> indeterminate.

> > >> That's correct, it is indeterminate.

What a Science when the best conclusion is Indetermination. O the
confounding uncertainty justification conundrum-roll.

> > >>> In fact the way a particular train actually moved, there is a
> > >>> definite answer to my question and that is, it was stone that
> > >>> was in actual motion.

> > >> Don't be silly. I gave you an example where you threw the stone
> > >> and it was clear the stone was NOT moving and yet there was a
> > >> collision between the stone and my face at 60 mph.

One who casts the first stone, should bonk her own Greek Mother first?

What is the Kinetic Energy of this cast stone in your face's reference
frame? What is its KE in all reference frames? How much bang can the
one stone deliver in the infinite set of relativistically well
traveled RFs?

> > >> Now, you may say that you were not talking about throwing the
> > >> stone from the back of a moving pick-up truck, but a different
> > >> case entirely. And my response is that WHATEVER you are
> > >> standing on may be moving (and you don't KNOW one way or the
> > >> other). And so the answer is still indeterminate, whether you
> > >> have thrown the stone from the back of a pick-up truck, or
> > >> while standing on the ground, or while standing on anything
> > >> else.

How drunk, I get the irony that I am asking this, he he, does One have
to be to not know where One is standing when throwing a stone at a
Dog?

> > >>> Bring in a fact about recorded acceleration and illusion of
> > >>> relativity vanishes.

> > >> Acceleration records only a change in relative motion. It does not EVER
> > >> tell you that you are now moving or now not moving. Because you may have
> > >> been moving before and the change in motion (acceleration) may have
> > >> removed that.
>
> > > This post of yours doesn t even deserve a reply.

Well, Big Dog Types may think they won the thread's argument then? No
reply counts.

> > Why not? It's basic, FRESHMAN level, classical mechanics.
> > Do you disagree with basic, freshman level, classical mechanics?

No one here cares there even exists a freshman level mechanics --
classical, relativistic, or my favorite, otherwise. Freshman level
thinking takes a long hard time to slap out of their small minds and
even tinier thoughts. A complete rewriting of Newton's Gravity never
happened?! Thapri(==Slap==Bonk)! Screw Thy Audience? Oy.

Btw, aside, don't actually try or do the Gibbs2Tony head slap bonk on
anyone. Pretty Beauty Ziva might come. No don't hit it. Not through
Elementary School, not through College, and especially not at all at
the Man's Corporations. Do not Slap. Entering, never to exit, The No
Bonk Zone. Children can and frequently do dial, using parent provided
smartestphone, 911 faster than any False Accusation can take to be
proved wrong or, merely, forgiven. Into the Foster Home these
Victimized Children fall, little they know. Witch Hunts Happen!
Anyway, on Head Bonks, spiraling in this Milky Way along, Corporations
run the risk of being successfully sued by Mone(y) grubbing vindictive
women, of either sex, pretend or otherwise. Settling out of court is
still cheaper for The Man than hiring Lawyers for defense. Not to
mention the notorious costs of parking your car by the Judge's newly
built huge courthouse. Your mileage may vary.

Me, I am just waiting for when (2013?) They pass the Law forbidding
the slapping of one's own head! Oy. Fine $3210, first offense. Bonk^3.

> Your arrogance is directly related to your lack of intelligence.
> Before you post here I advise you to concentrate on the basics and
> try to understand the meaning instead of just taking everything
> without thinking. Basics do not need high level of intelligence.

That Freshmen Level Physics does not get discarded, in graduate school
level free thinking kind of freedom, ah... breathe it, is kind of a
NeverHappensMatter no? The arrogant are truly ignorant. The arrogant,
the ignorant, the abundant. Ready at their keyboards. At least they
know how to resort to namecalling. Oy.

Where would Science be without Insulting? Too late to know.

Most one-liner posts, that you Vilas, and others, are having to deal
with, are indeed not worthwhile and only meaningful to the one who
pretends he's being helpful, smart. More of a waste of the Readers'
Time than the one believing himself clever. Oh joy. Usenet has
turbulent waters. One-liners belong on other Social Media IT.

Very few witty enough Winston Churchills here to even know the
limitations, no I do not mean word count, of a one-liner.

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:

> If your claim that there is "something wrong" with SR
> shall be anything but empty talk, you have to prove that
> there is something wrong with SR.

Boo, Paul! Hey, hey, hey, relax! Koobee Wublee shall go easy on you
this time. How easy? It all depends on your attitude. Well, after
all, you are now too far behind to catch up, but this could be a good
chance for you to close to even up the score. Hopefully, you are not
sore any more from these discussions where you have consistently
embarrassed yourself in. :-)

> You can't prove SR wrong by asserting that it is wrong
> because you believe it is. Physics is not a matter of
> belief, it is a matter of hard evidence.
>
> You can prove SR wrong by either:
> Prove that SR is inconsistent.
> That is, you must show that SR can make two different
> contradicting predictions for the same precisely defined
> experiment.
> or:
> Falsify SR the only way a consistent theory can be falsified.
> That is, you must show that SR's predictions for some
> experiment are not in accordance with the measurements
> of the experiment.
>
> Can you do that?

The derivation of the Lorentz transform is bogus. Please allow Koobee
Wublee to explain. After Voigt devised the Voigt transform to satisfy
the null results of the MMX, Larmor was the second person to come up
with yet another transform to do so. Both the Voigt and Larmor’s
transforms do not satisfy the principle of relativity where they say
the Aether must exist. It appears in order to explain the null
results of the MMX, the Aether has to be solidly instated as
electromagnetism demands under Maxwell’s equations. <shrug>

The founding fathers of these transforms lacked the intellectual
capability to write these non-Galilean (thus, pro-Aether) transforms
in more general forms. They only knew how to write them where the two
observers are moving in parallel to the absolute frame of reference.
On a recap, any transforms, including the Galilean transform, require
two observers and one observed. Any transform then describes the
relationship between how each of these two observers observes the same
observed. <shrug>

From the presentation of Larmor’s transform where both observers are
moving in parallel to the absolute frame of reference, Poincare
noticed the absolute frame of reference would drop out of the
mathematics, and the Lorentz transform (named so by Poincare) was
born. The Lorentz transform is only valid when the two observers are
moving in parallel to the absolute frame of reference, but Poincare
did the mathemaGical trick of applying to the general case where both
observers do not have to move in parallel to the absolute frame of
reference. For the historical view points, it is not clear if
Poincare realized his mistake or not. Nevertheless, the self-styled
physicists then took the Lorentz transform which after the fudging by
Poincare does indeed satisfy the principle of relativity once again,
and Special Relativity was born. <shrug>

So, the derivation of the Lorentz transform from Larmor’s transform is
of voodoo nature. How about these experiments promoted and
meticulously compiled by Tom Roberts? Yes, they do validate the
Lorentz transform (except the twin’s paradox), and because of that,
the self-styled physicists including the little professor, Paul
Andersen, ran with the ball ever since. <shrug>

Engineers are more cautious of jumping into conclusions than self-
styled physicists. They look back at these experiments and examine if
they also satisfy the Voigt and Larmor’s transforms where each
transform says the Aether must exist. Indeed, these experiments,
including the null results of the MMX, all satisfy the Voigt and
Larmor’s transforms as well. Since the Lorentz transform is
antithesis to the Voigt and Larmor’s transforms, these experiments
actually had done little in promoting the already faulty Special
Relativity. In effect, no experiment has uniquely demonstrated the
validity of Special Relativity. <shrug>

Koobee Wublee posted a great comment on this one where self-styled
physicists choose to remain silent and embarrassed by Koobee Wublee’s
remarks. <shrug>

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/619814b67502090f

It is understandable that self-styled physicists are reluctant to show
how lack of understanding in scientific method they have. Hopefully,
Paul has a good excuse and is able to speak for all the self-styled
physicists. So, please, Paul, and thanks in advance. Let’s give a
hand for the little professor. <applause>

Ps. Please don’t disappoint Koobee Wublee. <shrug>

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 21.10.2012 06:36, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2:04 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
>> If your claim that there is "something wrong" with SR
>> shall be anything but empty talk, you have to prove that
>> there is something wrong with SR.
>
> Boo, Paul! Hey, hey, hey, relax! Koobee Wublee shall go easy on you
> this time. How easy? It all depends on your attitude. Well, after
> all, you are now too far behind to catch up, but this could be a good
> chance for you to close to even up the score. Hopefully, you are not
> sore any more from these discussions where you have consistently
> embarrassed yourself in. :-)
>
>> You can't prove SR wrong by asserting that it is wrong
>> because you believe it is. Physics is not a matter of
>> belief, it is a matter of hard evidence.
>>
>> You can prove SR wrong by either:
>> Prove that SR is inconsistent.
>> That is, you must show that SR can make two different
>> contradicting predictions for the same precisely defined
>> experiment.

Koobee Wublee fails to do so now, and failed to do so in the past.

Do you remember your pathetic attempt to prove my calculation
in the following paper wrong, Koobee?
www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf

(Please give me an opportunity to remind you, Koobee.)

>> or:
>> Falsify SR the only way a consistent theory can be falsified.
>> That is, you must show that SR's predictions for some
>> experiment are not in accordance with the measurements
>> of the experiment.

Koobee Wublee fails to do this.
He doesn't even try to name an experiment which falsifies SR.

>> Can you do that?

Since Koobee Wublee fails on both, the following is but empty talk.

I fine documentation of Koobee Wublee's confusion about
the scientific method.

>
> It is understandable that self-styled physicists are reluctant to show
> how lack of understanding in scientific method they have. Hopefully,
> Paul has a good excuse and is able to speak for all the self-styled
> physicists. So, please, Paul, and thanks in advance. Let’s give a
> hand for the little professor. <applause>
>
> Ps. Please don’t disappoint Koobee Wublee. <shrug>

According to the scientific method, you can prove SR wrong
only by either:

Prove that SR is inconsistent.
That is, you must show that SR can make two different
contradicting predictions for the same precisely defined
experiment.
or:
Falsify SR the only way a consistent theory can be falsified.
That is, you must show that SR's predictions for some
experiment are not in accordance with the measurements
of the experiment.

Come back when you you can do at least one of the above.
Until then - goodbye.


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Koobee Wublee]

On Oct 21, 3:03 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On 21.10.2012 06:36, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > The derivation of the Lorentz transform is bogus. Please allow Koobee
> > Wublee to explain. After Voigt devised the Voigt transform to satisfy
> > the null results of the MMX, Larmor was the second person to come up

> > with yet another transform to do so. Both the Voigt and Larmor�s

> > transforms do not satisfy the principle of relativity where they say
> > the Aether must exist. It appears in order to explain the null
> > results of the MMX, the Aether has to be solidly instated as

> > electromagnetism demands under Maxwell�s equations. <shrug>

>
> > The founding fathers of these transforms lacked the intellectual
> > capability to write these non-Galilean (thus, pro-Aether) transforms
> > in more general forms. They only knew how to write them where the two
> > observers are moving in parallel to the absolute frame of reference.
> > On a recap, any transforms, including the Galilean transform, require
> > two observers and one observed. Any transform then describes the
> > relationship between how each of these two observers observes the same
> > observed. <shrug>
>

> > From the presentation of Larmor�s transform where both observers are

> > moving in parallel to the absolute frame of reference, Poincare
> > noticed the absolute frame of reference would drop out of the
> > mathematics, and the Lorentz transform (named so by Poincare) was
> > born. The Lorentz transform is only valid when the two observers are
> > moving in parallel to the absolute frame of reference, but Poincare
> > did the mathemaGical trick of applying to the general case where both
> > observers do not have to move in parallel to the absolute frame of
> > reference. For the historical view points, it is not clear if
> > Poincare realized his mistake or not. Nevertheless, the self-styled
> > physicists then took the Lorentz transform which after the fudging by
> > Poincare does indeed satisfy the principle of relativity once again,
> > and Special Relativity was born. <shrug>
>

> > So, the derivation of the Lorentz transform from Larmor�s transform is

> > of voodoo nature. How about these experiments promoted and
> > meticulously compiled by Tom Roberts? Yes, they do validate the

> > Lorentz transform (except the twin�s paradox), and because of that,

> > the self-styled physicists including the little professor, Paul
> > Andersen, ran with the ball ever since. <shrug>
>
> > Engineers are more cautious of jumping into conclusions than self-
> > styled physicists. They look back at these experiments and examine if

> > they also satisfy the Voigt and Larmor�s transforms where each

> > transform says the Aether must exist. Indeed, these experiments,
> > including the null results of the MMX, all satisfy the Voigt and

> > Larmor�s transforms as well. Since the Lorentz transform is
> > antithesis to the Voigt and Larmor�s transforms, these experiments

> > actually had done little in promoting the already faulty Special
> > Relativity. In effect, no experiment has uniquely demonstrated the
> > validity of Special Relativity. <shrug>
>
> > Koobee Wublee posted a great comment on this one where self-styled
> > physicists choose to remain silent and embarrassed by Koobee Wublee’s
> > remarks. <shrug>
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/619814b67502090f
>
> I fine documentation of Koobee Wublee's confusion about
> the scientific method.

That is called stupidity in the little professor. <shrug>

> > It is understandable that self-styled physicists are reluctant to show
> > how lack of understanding in scientific method they have. Hopefully,
> > Paul has a good excuse and is able to speak for all the self-styled

> > physicists. So, please, Paul, and thanks in advance. Let�s give a

> > hand for the little professor. <applause>
>

> > Ps. Please don�t disappoint Koobee Wublee. <shrug>
>
> [meaningless remarks snipped] - goodbye.

So, the little professor has decided to disappoint Koobee Wublee and
took the cowardly way out of this one as like what he had done
before. That is OK. Paul must still be very butt-sore. :-)

[Mahipal]

> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/619814b6750...

>
> > I fine documentation of Koobee Wublee's confusion about
> > the scientific method.

Is that "A fine" or "I find"? Either way, read on and on...

>
> That is called stupidity in the little professor.  <shrug>

Given Feynman's contents at the above linked site, the little Paul is
indeed stupid at large.

> > > It is understandable that self-styled physicists are reluctant to show
> > > how lack of understanding in scientific method they have.  Hopefully,
> > > Paul has a good excuse and is able to speak for all the self-styled
> > > physicists.  So, please, Paul, and thanks in advance.  Let�s give a
> > > hand for the little professor.  <applause>
>
> > > Ps.  Please don�t disappoint Koobee Wublee.  <shrug>
>
> > [meaningless remarks snipped] - goodbye.
>
> So, the little professor has decided to disappoint Koobee Wublee and
> took the cowardly way out of this one as like what he had done
> before.  That is OK.  Paul must still be very butt-sore.  :-)

Hope you(==Koobee Wublee) find a new Nemesis since your posts are
always thought provoking.