Now i understand spaceman and josx.
Eric Gisse
I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
understand.
I had hoped that these two just had simple misunderstandings that
needed pointing out. Show them the evidence, do the math for them,
etc. I was wrong, way wrong.
These two remind me of a link. "Unskilled and unaware of it" -
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Ive asked these two, time and again to show proof for their assertions
but they blow me off. I now accept and realise that the warning
sticker that says "do not use in shower" is sorely needed.
Message-ID: <20020818114857...@mb-fp.aol.com>
Spaceman...
>>There was a time when computers were electro-mechanical. Not any more.
>
>WRONG!!!
>SOLID WRONG!
>without the mechanics Computers would not work at all.
>the electro-mechanical is still there 100%
And josx....
Message-ID: <ajnmbp$j1$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>
>>Without using MOND, please predict the behevior of mercury. Me and
>>many others would like to see you pull that trick off.
>
>Why do you say "behevior" while it's "behaviour".
>
>Why do you think "the speed of light is constant in all inertial
>coordinate systems" has anything to do with mercury. BTW, i don't believe
>for a second this was predicted, it was probably observed first, then
>it was predicted and then it was observed again to take the credit for it.
>But don't bother, we are debating the merrits of SR now.
josX
>I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
>why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
>technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
>understand.
>
>I had hoped that these two just had simple misunderstandings that
>needed pointing out. Show them the evidence, do the math for them,
>etc. I was wrong, way wrong.
>
>These two remind me of a link. "Unskilled and unaware of it" -
>http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
>
>Ive asked these two, time and again to show proof for their assertions
>but they blow me off.
Most certainly not. Look below if you like, there are some proofs
SR is nonsense, any SR paradox also proof it's nonsense, and there
are many of those.
> I now accept and realise that the warning
>sticker that says "do not use in shower" is sorely needed.
A warning for the numbskulls to remain numbskulls and please please
please don't investigate into anti SR proofs ?
>Message-ID: <20020818114857...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>Spaceman...
>
>>>There was a time when computers were electro-mechanical. Not any more.
>>
>>WRONG!!!
>>SOLID WRONG!
>>without the mechanics Computers would not work at all.
>>the electro-mechanical is still there 100%
>
>
>And josx....
>Message-ID: <ajnmbp$j1$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>
>
>>>Without using MOND, please predict the behevior of mercury. Me and
>>>many others would like to see you pull that trick off.
>>
>>Why do you say "behevior" while it's "behaviour".
I said that because i got complaints about my own english in the same
post just above.
>>Why do you think "the speed of light is constant in all inertial
>>coordinate systems" has anything to do with mercury. BTW, i don't believe
>>for a second this was predicted, it was probably observed first, then
>>it was predicted and then it was observed again to take the credit for it.
>>But don't bother, we are debating the merrits of SR now.
Ofcourse. We can't trust science after 1905 to be honest anymore, that's
why i said that.
Can you deal with this by any other means then by the evasions you
accuse me and Spaceman of, but which are the modus operandi of the SRists
trolls on these groups ?
*
Investigation into length contraction and time dilation, K is a coordinate
system, K' is a coordinate system in movement with respect to K in the
direction of Ks positive x axis with a speed of 1 unit distance per 1
unit time:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
Now an object goes to the right at the same speed in both frames:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
To make this incoherency mathematically (seemingly) right, you might do
this, contract the length-measure in K', the famous length contraction
i presume:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----------^
Speeds are the same numerically in both coordinate systems: 3 ticks
per time.
That's one solution, but it doesn't work:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^--------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------*
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^-----------------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------------------*
Which is 3 ticks in K per time, but (15-3=12)/2=6 ticks per time in K'.
Therefore length-contraction doesn't work and will never work to make
c a constant in all frames of reference, because it produces the oposite
results depending on whether the direction of the light was along or
head-on with the translation of the moving coordinate system. Like
time dilation, it is also in contradiction with the principle of relativity,
because you can't take one of the coordinate systems to be the preferred
frame, which produces the impossible *mutual* length-contraction, producing
paradoxes like the car which does or doesn't fall through a hole in the
road depending on your frame of reference.
Then there is time-dilation (well there isn't, but there is the hypotheses):
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|--======v
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2|-----============v
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
For K 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
For K' 4 distance for 1 3/9 time tick = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
So this works out, so it SEEMS.
But it doesn't because:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1| v=========---
||
||
||
|| distance>
00--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2| v==================------
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
K -> (10-4=6) distance / 2 time = 3 distance per 1 time
K' -> (10-2=8) distance / 1 3/9 time = 6 distance per 1 time
3 <> 6
So time dilation produces oposite results for beams in the oposite
direction of the translation of the moving coordinate system, and
can therefore not make the speed of light a constant generally accross
reference frames which are moving with respect to one another.
A combination of the above two solutions to constancy of c (timedilation
lengthcontraction) will not work for the same reason that they don't work
in isolation either:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
0*----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|----==========v
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16-
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2|---------====================v
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K' -> 5 distance for 1 4/6 time = 3 distance for 1 time
So far so good, but:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1| v===============-----
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10--11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2| v==============================----------
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> (10-4=6) / 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K'-> (12 1/2 - 2 1/2 = 10) / 1 4/6 = 6 distance for 1 time
For a speed of the moving coordinate-system of '1' per '1'
time and a lightspeed of '3' per '1' time: 1 distance=100,000km, 1
time=1 sec. The Lorentz transformations give then a lengthcontraction of:
<quote Einstein>
x(beginning of the rod) = 0 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
x(end of the rod) = 1 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
</quote>
x' = x * (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
Which comes out as:
x' = x * 0.942809041
Then the Lorentz timedilation effect:
<quote Einstein>
As judged from K, the clock is moving with teh velocity v; as
judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a con-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly thean when at
rest.
</quote>
Which comes out as
t' = t * 1/(1 - 100,000^2/300,000^2)^.5 = t * 1.060660172
Because of the constraints of usenet linelength we can only do t0 and t1
(the below is on scale):
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 300,000,000 meter per 1 second = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2 2/14th * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second =
2.2556 * 100,000,000 = 225563.9098 km/sec, 75% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 2 / .942809041 = 2.121320344, * 100,000,000 meter per 1 / 1.060660172 =
.942809041 second = 2.25 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 2.25 *
100,000,000 meter = 225,000 km/sec, 75% of lighspeed.)
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v==========================================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 400,000,000 - 100,000,000 = 300,000,000 meter per 1 second
= 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 4 4/14 *100,000,000 - 0=4 2/7 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second,
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter = 451,127.8 km/sec = 150% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 4 * 100,000,000) / .942809041 = 4.242640687, * 100,000,000 per
1 / 1.060660172 = 0.942809041 seconds =
4.5 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 4.5 * 100,000,000 meter
= 450,000 km/sec, 150% of lightspeed
If we force lightspeed in both frames, we get light which is at multiple
points in space:
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v--------v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2.85 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second, 2.85/19/20 =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
(Exactly: 2.828427 * 100,000,000 meter per .94280 second =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec)
The difference in position of both hypothetical light wavefronts is,
written as a position in K:
light-1(x) = 3 * 100,000,000 meter = 300,000,000 meter
light-2(x) = 3 * .942809041 + 1 = 3.82842712, * 100,000,000
= 382,842,712.5 meter
300,000,000<>382,842,712.5 -> the light has splitted into multiple discrete
beams.
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v--------------v===========================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
Same story, you can compute yourself what the difference in position of
both hypothetical lightbeams is under the Lorentz-transformations.
If you do, you have disproved the validity of the Lorentz-transformations
yourself! (unless you subscribe to a world-splitting solution to SR, which
is not endorsed officially).
More diagrams:
Suppose 1/3rd of lightspeed movement for the moving coordinate system,
light starts at t,x=0,0
KK' . .
|1^time (sec) . .*t'=1
1| *t=1 .
|| . . Lorentz time
|| . . dilation and
|| . . length contraction
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| ..
00*t=0,t'=0 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0............1............2............3............4....K'(t'=0)
0............1............2............3...K'(t'=1)
KK' . .
|1^time (sec) . *t'=1
1| t=1* .
|| . . Lorentz time
|| . . dilation and
|| . . length contraction
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
|| . .
00 *t=0,t'=0
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0............1............2............3............4...|K'(t'=0)
0............1............2............3...K'(t'=1)
--
jos
Chuck Simmons
There! You did it! That damned long post will be repeated by JosX over
and over straight out of the department of redundancy department. Ugh!
Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
Spaceman
>I have been wondering why these two are so stupid.
<ROFLOL>
Maybe ,,
just maybe,
It is not us that are stupid.
but of course.
you are probably just too stupid to realize that.
Refuse to learn the faults of a clock huh?
Doomed to repeat the clocks history huh?
Hey sucker,
It's you that is the stupid one until you find out
the friggen theories are wrong.
simple because
Time is not a cause.
Grow Up idiot!
You have magic right now,
Step into the reality for once.
when clocks don't make time change.
DIPWEED!
It's called Science Physics in case you did not know.
and Science Physics does not include GR,SR,
or QM.
In fact.
It dropped them all long ago!
what kind of moron are you?
A: barking puppy dog?
B: parrot with no crackers?
C: a person who states the Emporers clothes are wonderful,
even when he is naked?
seems you may be all three.
sad fo you ya know.
seek help boy.
you are a parrot puppy dog emperical invisible boot licker!
<LOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Patrick Reany
Eric Gisse wrote:
> I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
> why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
> technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
> understand.
Understand that there are people out there that
HATE not only Einstein's relativity, but also the
way modern physics is understood these days
compared to the good old days of 400 years ago.
Yes, they don't want to actually learn the theories
they hate because their ignorance gives them perfect
unaccountability in their own minds. They are in love
with hatred. It makes them feel good somehow.
It makes them feel superior to everyone else. A
feeling they never felt in school where there was
accountability.
But what may be the root cause of this hatred?
Some of it may be a form of mental illness, but
most of it comes from the three main misconceptions
that people have about modern physics: The first
is that physics is not about the pursuit of TRUTH
but about the free innovation of theories that work.
Physical theories are ONLY about description in
anthropomorphic metrical variables and NOT
about discovering "deep reality." The second
reason is that commonsense is a very poor basis
to understand how we perceive that behavior of
nature in every situation but the most trivial ones.
One of the problems some anti-modernists have
is with the genre of physical theory promoted
by Einstein called the "principle" theory, which
he described in his essay:
"What is the theory of relativity," p.228,
A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions.
The third problem some people have that totally
confuses them is the need for inventing a research
program to organize the development of physical
theories themselves.
It is the responsibility of the educational
establishment to teach this stuff to students so
they can disabuse themselves of these inherent
misconceptions. I'm afraid that if these misconceptions
aren't dealt with in the formative years then for
many people it will be impossible to disabuse them
when they are adults.
Patrick
******************************
More on Principle theories:
Einstein defined two major categories of physical theories:
1) the constructive theory, and
2) the "principle" theory.
In the constructive theory, the research program,
such as that of Lorentz's ether theory of electro-
dynamics, starts off with a fundamental model of
a fundamental thing, ether. Then with some more
postulates a theory can be built on top of this
foundation. And Newton's theory started off
with a foundation of the mass particle model
with action at a distance or contact forces.
As Einstein stated, once Newton added to this
research program a specific action at a distance
force, i.e., the law of gravity, then he had
a real gravitational theory to work with.
In the "principle" theory, such as in SR, one
does NOT begin the research program with a
requirement to construct phenomena out of a
some fundamental model of some supposed
fundamental thing, such as ether or absolute
space. Instead, one assumes a collection of
principles which act as CONSTRAINTS on
the possible models invented. In this method
there is MUCH greater freedom to invent models
because no a prior fundamental model is assumed
in the research program itself. All the principles
that have NO physical content belong to the
research program's foundation, and the rest in
the theory proper built on top of it. The
principles are supposed to be of very high
reliability of correctness, either because they
are laws of physical content or because they are
heuristics that have played out very well in
the past.
***************************************
For more on the need for a research program,
see
http://ajnpx.com/html/Einstein-Infeld-Evolution-Genius.html
Eric Gisse
<snip>
Stupid meaningless diagrams. Another repost from a textfile.
Your diagrams are again, meaningless crap. All you do is talk about
length contraction and time dilation but you do not do the actual
math. The speed of light always travels at c relative to any intertial
observer. Time dilation is a consequence of that. All i ask is that
you explain where these people went wrong.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Chuck Simmons
>
> Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
> > why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
> > technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
> > understand.
>
> establishment to teach this stuff to students so
> they can disabuse themselves of these inherent
> misconceptions. I'm afraid that if these misconceptions
> aren't dealt with in the formative years then for
> many people it will be impossible to disabuse them
> when they are adults.
I'm not sure how much the above has to do with anything. My son was
about 10 when he first asked me about relativity. He had not run across
it in school. He had found it in some obscure corner of his reading. I
got him a few books that I knew to be good and he was quite happy for a
couple of years as others took my que and fed his appetite. Suddenly he
decided mathematics was the thing. My father-in-law and I scrambled to
satisfy that quest which lasted up until just a couple of months ago. My
son seems to detect idiots from several miles. He is a bit scary that
way. He hid it from teachers. He has little respect for them. I was
struck with deja vu when he wrote to me and said that he might give up
both math and physics because he would have to take a lab course in
physics either way. I understand that absolutely. Any human with a brain
cell recoils at the idea of undergraduate labs. Discouraged by this
particular idiocy, my son is casting about for ideas - he is even
considering drama which he might be good at given he fooled teachers for
years into thinking he noticed them. I expect he will solve the problem
I solved. I simply took no labs and negotiated the degree. He will have
to work that out in today's educational market.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
<snip>
>You have magic right now,
It is magic to you because you are too stupid to see how it works. At
least josx can use pargraphs and can do some basic math. You can do
neither.
<snip>
Jim
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>
<snip>
>There! You did it! That damned long post will be repeated by JosX over
>and over straight out of the department of redundancy department. Ugh!
>
>Chuck
And, since this genius failed to understand the simple concept of
truncation by news readers, the reposting will become even more
incomprehensible over time. It was a mess the first time I saw it. :)
Jim
Jason Pawloski
>I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
>why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
>technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
>understand.
This is one quality that I always admired in George Dummond ... err Hammond -
he was almost completely benign.
When some newbie posts a question about relativity, time, spacetime, or
anything like that, josx and Spaceman jump all over themselves trying to
infect the newbie with misinformation. Empircally false statements, inaccurate
conjectures, and a misunderstanding of the material is just the beginning.
Although amusing to the sci.physics veterans and lurkers (me), newbies may not
know they are being feed pure goatshit.
George Hammond (and mostly James Harris for you sci.math fans) was content to
live in his own sphere of ignorance. I didn't often see him respond to someone
else with SPOG garbage. If someone asks a question that isn't about SPOG,
George seemed to ignore it.
George Hammond was like a huge wart on your neck. Its ugly. It turned girls
off. People would laugh behind your back about it. But ultimately, it didn't
do anything bad. Its benign. It doesn't really matter its their. Spaceman and
josx are like huge cancer bumps on your neck. You still get laughed at and are
still ugly, but its also slowly killing you.
Jason Pawloski
Mike Varney
"Jason Pawloski" <jpaw...@nemesissoftware.com> wrote in message
news:ajpcjm$jbn$3...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> >I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
> >why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
> >technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
> >understand.
> <snip>
>
> This is one quality that I always admired in George Dummond ... err
Hammond -
> he was almost completely benign.
Not quite.
> When some newbie posts a question about relativity, time, spacetime, or
> anything like that, josx and Spaceman jump all over themselves trying to
> infect the newbie with misinformation.
This is a standard crank tactic. For more examples check out Archie, Savian,
Frazir, and... well... there are many examples.
> Empircally false statements, inaccurate
> conjectures, and a misunderstanding of the material is just the beginning.
> Although amusing to the sci.physics veterans and lurkers (me), newbies may
not
> know they are being feed pure goatshit.
>
> George Hammond (and mostly James Harris for you sci.math fans) was content
to
> live in his own sphere of ignorance.
Harris perhaps, but not Hammond.
> I didn't often see him respond to someone
> else with SPOG garbage. If someone asks a question that isn't about SPOG,
> George seemed to ignore it.
>
> George Hammond was like a huge wart on your neck. Its ugly. It turned
girls
> off. People would laugh behind your back about it. But ultimately, it
didn't
> do anything bad. Its benign.
Tell that to the myriad of employers, police, faculty and graduate students
he has harassed, spammed and threatened.
> Spaceman and
> josx are like huge cancer bumps on your neck. You still get laughed at and
are
> still ugly, but its also slowly killing you.
This is true.
josX
><snip>
>
>Stupid meaningless diagrams. Another repost from a textfile.
I have to repost it until someone leaves it unsnipped and points
out the error. It's also a great tool in helping new people to
avoid the SR fuzzzapping of their young and tender minds.
>Your diagrams are again, meaningless crap.
I beg you pardon?
> All you do is talk about
>length contraction and time dilation but you do not do the actual
>math. The speed of light always travels at c relative to any intertial
>observer. Time dilation is a consequence of that. All i ask is that
>you explain where these people went wrong.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
>
They didn't draw a diagram.
--
jos
josX
Hear that spaceman? We are 'killing' them :-)).
I read that as an admission that we beat you fairly and squarly. Thanks.
We did.
Try drawing a diagram now for yourself. You probably started physics
by drawing diagrams in school, so it'll be a fitting end of this era
if you ended it by drawing just one (or a couple) more.
--
jos
Spaceman
>The speed of light always travels at c relative to any intertial
>observer.
WRONG!
non parallel inertial observers find Doppler effects.
(changes in the freqeuncy detected)
hence the speed difference is the cause and
the source speed adds and subtracts the relative to others speeds.
c is not the same to all.
Simply because the Doppler effect was found at all.
so,
stop parroting wrong crap.
and Learn about Doppler shift and the "real" cause of the change
in frequency detected.
Spaceman
>It is magic to you because you are too stupid to see how it works. At
>least josx can use pargraphs and can do some basic math. You can do
>neither.
Dear Eric,
you have no "cause" for decay.
Go away until you find an actual "PHYSICAL CAUSE FOR DECAY"
until you do,
you have crap!
and it's not even magic to anyone.
It's stupidity to all engineers and even basic mechanics.
Time is not a cause diphead!
as I stated,
so far you have magic causing decay.
Please explain such magical decay without cause.
or shut you parrot beak.
Spaceman
>Hear that spaceman? We are 'killing' them :-)).
It is easy to kill things that never actually had
and real physical form to stop such.
and only has time as a force.
:)
Just think,
some newbie will shield an atomic clock
with a simple static field and then they will all fall down real hard.
:)
Tris
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:ajqbpu$plg$4...@news1.xs4all.nl...
<snip>
> Hear that spaceman? We are 'killing' them :-)).
It may be unwise to group yourself with someone who doesn't know how to
multiply negatives.
<snip>
Spaceman
>It may be unwise to group yourself with someone who doesn't know how to
>multiply negatives.
Tris,
Got the squareroot of (-16)?
or..is it that you can't do such basic math?
Brad McFarlane
sqrt(-16) = 4i
Proof:
Step 1: (4 x i)^2 = (4 x i) x (4 x i) (from the definition of x^2)
Step 2: (4 x i) x (4 x i) = (4 x 4) x (i x i) (multiplication is
associative)
Step 3: (4 x 4) x (i x i) = 16 x (-1) (because 4x4=16 and i^2 = -1 [from
the def'n of i])
Step 4: 16 x (-1) = -16
If you think sqrt(-16) isn't 4i, state which step is wrong, and why, and
then state what you think sqrt(-16) is, with proof.
-Brad
Robert J. Kolker
Brad McFarlane wrote:
>
> If you think sqrt(-16) isn't 4i, state which step is wrong, and why, and
> then state what you think sqrt(-16) is, with proof.
You will get an LOL from that idiot, but not a response.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>sqrt(-16) = 4i
and
i =?
(you still have nothing)
Why do you complicate a simple problem such?
>Proof:
>
>Step 1: (4 x i)^2 = (4 x i) x (4 x i) (from the definition of x^2)
>Step 2: (4 x i) x (4 x i) = (4 x 4) x (i x i) (multiplication is
>associative)
>Step 3: (4 x 4) x (i x i) = 16 x (-1) (because 4x4=16 and i^2 = -1 [from
>the def'n of i])
>Step 4: 16 x (-1) = -16
Do you use this for a positive square root figuring too?
<LOL>
you still have no "real" definition of i
you still have no final and correct answer.
your answer is just another problem not solved.
What is wrong with you?
That is not math!
It is circular bullcrap of physics.
BTW:
If
-x=q
you are wrong.
or does the square root of 16=-4i like you try to state.
josX
Only babies will decide on what to believe based on emotionals relating
to with whom the person giving the rationale talk etc. Are we babies here?
I guess so. We live on a baby planet, and SR shows humanity cannot yet
think coherently for himself (herself).
--
jos
Chuck Simmons
>
> >From: Brad McFarlane brad.mc...@alcatel.com
>
> >sqrt(-16) = 4i
>
> and
> i =?
> (you still have nothing)
I don't see a problem. I mentioned elsewhere that Cardan did correct
calculations with complex (absurd) numbers in the 16th century. The
introduction of complex numbers is needed so that all polynomials up to,
but not including, degree 5 can be solved by radicals. The extension
from the real numbers to complex numbers is done in very elegant style
in Landau's "Grundlagen der Analysis". In modern times, complex numbers
are introduced in high school algebra and some more interesting
properties of them are introduced in trigonometry. They play an
important role in solving even very simple ODE's and are an important
part of Fourier analysis.
As to what "i" equals, it does not matter other than that it is both
roots of x^2+1=0. What else is needed? That's just a definition. That's
mathematics and not physics. There does not need to be a real world
meaning for "i".
BTW, in "Grundlagen der Analysis", complex numbers are introduced as
ordered pairs of real numbers that follow specific rules for addition
and multiplication. All else follows trivially.
Spaceman
>I don't see a problem.
Then that is your problem I guess.
You need what i is or you have nothing still except
a varaible without a reality to coincide.
>As to what "i" equals, it does not matter other than that it is both
>roots of x^2+1=0.
Bullshit!
fuzzy math crap!
The answer of the square root of -16 is -4
and only fools like you think you can multiply a " line direction"
and get the opposite direction.
-x = q proves you wrong!
math fool!
Eric Prebys
Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> >I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
> >why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
> >technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
> >understand.
> <snip>
>
> This is one quality that I always admired in George Dummond ... err Hammond -
> he was almost completely benign.
>
> When some newbie posts a question about relativity, time, spacetime, or
> anything like that, josx and Spaceman jump all over themselves trying to
> infect the newbie with misinformation. Empircally false statements, inaccurate
> conjectures, and a misunderstanding of the material is just the beginning.
> Although amusing to the sci.physics veterans and lurkers (me), newbies may not
> know they are being feed pure goatshit.
>
JosX and Spaceman are merely the stupidest of a vernerable line that
includes
Henry Wilson, Ken Seto, and H.E. Retic.
The only difference is that JosX and Spaceman don't even *pretend*
to know anything about math or science. The others to - pretend that
is.
I think even most newbies are smart enough to know that people who
fill pages of E-mail with their view of "science", but somehow
never get around to including a single experimental reference or
prediction are not to be trusted.
> George Hammond (and mostly James Harris for you sci.math fans) was content to
> live in his own sphere of ignorance. I didn't often see him respond to someone
> else with SPOG garbage. If someone asks a question that isn't about SPOG,
> George seemed to ignore it.
>
That's the older, wiser Hammond. A while back, he used to jump into
just about every discussion - with a random free association of facts,
names, dates, and figures. He was particularly fond of matters of
scientific history, about which he knows absolutely nothing.
Eventually, he got spanked enough times that he gave up and
decided to stick to his "field of expertise".
> George Hammond was like a huge wart on your neck. Its ugly. It turned girls
> off. People would laugh behind your back about it. But ultimately, it didn't
> do anything bad. Its benign. It doesn't really matter its their. Spaceman and
> josx are like huge cancer bumps on your neck. You still get laughed at and are
> still ugly, but its also slowly killing you.
>
> Jason Pawloski
Hammond is far from benign. He mail-bombed at least one institution
(which is probably what got is ISP pulled), and threatened others.
-Eric
Tris
You appear to like people who agree with you, but dislike those who
disagree. Are you similar to Hammond, where no qualifications are required
to agree with you but all sorts of qualifications are required to criticise?
Of course, you might not know how the answer to "what is -a^2?"
Randy Poe
> t=1
> K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> *--------^
> K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> *--------^
t=1 in which frame?
As Unkie would say, DOA.
- Randy
Chuck Simmons
>
> >From: Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
>
> >I don't see a problem.
>
> Then that is your problem I guess.
>
> You need what i is or you have nothing still except
> a varaible without a reality to coincide.
Of course not. Mathematics does not need reality. The incredible
serendipity of math and physics is, of course, a good thing in my way of
counting up good things. If I am doing physics, I have to insure my feet
are properly planted on the planet. If I am doing math, I can be Harry
Potter. I can conjure wonderful things like imaginary numbers that don't
seem to be part of the universe of real objects. It's like flying free.
Now that I said that, I think that Harry Potter is a better physicist
than you are. He lives in a world with different laws of nature but he
mostly pays attention in class.
> >As to what "i" equals, it does not matter other than that it is both
> >roots of x^2+1=0.
>
> Bullshit!
> fuzzy math crap!
A definition is a very neutral thing. You cannot say it is right or
wrong. I say that the roots of x^2+1 are "i" and that is the end of it.
Nevermind that that definition happens to be very useful. It is simply a
definition which is neither right nor wrong. What is "bullshit" is your
failure to understand what a definition is. Alright. How do you like
this one. The unit in the real numbers I say is called (1,0) (a field
has a unit element). I now say that i=(0,1) and (0,1)*(0,1)=(-1,0). It's
all just notation. The underlying idea is the same.
> The answer of the square root of -16 is -4
> and only fools like you think you can multiply a " line direction"
> and get the opposite direction.
> -x = q proves you wrong!
> math fool!
In mathematics, once I select or invent my axioms, you can only be
critical of my logic. Nothing more. Axioms are not subject to proof and
need have no connection with reality. I am comfortable with this kind of
world of mathematics. You, however, lack the ability to see this world.
In fact, you don't have a grip on the real world. The physisist selects
his axioms to fit the world of physical observation and creates from
there. If your view of the real world is limited by prejudice or
whatever, you cannot see where the physicist takes the structure he
creates. Yes, the physics of Harry Potter is far better than yours.
Spaceman
>Of course not. Mathematics does not need reality.
<ROFLOL>
nevermind then.
for I happen to know your math means crap in the REAL world.
and it does absolutely nothing to make the real world happen.
so,
you are correct but stupid about math and phsyics.
If there is no "physical" to your math.
you are playing with math and not figuring reality with it.
Math is not needed for proofs of realities.
I need no math to know why things happen.
I only need the forces and causes.
and math is not a force nor a cause so it's worth crap for physics
IOW simply,
Math does not make things happen.
Who cares about your math.
Reality makes things happen.
If you don't match a reailty to your math
you have an easter bunny and nothing more.
TB
news:20020819101602...@mb-fc.aol.com...
What do *you* say is the square root of (-16), James??
-- TB
josX
I see the SR-gang is on it's final legs.
You snipped:
Investigation into length contraction and time dilation, K is a coordinate
system, K' is a coordinate system in movement with respect to K in the
direction of Ks positive x axis with a speed of 1 unit distance per 1
unit time:
(...)
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
Now an object goes to the right at the same speed in both frames:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
To make this incoherency mathematically (seemingly) right, you might do
this, contract the length-measure in K', the famous length contraction
i presume:
(etc...)
Get it? K' is not lengthcontracted or timedilated here, it's a classical
coordinate system, to understand the problem.
Length-contraction is explored as a solution to the apparent constancy
of c paradox, then timedilation is explored. Then they are both explored
in combination, and finally the Lorentz-flavour of these two insanities
is explored.
You are trying to score cheap points.
--
jos
josX
Looking for more cheap points when you know the real battle is behind
us and SRists lost?
I beat you at timedilation, i beat you at lengthcontraction, and i
beat you today at simultaneity.
>Of course, you might not know how the answer to "what is -a^2?"
-a*-a=a^2, happy now?
Do you have a 'true' reason for this? I don't think so, it appears to
be an agreement and nothing else (a+b=b+a is not an agreement but an
experimental fact if you were wondering why this might be significant).
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> From: Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com>
> >josX wrote:
> >> t=1
> >> K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> >> *--------^
> >> K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> >> *--------^
> >
> >t=1 in which frame?
> >
> >As Unkie would say, DOA.
> >
>
> I see the SR-gang is on it's final legs.
>
> You snipped:
I snipped the setup. Saying that K' is moving relative to K is
not presumably a paradox. Nor is saying that at t=0 they agree
on the position of the end of the light beam.
So I tried to cut to the first place you are objecting to.
> t=2
> K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> *-----------------^
> K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> *-----------------^
> To make this incoherency
This, very early in your presentation is where you claim there is
an incoherency.
I am asking: What is the incoherency? You have a bunch of
pictures. Can you say what it is you find incoherent?
It seems to be that you think both observers are saying
the end of the beam is in different places at t=1 and
t=2. I'm saying, "t=1" and "t=2" in whose frame? How
are you defining "t=1"? Whose clock is measuring it?
> You are trying to score cheap points.
No, I'm trying to get some precision out of you. You
write "t=1" and draw a picture. That's not a definition of
terms. You need to be precise about what you mean by "t=1".
K and K' do not agree on the event t=1. The event where
K says t=1 and the event where K' says t=1 are two different
events. It is no surprise that the light beam has two
different positions at these two different times.
- Randy
Chuck Simmons
>
> >From: Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
>
> >Of course not. Mathematics does not need reality.
>
> <ROFLOL>
> nevermind then.
> for I happen to know your math means crap in the REAL world.
> and it does absolutely nothing to make the real world happen.
Really? I have an instrument in my lab (HP but now Agilent) that
measures the performance of my servo systems. It has complex arithmetic
capability - that is to say it is quite comfortable with the square root
of -16. This instrument plots the amplitude of the response to my test
signal as a real number and an angle in the complex plane. The reality
is that I must make the angle have certain properties with respect to
the amplitude. If I fail, I probably have a harmonic oscillator. I make
real motions happen in the real world and my instrument tells me how
well I have done it imaginary numbers and all.
> so,
> you are correct but stupid about math and phsyics.
> If there is no "physical" to your math.
> you are playing with math and not figuring reality with it.
Does not that depend upon how I apply the mathematics? Does not a model
of simple harmonic motion using complex exponentials represent reality
as well as sines and cosines? Is my $12,000 laboratory instrument lying
to me? We can forget physics at this point because you don't have a
clear idea of what reality is. The fancy instrument has a clearer view
of reality.
> Math is not needed for proofs of realities.
> I need no math to know why things happen.
> I only need the forces and causes.
> and math is not a force nor a cause so it's worth crap for physics
Really? Can you tell me why my servos oscillate if I turn the gain up
too high without mathematics. It is a real physical oscillation that I
can see with my eyes. Could you predict it without the mathematics? Any
student who has studied ordinary differential equations could tell me
why there is a real physical oscillation. You can't.
> IOW simply,
> Math does not make things happen.
> Who cares about your math.
> Reality makes things happen.
> If you don't match a reailty to your math
> you have an easter bunny and nothing more.
I have to care about the math because it allows me to predict reality
saving me time and money. But I can get as abstract as you like with
mathematics. The math is just an essential tool in physics. The math can
be an end in itself to a mathematician. I can play either game. I have
no argument with the easter bunny.
Spaceman
<snipped massive ignorance and blah blah blah crap>
Still have not proven your math did the physical work.
Go away mathhead moron!
You are sad.
math does NOTHING dipwad!
It "describes only" you friggen time travel freak.
If I describe you as Big fat bald ugly and sitting in crap.
does it make it true?
By your mathematical logic.
it does.
for my decription could be true.
Does that description make it happen
Or did you make youself that way with all the math?
<LOL>
Edward Green
> I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
> why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
> technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
> understand.
>
> I had hoped that these two just had simple misunderstandings that
> needed pointing out. Show them the evidence, do the math for them,
> etc. I was wrong, way wrong.
>
> These two remind me of a link. "Unskilled and unaware of it" -
> http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
A favorite of Uncle Al's too. This article must have fulfilled a long
felt need. A religious person might have expressed it that they lack
humility.
Buckler
<jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
>why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
>technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
>understand.
>
>I had hoped that these two just had simple misunderstandings that
>needed pointing out. Show them the evidence, do the math for them,
>etc. I was wrong, way wrong.
>
>These two remind me of a link. "Unskilled and unaware of it" -
>http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
I first saw this link some six months ago. I heartily agree with your
supposition, and "But I wore the juice..." is now a standard
disclaimer for me.
Yes, there are those who are so incompetent that they cannot and do
not realize their own incompetence. I would easily put Spaceman and
JosX into that category.
As for me? I'm incompetent in such matters at relativity, and thus I
ask questions of those that know more than me. I admit it, and that's
the way it's supposed to work.
Buckler
To respond via email, apply ROT13 to my email address.
"Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen all at once."
- Buckaroo Banzai
Jeff Mai
> why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
> technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
> understand.
It's called anti-elitism. They can't abide the thought of anything
being beyond their capability to understand. It's astonishing how
much time they waste on this though. They were at it just as hard
over a year ago when I peeked in here.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
They were at it just as hard some 8 years ago. Probably way before.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
josX
The object is in multiple places at once. I am not yet involving any
SR in this yet, that comes later.
>It seems to be that you think both observers are saying
>the end of the beam is in different places at t=1 and
>t=2. I'm saying, "t=1" and "t=2" in whose frame? How
>are you defining "t=1"? Whose clock is measuring it?
Yes, i know you can only think about SR. The above is good old normal
classical coordinate systems.
>> You are trying to score cheap points.
>
>No, I'm trying to get some precision out of you. You
>write "t=1" and draw a picture. That's not a definition of
>terms. You need to be precise about what you mean by "t=1".
>
>K and K' do not agree on the event t=1. The event where
>K says t=1 and the event where K' says t=1 are two different
>events. It is no surprise that the light beam has two
>different positions at these two different times.
You can see K' is not lengthcontracted there. There is no SR involved
at that stage yet. I build it up as a thorough investigation into
lengthcontraction and timedilation, to see if it would resolve the
apparent paradox of constancy of c.
--
jos
Tris
Did you falsify SR within its domain of applicability?
> >Of course, you might not know how the answer to "what is -a^2?"
>
> -a*-a=a^2, happy now?
> Do you have a 'true' reason for this? I don't think so, it appears to
> be an agreement and nothing else (a+b=b+a is not an agreement but an
> experimental fact if you were wondering why this might be significant).
Spaceman doesn't know the answer to "what is -a^2?" You group yourself with
someone who has no understanding of elementrary math, and someone who is
unlikely to have the foggiest idea what your diagrams are about. That's
all.
wch...@charter.net
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:2jl89.72$N4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <66dc90a8.02081...@posting.google.com>,
jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Mai) writes:
> >Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:<fr00mu81l1v2i46es...@4ax.com>...
> >> I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
> >> why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
> >> technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
> >> understand.
> >
> >It's called anti-elitism. They can't abide the thought of anything
> >being beyond their capability to understand. It's astonishing how
> >much time they waste on this though. They were at it just as hard
> >over a year ago when I peeked in here.
>
> They were at it just as hard some 8 years ago. Probably way before.
Well, the part I never understand is that with the time and effort
they put into "refuting" science, they could easily learn how things
really work. I understand in a sense why they act that way,
but not why they're just so driven. It's obssessive to the point
of almost being disturbing.
jmfb...@aol.com
Most of my immediate family is like that and they're not stupid
people; they've just not matured emotionally.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Chuck Simmons
>
> >From: Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
>
> <snipped massive ignorance and blah blah blah crap>
>
> Still have not proven your math did the physical work.
> Go away mathhead moron!
> You are sad.
Of course the mathematics does no plysical work but, for example, when I
design a servo to move a lens and keep light focused on a spinning disk
to an accuracy of 0.4 microns or better, a good bit of mathematics is
used in the design. Nothing horrible really. Linear algebra, a tiny bit
of linear operator theory and so on. To do the job by trial and error
would be very difficult and time consuming. I'm not sure that a
successful design would be possible without the mathematics. Naturally
the electronic parts I use do the work but they are inert and useless
without me doing all of the math to make them all play together. In some
funny sense math is doing some work in my servos. I use microprocessors
to compute difference equations very rapidly and these difference
equation computations form the commands to the physical system which are
accelerations. In a way, the math does produce physical motion.
> math does NOTHING dipwad!
> It "describes only" you friggen time travel freak.
So my microprocessors grinding out results of difference equations
200,000 times a second are doing nothing? If I make a mistake in
designing the difference equation, the servo will not work because the
accelerations will be wrong. I think the math is doing something.
> If I describe you as Big fat bald ugly and sitting in crap.
> does it make it true?
> By your mathematical logic.
> it does.
> for my decription could be true.
> Does that description make it happen
> Or did you make youself that way with all the math?
> <LOL>
You seem very frustrated. You don't wish to admit that the real world is
sufficiently complex that mathematical descriptions are essential. It
bothers you that a millimeter square or so of silicon is better at
dynamics than you are given that I or another practitioner of my art has
programed that sliver of silicon.
Personally, I am glad that you are not a civil engineer.
Spaceman
>Of course the mathematics does no plysical work
Then stoip trying to tell me it does,
It is the description of the event
not the event cause.
so simply.
the math means shit til you show the REAL
that it matches.
No match to real means,
no math worth speaking about for physics.
>You seem very frustrated. You don't wish to admit that the real world is
>sufficiently complex that mathematical descriptions are essential.
No they are not "essential".
Do you think the wright brothers used math?
<LOL>
math is the extra description.
If you have no wording of the desciption,
the math is worth shit!
without the real.
you have fantasy abstracts only that are not essential to anything
happening at all.
math is NOT NEEDED for the universe to work.
math is needed for mathheads to understand it.
most people don't need math to know
a bat can hit a ball.
only mathheads need such crap for the ball to move.
.
Chuck Simmons
>
> >From: Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
>
> >Of course the mathematics does no plysical work
>
> Then stoip trying to tell me it does,
I didn't. But I did tell you that mathematics as done in my
microprocessors can control a motion in such a way that you would be
hopelessly unable to match what the microprocessor does. All it does is
compute accelerations required to keep a free mass located relative to
moving surface to within 0.4 microns or better. The micro chunks out new
accelerations 200,000 times a second and you would not know how to
compute the required accelerations at all.
> It is the description of the event
> not the event cause.
> so simply.
> the math means shit til you show the REAL
> that it matches.
It is the other way around. With my math hat on, I don't care what the
math may or may not apply to. With my engineer hat on, I use math
appropriate to the problem.
> No match to real means,
> no math worth speaking about for physics.
Then learn the mathematics appropriate to physics problems. Even quite
elementary problems in mechanics require calculus. That's why Newton
invented his method of fluxions.
> >You seem very frustrated. You don't wish to admit that the real world is
> >sufficiently complex that mathematical descriptions are essential.
>
> No they are not "essential".
> Do you think the wright brothers used math?
Yep, they did. They had to apply what was known about airfoils at the
time and they had to have a pretty good idea of what their engine could
do when driving propellors.
> <LOL>
> math is the extra description.
> If you have no wording of the desciption,
> the math is worth shit!
>
> without the real.
> you have fantasy abstracts only that are not essential to anything
> happening at all.
>
> math is NOT NEEDED for the universe to work.
> math is needed for mathheads to understand it.
>
> most people don't need math to know
> a bat can hit a ball.
> only mathheads need such crap for the ball to move.
However, you comment on more advanced physical phenomena. Phenomena that
do not describe well with words. Just because you can hit a baseball
does not mean you understand dynamics. How do you account for the
behavior of a child's toy gyroscope? Take your PC. Do you have any idea
how much math went into the design of that. Your PC uses an incredible
mix of technologies from mechanical to electron beams. How could that
possibly be designed by people who believe that hitting a baseball is
the essence of dynamics. The people who designed the PC are experts in
their respective technologies. I may miss a few but they are mechnical
engineering, optical engineering, magnetics, control, numerical
analysis, logic, analog electronics, digital electronics, semiconductor
physics, chemical engineering, manufacturing engineering, glass
technology, materials technology and more. How much of that can you do
without mathematical descriptions? The answer is not any of it.
Mathematics has been called the "queen of sciences" and the "handmaiden
of science." with more than a little justice. All of the sciences use
mathematics because words fail.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:2jl89.72$N4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
>> In article <66dc90a8.02081...@posting.google.com>,
>jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Mai) writes:
>> >Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
>news:<fr00mu81l1v2i46es...@4ax.com>...
>> >> I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
>> >> why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
>> >> technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
>> >> understand.
>> >
>> >It's called anti-elitism. They can't abide the thought of anything
>> >being beyond their capability to understand. It's astonishing how
>> >much time they waste on this though. They were at it just as hard
>> >over a year ago when I peeked in here.
>>
>> They were at it just as hard some 8 years ago. Probably way before.
>
>Well, the part I never understand is that with the time and effort
>they put into "refuting" science, they could easily learn how things
>really work.
Yes, for sure.
> I understand in a sense why they act that way,
>but not why they're just so driven. It's obssessive to the point
>of almost being disturbing.
>
Well, you said it. Obsessive. That's the key word. As to why, I
wish I knew, but I don't. That's out of my professional line.
josX
>In article <um4c0um...@corp.supernews.com>, <wch...@charter.net> writes:
>><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>news:2jl89.72$N4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
>>> In article <66dc90a8.02081...@posting.google.com>,
>>jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Mai) writes:
>>> >Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
>>news:<fr00mu81l1v2i46es...@4ax.com>...
>>> >> I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
>>> >> why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
>>> >> technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
>>> >> understand.
>>> >
>>> >It's called anti-elitism. They can't abide the thought of anything
>>> >being beyond their capability to understand. It's astonishing how
>>> >much time they waste on this though. They were at it just as hard
>>> >over a year ago when I peeked in here.
>>>
>>> They were at it just as hard some 8 years ago. Probably way before.
>>
>>Well, the part I never understand is that with the time and effort
>>they put into "refuting" science, they could easily learn how things
>>really work.
>
>Yes, for sure.
Only if you take fuzzbabble for real thought. Did you know there is
no experimental evidence directly supporting SR's basic /premise/ ?
>> I understand in a sense why they act that way,
>>but not why they're just so driven. It's obssessive to the point
>>of almost being disturbing.
>
>Well, you said it. Obsessive. That's the key word. As to why, I
>wish I knew, but I don't. That's out of my professional line.
It's because
1. it's the biggest thing you can do as science these days in improving
science
2. it comes from the perhaps naive belief that if you explain things
rationally often enough, people will eventually learn/agree
3. it's one of the biggest scams going around (SR, GR, QM), and it hurts
a lot of students
Basically, if you give in a good effort, it should be possible to advance
science by destroying SR. That's the basic idea. It's also a purely
scientific idea: if someone is right, after long debate he should win.
Unfortunately, science has been corrupted, not only on content but also
on how it all works. It's deadlocked into nonsense.
HTH (hope that helps)
--
jos
MasterCougar
news:ajtv0k$rf6$1...@news1.xs4all.nl:
> Only if you take fuzzbabble for real thought. Did you know there is
> no experimental evidence directly supporting SR's basic /premise/ ?
>
>
Lie.
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
Gregory L. Hansen
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <um4c0um...@corp.supernews.com>, <wch...@charter.net> writes:
>>><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:2jl89.72$N4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
>>>> In article <66dc90a8.02081...@posting.google.com>,
>>>jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Mai) writes:
>>>> >Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
>>>news:<fr00mu81l1v2i46es...@4ax.com>...
>>>> >> I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
>>>> >> why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
>>>> >> technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
>>>> >> understand.
>>>> >
>>>> >It's called anti-elitism. They can't abide the thought of anything
>>>> >being beyond their capability to understand. It's astonishing how
>>>> >much time they waste on this though. They were at it just as hard
>>>> >over a year ago when I peeked in here.
>>>>
>>>> They were at it just as hard some 8 years ago. Probably way before.
>>>
>>>Well, the part I never understand is that with the time and effort
>>>they put into "refuting" science, they could easily learn how things
>>>really work.
>>
>>Yes, for sure.
>
>Only if you take fuzzbabble for real thought. Did you know there is
>no experimental evidence directly supporting SR's basic /premise/ ?
I trust you've read and understood Alvager's experiment, which I've cited
for you some time ago. What did you think of it?
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Patrick Reany
Spaceman wrote:
> >From: Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
>
> >Of course not. Mathematics does not need reality.
>
> <ROFLOL>
> nevermind then.
> for I happen to know your math means crap in the REAL world.
> and it does absolutely nothing to make the real world happen.
>
> so,
> you are correct but stupid about math and phsyics.
> If there is no "physical" to your math.
> you are playing with math and not figuring reality with it.
>
What does "figuring reality" mean?
Patrick
Y.Porat
figuring reality is to understand what fire is physically
and than to invent the engine
the bread that you ate this morning came to you on a car
that has an engine, it didnt come to you on the back of
a mathematical formula
so lets make some order in it:
first was the Engine invention, and only much later came in
mathematical engineering to improve it
sory mathematicians- in being useful to mankind
you are plaing second violine.
so dont give us again your W bosson, mathematicaslly crated
with not a bit of physical common sense
Mike Varney
"Y.Porat" <por...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:c91f39eb.02082...@posting.google.com...
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:<3D62ADDE...@asu.edu>...
> > Spaceman wrote:
> >
> > > >From: Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
> >
> > > >Of course not. Mathematics does not need reality.
> > >
> > > <ROFLOL>
> > > nevermind then.
> > > for I happen to know your math means crap in the REAL world.
> > > and it does absolutely nothing to make the real world happen.
> > >
> > > so,
> > > you are correct but stupid about math and phsyics.
> > > If there is no "physical" to your math.
> > > you are playing with math and not figuring reality with it.
> > >
> >
> > What does "figuring reality" mean?
> >
> > Patrick
> ----------------
Moron.
Y.Porat
> Jason Pawloski wrote:
> >
> > Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > >I have been wondering why these two are so stupid. Now i understand
> > >why. Willful ignornace, and basic misunderstandings about science and
> > >technology. Plus a healthy dose of fear about things they do not
> > >understand.
> >
> > This is one quality that I always admired in George Dummond ... err Hammond -
> > he was almost completely benign.
> >
> > When some newbie posts a question about relativity, time, spacetime, or
> > anything like that, josx and Spaceman jump all over themselves trying to
> > infect the newbie with misinformation. Empircally false statements, inaccurate
> > conjectures, and a misunderstanding of the material is just the beginning.
> > Although amusing to the sci.physics veterans and lurkers (me), newbies may not
> > know they are being feed pure goatshit.
> >
>
> JosX and Spaceman are merely the stupidest of a vernerable line that
> includes
> Henry Wilson, Ken Seto, and H.E. Retic.
-----------------
Prebys (sory i will never learn to spell your name maby because
may be i am dislectic (:-)
you forgot to add my name to the above list
Y.Porat remember?
may be because i discovered the big frauad of your discovery
of the W bosson
it was alledged to be a n experimental discovery
but you never made a control test to prove
that the W was not just a garbage stupid particle and claim
beware of things that are 90 times heavier than yourself!
and after all that you dare to insinuate that *we*
are the cranks!
let me tell you that crooks are much worse than cranks
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------
----------
>
> The only difference is that JosX and Spaceman don't even *pretend*
> to know anything about math or science. The others to - pretend that
> is.
>
> I think even most newbies are smart enough to know that people who
> fill pages of E-mail with their view of "science", but somehow
> never get around to including a single experimental reference or
> prediction are not to be trusted.
>
> > George Hammond (and mostly James Harris for you sci.math fans) was content to
> > live in his own sphere of ignorance. I didn't often see him respond to someone
> > else with SPOG garbage. If someone asks a question that isn't about SPOG,
> > George seemed to ignore it.
> >
>
> That's the older, wiser Hammond. A while back, he used to jump into
> just about every discussion - with a random free association of facts,
> names, dates, and figures. He was particularly fond of matters of
> scientific history, about which he knows absolutely nothing.
> Eventually, he got spanked enough times that he gave up and
> decided to stick to his "field of expertise".
>
> > George Hammond was like a huge wart on your neck. Its ugly. It turned girls
> > off. People would laugh behind your back about it. But ultimately, it didn't
> > do anything bad. Its benign. It doesn't really matter its their. Spaceman and
> > josx are like huge cancer bumps on your neck. You still get laughed at and are
> > still ugly, but its also slowly killing you.
> >
> > Jason Pawloski
>
> Hammond is far from benign. He mail-bombed at least one institution
> (which is probably what got is ISP pulled), and threatened others.
>
> -Eric
Mike Varney
More likely simply stupid.
josX
>On the dark and dreary 20 Aug 2002 jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) posted
>news:ajtv0k$rf6$1...@news1.xs4all.nl:
>
>> Only if you take fuzzbabble for real thought. Did you know there is
>> no experimental evidence directly supporting SR's basic /premise/ ?
>>
>>
>
> Lie.
Lie.
--
jos
Jim
>Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message news:<3D62ADDE...@asu.edu>...
>> Spaceman wrote:
>>
>> > >From: Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
>>
>> > >Of course not. Mathematics does not need reality.
>> >
>> > <ROFLOL>
>> > nevermind then.
>> > for I happen to know your math means crap in the REAL world.
>> > and it does absolutely nothing to make the real world happen.
>> >
>> > so,
>> > you are correct but stupid about math and phsyics.
>> > If there is no "physical" to your math.
>> > you are playing with math and not figuring reality with it.
>> >
>>
>> What does "figuring reality" mean?
>>
>> Patrick
>----------------
>figuring reality is to understand what fire is physically
>and than to invent the engine
>the bread that you ate this morning came to you on a car
>that has an engine, it didnt come to you on the back of
>a mathematical formula
>so lets make some order in it:
>first was the Engine invention, and only much later came in
>mathematical engineering to improve it
Ah, I remember it like it was yesterday. Was that you in the corner of
Otto's work shop?
Jim
Spaceman
>figuring reality is to understand what fire is physically
>and than to invent the engine
>the bread that you ate this morning came to you on a car
>that has an engine, it didnt come to you on the back of
>a mathematical formula
>so lets make some order in it:
>first was the Engine invention, and only much later came in
>mathematical engineering to improve it
>sory mathematicians- in being useful to mankind
>you are plaing second violine.
>so dont give us again your W bosson, mathematicaslly crated
>with not a bit of physical common sense
W boson?
hmm?
probably stands for Wand.
wave the W (wand) around the h (hat) and through some p (planck crap)
and you get force without form physics.
:)
You get a clothed emporer that is naked.
:)
You get a bunch of human fleas trained not to jump of Earth or they
will hit the glass .
trained so long.
you can even remove the glass and they still only jump so high.
SRists are human fleas!
<ROFLOL>
C,mon folks,
laught at the trained flea brains of the SRists.
they think they can only jump a few inches
and all "non trained fleas" know they can jump whole feet
when they try hard enough.
They are trained SR human fleas.
<LOL>
:)
Tris
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:20020821082119...@mb-mu.aol.com...
HAHA! C'mon, laugh at the guy who can't multiply negatives and thinks an
"Electron has an entire Universe inside it.".
Tris
> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
<snip>
> Only if you take fuzzbabble for real thought. Did you know there is
> no experimental evidence directly supporting SR's basic /premise/ ?
So your problem is with a postulate and not the theory itself?
<snip>
Spaceman
>HAHA! C'mon, laugh at the guy who can't multiply negatives and thinks an
>"Electron has an entire Universe inside it.".
Go ahead,
laugh all you want.
I laugh to,
but at you.
just like any scienctist or engineer or even basic mechanics can do,
for simply,
you have no idea how clocks work or what faults they have,
and you also have no real cause for a Doppler effect in light.
You are lost and
it's sad you even try to find your way by "not trying" like you do.
You just want to stay lost in fantasy land.
It's Ok,
it's your head problem not mine.
the clock goofed and you are an ignorant fool for
not even trying to grasp that FACT.
How hig can you jump?
only as high as the physics flea trainers trained you to.
I happen to know
the glass was never there for us.
you must have hit your head on it too many times
so you won't even try to jump higher now.
poor little human flea.
stuck in a human physics flea circus.
<LOL>
BTW: Do you know how to train a flea.
maybe you should find out.
for right now.,
you are one!
<ROFLOL>
Einstein and others placed a glass over your head years ago.
and it was removed and yet you still only jump
as high as Einstein (your trainer) allowed you to years ago.
Gues what fleabrain!
there is no glass cieling!
the FTL wall does not exist.
Tris
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> >From: "Tris" nu...@127.0.0.1
>
> >HAHA! C'mon, laugh at the guy who can't multiply negatives and thinks an
> >"Electron has an entire Universe inside it.".
>
> Go ahead,
> laugh all you want.
I'm still laughing.
Loon.
josX
My problem is with
1. That it's a postulate. This is science, not fantasy/philosophy, there
should be a sound basis for everything.
2. With the postulate (c=constant).
3. With that the second postulate is selectively adhered to (what happened
with normal addition of velocity, which was a physics law until SR
removes it).
4. With the Lorentz-transformations which are selfcontradictory and don't
explain constancy of the speed of light, leaving the apparent paradox
in place which exists under classical physics.
5. With relativity of simultaneity, where Einstein makes a grave mistake
in his own theory (he violates his own principle of constancy of light)
6. With the fact that SRians don't blink when another paradox hits them.
7. With that SR oversteps the bounds of the physical evidence that could
support SR.
8. With the claim that SR is not about visual illusions, but that it cannot
really be about anything other then illusions at the same time.
So, my problem is with the postulate, and the theory.
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> Tris wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:ajtv0k$rf6$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Only if you take fuzzbabble for real thought. Did you know there is
> >> no experimental evidence directly supporting SR's basic /premise/ ?
> >
> >So your problem is with a postulate and not the theory itself?
> >
> ><snip>
>
> My problem is with
> 1. That it's a postulate. This is science, not fantasy/philosophy, there
> should be a sound basis for everything.
This is science. Thus, it proceeds by starting with unprovable
postulates and seeing what predictions they make.
The predictions agree with nature in every experimental
test to date. What other "sound basis" can there be?
> 2. With the postulate (c=constant).
You haven't stated what your problem with this postulate
is. This is science, as you say. This hypothesis leads to
correct predictions.
> 3. With that....
Everything else after this refers to the results you obtain
when you leave SR and enter your own framework, where the
rules of SR are applied haphazardly and/or wrong.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajqbpm$plg$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >Stupid meaningless diagrams. Another repost from a textfile.
>
> I have to repost it until someone leaves it unsnipped and points
> out the error. It's also a great tool in helping new people to
> avoid the SR fuzzzapping of their young and tender minds.
>
> >Your diagrams are again, meaningless crap.
>
> I beg you pardon?
>
> > All you do is talk about
> >length contraction and time dilation but you do not do the actual
> >math. The speed of light always travels at c relative to any intertial
> >observer. Time dilation is a consequence of that. All i ask is that
> >you explain where these people went wrong.
> >
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
> >
>
> They didn't draw a diagram.
> --
> jos
Nice one:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#NoDiagram
Thanks to Eric for drawing my attention to it.
I had skipped this thread.
Dirk Vdm
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Tris wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ajtv0k$rf6$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>> Only if you take fuzzbabble for real thought. Did you know there is
>>>> no experimental evidence directly supporting SR's basic /premise/ ?
>>>
>>>So your problem is with a postulate and not the theory itself?
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>My problem is with
>>1. That it's a postulate. This is science, not fantasy/philosophy, there
>> should be a sound basis for everything.
>
>This is science. Thus, it proceeds by starting with unprovable
>postulates and seeing what predictions they make.
Ofcourse not, that is fantasy. You start with experimenting, and then
you can interpret what you get.
>The predictions agree with nature in every experimental
>test to date. What other "sound basis" can there be?
Then you say that "witches fly at night on broomsticks, but they do it
so nobody can see them unless they want to, they are very skilled flyers"
is a valid scientific theory, and should be taught in schools.
Why is this not science then (by your rationale it is, there is no
direct counter evidence against it) ?
It is not science because there is no positive evidence for this either.
It's the same with lightspeed constancy. It's an hypotheses, and although
there might not be direct evidence to the contrary (except that it's an
irrational theory leading to many paradoxes), there is also no direct
positive evidence for it.
>> 2. With the postulate (c=constant).
>
>You haven't stated what your problem with this postulate
>is. This is science, as you say. This hypothesis leads to
>correct predictions.
The way Einstein etc explain it, it leads to paradoxes. It doesn't lead
to correct predictions at all, only if you take the word of some scientist
that constancy of c somehow can predict the orbit of mercury etc.
>> 3. With that....
>
>Everything else after this refers to the results you obtain
>when you leave SR and enter your own framework, where the
>rules of SR are applied haphazardly and/or wrong.
No, you guys are applying the rules of SR haphazardly and/or wrong, to
squeeze yourself out of some very nasty paradoxes, for instance the twin
paradoxes, where you define a preferred frame of reference as if that is
allowed within SR.
--
jos
Xaonon
wrote:
> It's the same with lightspeed constancy. It's an hypotheses, and although
> there might not be direct evidence to the contrary (except that it's an
> irrational theory leading to many paradoxes),
for values of "many" equal to zero.
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"Accepting that identity is relative means two things: that immortality is
impossible, and that immortality is inevitable." -- Eric Zetterbaum
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>My problem is with
> >>1. That it's a postulate. This is science, not fantasy/philosophy, there
> >> should be a sound basis for everything.
> >
> >This is science. Thus, it proceeds by starting with unprovable
> >postulates and seeing what predictions they make.
>
> Ofcourse not, that is fantasy.
Which part is fantasy? That science proceeds by making predictions
from hypotheses?
Pray tell what makes us think that, oh, diseases are caused
by little invisible creatures called "germs" other than
predictions made from that hypothesis?
> You start with experimenting, and then
> you can interpret what you get.
>
> >The predictions agree with nature in every experimental
> >test to date. What other "sound basis" can there be?
>
> Then you say that "witches fly at night on broomsticks, but they do it
> so nobody can see them unless they want to, they are very skilled flyers"
> is a valid scientific theory, and should be taught in schools.
It could be given as a teaching exercise in the scientific
method.
It is not a "valid scientific theory" because it does not make
any observational predictions. There is no experiment that distinguishes
this theory's validity.
> Why is this not science then (by your rationale it is, there is no
> direct counter evidence against it) ?
That's not what I said. But let me clarify again: It is a
scientific theory if it predicts the outcome of an experiment
which can be used to test the hypothesis.
Your example fails that test, since the premise is "there
are no observables".
Black holes began with the fear that they too were untestable,
till Hawking pointed out conditions under which there will
be a characteristic type of radiation. Now we observe black
holes in the sense that we see these types of emitters.
> It's the same with lightspeed constancy. It's an hypotheses, and although
> there might not be direct evidence to the contrary (except that it's an
> irrational theory leading to many paradoxes), there is also no direct
> positive evidence for it.
There is a great deal of positive evidence for it. What do you
think it means when we say "100 years of experiment confirm
the theory?" That there aren't any predictions?
You are fond of pointing out that there are indeed predictions,
predictions that you find bizarre. Bizarre they may be, but
they certainly are testable. And they are different from
the Newtonian predictions. What other kind of positive
evidence can there be? Theory A says outcome A will happen.
Theory B says outcome B will happen. We observe outcome B.
We have no other theory that predicts outcome B. Therefore
we stick, for the time being, with theory B.
> The way Einstein etc explain it, it leads to paradoxes.
Those "paradoxes" are easily resolved by careful and rigorous
analysis. They only arise when the person posing them gets
vague and unrigorous.
> It doesn't lead
> to correct predictions at all,
That's right. You say in every case where we say "there was
a prediction and that was what was seen", that somebody must
be lying.
Starting with the scientific establishment who, for reasons of
their own at the beginning of the Big Lie, claimed they had seen
light bending in agreement with the predictions of GR and against
all other existing theories. Clever of them to doctor the
photographs.
> only if you take the word of some scientist
> that constancy of c somehow can predict the orbit of mercury etc.
It isn't about "taking the word". The equations are there for the
asking. The starting hypothesis and every step of the deduction
can be found in the textbooks. The "somehow" consists of a set
of mathematical calculations. It isn't magic, and it isn't
faith.
- Randy
Marco Nelissen
> Ofcourse not, that is fantasy. You start with experimenting, and then
> you can interpret what you get.
OK, then let's start by noting that all experiments so far are
completely in line with relativity, and that none of them contradict
relativity. What do you conclude from that?
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Randy Poe wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>>My problem is with
>>>>1. That it's a postulate. This is science, not fantasy/philosophy, there
>>>> should be a sound basis for everything.
>>>
>>>This is science. Thus, it proceeds by starting with unprovable
>>>postulates and seeing what predictions they make.
>>
>>Ofcourse not, that is fantasy.
>
>Which part is fantasy? That science proceeds by making predictions
>from hypotheses?
>
>Pray tell what makes us think that, oh, diseases are caused
>by little invisible creatures called "germs" other than
>predictions made from that hypothesis?
What do you think about a medicine-man looking through a magnifyer
at deseased tissue.
In any case, an hypotheses is worth SHIT, it has to be positively proven
otherwise it's just empty fantasy. That is the stage SR is still. Ofcourse
they want to keep it at that stage because they realize there is no way
that SR will be positively proven from physical evidence.
>> You start with experimenting, and then
>> you can interpret what you get.
>>
>> >The predictions agree with nature in every experimental
>> >test to date. What other "sound basis" can there be?
>>
>> Then you say that "witches fly at night on broomsticks, but they do it
>> so nobody can see them unless they want to, they are very skilled flyers"
>> is a valid scientific theory, and should be taught in schools.
>
>It could be given as a teaching exercise in the scientific
>method.
>
>It is not a "valid scientific theory" because it does not make
>any observational predictions. There is no experiment that distinguishes
>this theory's validity.
It predicts some people will see them.
>> Why is this not science then (by your rationale it is, there is no
>> direct counter evidence against it) ?
>
>That's not what I said. But let me clarify again: It is a
>scientific theory if it predicts the outcome of an experiment
>which can be used to test the hypothesis.
And what does SR predict, for instance in this case:
[repost]
For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
of it is over the gap.
>Your example fails that test, since the premise is "there
>are no observables".
Some people might see the witches.
>Black holes began with the fear that they too were untestable,
>till Hawking pointed out conditions under which there will
>be a characteristic type of radiation. Now we observe black
>holes in the sense that we see these types of emitters.
>
>> It's the same with lightspeed constancy. It's an hypotheses, and although
>> there might not be direct evidence to the contrary (except that it's an
>> irrational theory leading to many paradoxes), there is also no direct
>> positive evidence for it.
>
>There is a great deal of positive evidence for it. What do you
>think it means when we say "100 years of experiment confirm
>the theory?" That there aren't any predictions?
Yes, but there are lies to cover for it though, and liars to spread them.
>You are fond of pointing out that there are indeed predictions,
>predictions that you find bizarre. Bizarre they may be,
They cannot be 'bizarre', because the whole basis of SR is some
bizarness about waves in Maxwells equations. To get rid of that
bizarness you should not make yourself guilty of the same offence.
> but
>they certainly are testable.
No they are not, because they are selfconflicting.
> And they are different from
>the Newtonian predictions. What other kind of positive
>evidence can there be? Theory A says outcome A will happen.
>Theory B says outcome B will happen. We observe outcome B.
No we observe nothing, because the experiment is never done: same beam,
moving and stationary equipment. And you better pray that experiment
will never be done, or never be easily repeatable by trustable people.
>We have no other theory that predicts outcome B. Therefore
>we stick, for the time being, with theory B.
>
>> The way Einstein etc explain it, it leads to paradoxes.
>
>Those "paradoxes" are easily resolved by careful and rigorous
>analysis. They only arise when the person posing them gets
>vague and unrigorous.
You need to move outside of SR to solve the paradox, and then you
pop back in like a good little working bee.
>> It doesn't lead
>> to correct predictions at all,
>
>That's right. You say in every case where we say "there was
>a prediction and that was what was seen", that somebody must
>be lying.
It looks that way. I don't care if people can handle it or not, i only
care about the facts as they appear. I can be wrong, it may be utter
and complete idiocy and braindeadness, combined with thorough brainwashing
from such books as "was einstein right".
>Starting with the scientific establishment who, for reasons of
>their own at the beginning of the Big Lie, claimed they had seen
>light bending in agreement with the predictions of GR and against
>all other existing theories. Clever of them to doctor the
>photographs.
>
>> only if you take the word of some scientist
>> that constancy of c somehow can predict the orbit of mercury etc.
>
>It isn't about "taking the word". The equations are there for the
>asking. The starting hypothesis and every step of the deduction
>can be found in the textbooks. The "somehow" consists of a set
>of mathematical calculations. It isn't magic, and it isn't
>faith.
No, it is insanity.
Space cannot bend, space is not a thing at all, it is the absence
of any 'thing'. Space can also not have a color or have texture, because
texture and color are proporties of 'things'. Space cannot bend because
there is nothing there to be bending.
The problem with SR is that it is irrational from the get-go, anyone
who doesn't object to the very first paragraph of it has lost it.
You cannot explain the twin paradox WITHIN SR. Because WITHIN SR you
are not allowed to pick a preferred frame. This doesn't mean that an
SRist cannot explain the twin-paradox, he can: by moving outside of
SR to solve it seemingly self-consistantly, and the going back to SR
where you cannot pick preferred frames.
You cannot explain any good paradox that has been formulated about SR,
within SR.
--
jos
josX
That this might just be a little too good for a theory thought up in
an irrational manner at the beginning of this century by a patent office
clerk, while people still thought in terms of aether.
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>Randy Poe wrote:
> >>>josX wrote:
> >>>>My problem is with
> >>>>1. That it's a postulate. This is science, not fantasy/philosophy, there
> >>>> should be a sound basis for everything.
> >>>
> >>>This is science. Thus, it proceeds by starting with unprovable
> >>>postulates and seeing what predictions they make.
> >>
> >>Ofcourse not, that is fantasy.
> >
> >Which part is fantasy? That science proceeds by making predictions
> >from hypotheses?
> >
> >Pray tell what makes us think that, oh, diseases are caused
> >by little invisible creatures called "germs" other than
> >predictions made from that hypothesis?
>
> What do you think about a medicine-man looking through a magnifyer
> at deseased tissue.
I don't think it's a proof that there are these little
things called germs that caused it. Do you?
> In any case, an hypotheses is worth SHIT, it has to be positively proven
> otherwise it's just empty fantasy. That is the stage SR is still.
The stage SR is at is this one:
> >> >The predictions agree with nature in every experimental
> >> >test to date. What other "sound basis" can there be?
What other "positive proof" do you have in mind besides "predictions
agree with experiment"?
> >> Then you say that "witches fly at night on broomsticks, but they do it
> >> so nobody can see them unless they want to, they are very skilled flyers"
> >> is a valid scientific theory, and should be taught in schools.
>
> It predicts some people will see them.
Your witch theory does not offer me a method of validating
experimentally that a person sees them. There is no observable.
There is no instrument. There is no experiment. It's not
testable as stated.
> >That's not what I said. But let me clarify again: It is a
> >scientific theory if it predicts the outcome of an experiment
> >which can be used to test the hypothesis.
>
> And what does SR predict, for instance in this case:
>
> [repost]
Ugh.
> For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
> rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
> the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
> firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
> in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
> the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
> of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
> moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
> dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
> and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
> the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
> of it is over the gap.
SR predicts that if the rail falls, it does so in all frames.
Read up on the barn and pole paradox, or the train in tunnel
paradox.
> >Your example fails that test, since the premise is "there
> >are no observables".
>
> Some people might see the witches.
What's the observable? What instrument do I use to measure
this?
> >There is a great deal of positive evidence for it. What do you
> >think it means when we say "100 years of experiment confirm
> >the theory?" That there aren't any predictions?
>
> Yes, but there are lies to cover for it though, and liars to spread them.
This is always your last line of defense when "the equations
are inconsistent" fails: They're all lying. There is no defense
against a Big Conspiracy paranoia. If you don't believe
evidence, there are no tests left. But then you've left the
realm of science and you don't belong in a scientific discussion.
> >That's right. You say in every case where we say "there was
> >a prediction and that was what was seen", that somebody must
> >be lying.
>
> It looks that way. I don't care if people can handle it or not, i only
> care about the facts
When you start saying "all the publications are lying" you
have gone way beyond any facts or evidence and are a long
long way into looney speculation.
- Randy
Marco Nelissen
>> For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
>> rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
>> the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
>> firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
>> in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
>> the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
>> of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
>> moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
>> dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
>> and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
>> the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
>> of it is over the gap.
>
> SR predicts that if the rail falls, it does so in all frames.
>
> Read up on the barn and pole paradox, or the train in tunnel
> paradox.
Jos' version of the problem is slightly different though, as it
doesn't involve events such as closing barn doors or turning on
signalling lights by railway workers, which would happen at the
same time in one frame, but not in the other. I too would be
interested in hearing this particular "paradox" explained. I vaguely
remember reading about it years ago, and finding the explanation
acceptable, but I don't remember the details anymore.
So:
- does the rail fall?
- if not, why? (in the reference frame of the tracks, it fits in the gap)
- if so, why? (in the reference frame of the rail, it does not fit in the gap)
Marco Nelissen
So what you're saying is: "this theory works perfectly all the time,
and that's just too good to be true, therefore it must be some kind
of hoax". Out of curiosity: does that mean that you believe that a
good theory should occasionally contradict reality?
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Randy Poe wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>>Randy Poe wrote:
>>>>>josX wrote:
>>>>>>My problem is with
>>>>>>1. That it's a postulate. This is science, not fantasy/philosophy, there
>>>>>> should be a sound basis for everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is science. Thus, it proceeds by starting with unprovable
>>>>>postulates and seeing what predictions they make.
>>>>
>>>>Ofcourse not, that is fantasy.
>>>
>>>Which part is fantasy? That science proceeds by making predictions
>>>from hypotheses?
>>>
>>>Pray tell what makes us think that, oh, diseases are caused
>>>by little invisible creatures called "germs" other than
>>>predictions made from that hypothesis?
>>
>>What do you think about a medicine-man looking through a magnifyer
>>at deseased tissue.
>
>I don't think it's a proof that there are these little
>things called germs that caused it. Do you?
It's a good start.
>> In any case, an hypotheses is worth SHIT, it has to be positively proven
>> otherwise it's just empty fantasy. That is the stage SR is still.
>
>The stage SR is at is this one:
>
>> >> >The predictions agree with nature in every experimental
>> >> >test to date. What other "sound basis" can there be?
>
>What other "positive proof" do you have in mind besides "predictions
>agree with experiment"?
The experiment to verify what SR says out of thin air: one beam,
multiple observers, all see the same relative speed to them.
I can't believe this can be a debate in a science group, but ala.
>> >> Then you say that "witches fly at night on broomsticks, but they do it
>> >> so nobody can see them unless they want to, they are very skilled flyers"
>> >> is a valid scientific theory, and should be taught in schools.
>>
>> It predicts some people will see them.
>
>Your witch theory does not offer me a method of validating
>experimentally that a person sees them. There is no observable.
>There is no instrument. There is no experiment. It's not
>testable as stated.
Fine, it was meant to teach you something about science, that you should
have a *basis* for what you say qualitatively. Saying the speed of light
is a constant for everybody (same beam, same relative speed for everybody)
whil this has not been observed is a violation of the proper way to do
science.
Some carefully prepared paradoxes by the SRists?
Feel free to post them.
>> >Your example fails that test, since the premise is "there
>> >are no observables".
>>
>> Some people might see the witches.
>
>What's the observable? What instrument do I use to measure
>this?
Ask the people for instance, but you completely miss the point i was
making.
>> >There is a great deal of positive evidence for it. What do you
>> >think it means when we say "100 years of experiment confirm
>> >the theory?" That there aren't any predictions?
>>
>> Yes, but there are lies to cover for it though, and liars to spread them.
>
>This is always your last line of defense when "the equations
>are inconsistent" fails:
it doesn't fail
> They're all lying.
Are they not?
> There is no defense
>against a Big Conspiracy paranoia.
Yes there is: make sense, show proof of your qualitative assertions.
> If you don't believe
>evidence,
I am the only one here who does. But i *only* believe evidence (and
logic), you are the ones off, an amazing amount off too.
> there are no tests left.
?
> But then you've left the
>realm of science and you don't belong in a scientific discussion.
>
>> >That's right. You say in every case where we say "there was
>> >a prediction and that was what was seen", that somebody must
>> >be lying.
>>
>> It looks that way. I don't care if people can handle it or not, i only
>> care about the facts
>
>When you start saying "all the publications are lying" you
>have gone way beyond any facts or evidence and are a long
>long way into looney speculation.
So easy to just assume the scientific establishment is honest as a group
What is the proof that they are 'truthsayers' ?
Don't be naive, corruption happens, it can even be widespread.
--
jos
TB
"Marco Nelissen" <mar...@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:ak3a6f$scl$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
I'd be interested too. I think, though, it works out to be the same as the
pole in the barn problem because it's still a question of relative
simultaneity -- does the front of the rail coincide with the back end of
the gap *when* the back of the rail coincides with the front of the gap?
-- TB
josX
Marco Marco Marco, you made my heart beat faster .-).
Who would have thought that you would take a paradox seriously.
Now PLEASE be at least mildly critical about any answer you might get
from the rabbit SRists:
- does it make sense
- is it done WITHIN SR (no preffered frame, remember?)
- do they need to contradict Lorentz lengthcontraction ?
- Can you still get back from any clocks/events nonsense they might
try to pull of to the original /length/ problem this is?
- Why would it fall in (the rail be shorter) or not fall in (the gap
be shorter).
- Are you sure you are getting a two-way view of this, or are they
only going to use one frame perspective and then compute the moving
frame from that leaving it at that, not honestly taking the other
pov too.
Think for a change: be critical. Are you SURE it makes sense whatever
they are going to say, or are you just too eager to accept an answer,
any answer. Good luck, you have a change to break your brainwashing here.
I gotta say though, my faith in that is practically zero. Proof me wrong
please.
--
jos
josX
I've sometimes heard someone claiming that SR/GR are the most succesfull
theories in current science. All i'm saying is that given their irrational
nature, one should not rule out the fact that these theories were rigged
to survive this long, or as Bruere put it "experiments which don't fit
are discarded as noise".
--
jos
keith stein
Saying the speed of light
> is a constant for everybody (same beam, same relative speed for everybody)
> whil this has not been observed is a violation of the proper way to do
> science.
> jos
Right jos! Einstein's SR IS ' a violation of the proper way to do science'.
If you start by postulating the impossible, anything might be deduced,eh!
like....... clocks running more slowly on the equator than on the poles.
Now there's a definite prediction in Einstein's 1905 paper. Now
THAT CAN BE CHECKED BY EXPERIMENT
. In fact it has been,
and they don't ! Clocks on the poles run at exactly the same rate as
clocks on the equator.
Ten years later Einstein ' invented ? / discovered ! ' a second
previously unknown affect on clocks, (the GR time dilations eh!
which on this earth was (coincidentally!) exactly equal and opposite
to the SR affect he 'discovered/invented' in 1905.
Who they trying to kid eh!
--
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
MasterCougar
news:ak33ee$i13$2...@news1.xs4all.nl:
> In any case, an hypotheses is worth SHIT, it has to be positively
> proven otherwise it's just empty fantasy. That is the stage SR is
> still. Ofcourse
>
Yeah, right, so says the dumb ass who just doesn't get it.
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
MasterCougar
> That this might just be a little too good for a theory thought up in
> an irrational manner at the beginning of this century by a patent office
> clerk, while people still thought in terms of aether.
>
Yeah, right. *BEEP* thanks for playing.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:ak3ans$sek$4...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>Saying the speed of light
>> is a constant for everybody (same beam, same relative speed for everybody)
>> whil this has not been observed is a violation of the proper way to do
>> science.
>
>If you start by postulating the impossible, anything might be deduced,eh!
>
>like....... clocks running more slowly on the equator than on the poles.
>Now there's a definite prediction in Einstein's 1905 paper. Now
>THAT CAN BE CHECKED BY EXPERIMENT
>
>. In fact it has been,
>and they don't ! Clocks on the poles run at exactly the same rate as
>clocks on the equator.
:))
> Ten years later Einstein ' invented ? / discovered ! ' a second
>previously unknown affect on clocks, (the GR time dilations eh!
>which on this earth was (coincidentally!) exactly equal and opposite
> to the SR affect he 'discovered/invented' in 1905.
>
>Who they trying to kid eh!
hehe
--
jos
josX
>On the dark and dreary 22 Aug 2002 jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) posted
> news:ak33ee$i13$2...@news1.xs4all.nl:
>
>> In any case, an hypotheses is worth SHIT, it has to be positively
>> proven otherwise it's just empty fantasy. That is the stage SR is
>> still. Ofcourse
>
> Yeah, right, so says the dumb ass who just doesn't get it.
No i don't get it, i don't get how a thing can be two length.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> No i don't get it, i don't get how a thing can be two length.
"not getting it" is not the same as "it is untrue". The theory
of relativity appears to correctly predict reality. If you can
develop a theory that does not involve length-contraction and
time-dilation, but that predicts reality as good as relativity,
then by all means, publish it. You will likely get a Nobel prize
for it. In absence of such an alternate theory, we will use
relativity, because it works.
josX
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> No i don't get it, i don't get how a thing can be two length.
>
>"not getting it" is not the same as "it is untrue". The theory
>of relativity appears to correctly predict reality.
Does not predict anything other than light-speed going at c for all
(one way, multiple observers at different relative speeds, same beam),
a thing not been measured.
> If you can
>develop a theory that does not involve length-contraction and
>time-dilation, but that predicts reality as good as relativity,
>then by all means, publish it.
Already been done proven: normal physics.
> You will likely get a Nobel prize
>for it. In absence of such an alternate theory, we will use
>relativity, because it works.
You should use normal physics, because they have been proven, you should
not use SR because it has not been proven, and already been shown to
contain paradoxes while it's still in it's hypotheses stage.
Use something that has been proven, not something that has merely been
postulated, or don't you like science.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
>> If you can
>>develop a theory that does not involve length-contraction and
>>time-dilation, but that predicts reality as good as relativity,
>>then by all means, publish it.
>
> Already been done proven: normal physics.
If by "normal physics" you mean Newtonian physics, then you
are wrong: the orbit of Mercury does not confirm to Newtonian
mechanics, neither do particle accelerators or the GPS system.
That means that we have PROVEN that "normal physics" is wrong!
Relativity explains all this, and conventiently simplifies to
"normal physics" for low speeds.
> You should use normal physics, because they have been proven, you should
As explained above, "normal physics" has been proven to be wrong.
> not use SR because it has not been proven, and already been shown to
> contain paradoxes while it's still in it's hypotheses stage.
These "paradoxes" are all in your head. You keep confusing "Jos doesn't
understand SR" with "SR is false".
Randy Poe
>
> Marco Nelissen wrote:
> >josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >> No i don't get it, i don't get how a thing can be two length.
> >
> >"not getting it" is not the same as "it is untrue". The theory
> >of relativity appears to correctly predict reality.
>
> Does not predict anything other than light-speed going at c for all
Really? Are you really going to stand by this statement that
there are no other predictions of relativity?
There are no predictions regarding simultaneity, length
contraction, time dilation? No predictions about mass-energy
equivalence? No predictions about the amount of energy needed
to accelerate particles to velocities near c?
The only prediction is the starting postulate? Then why did
you bother with all those diagrams about length contraction,
etc, if you don't believe that relativity ever predicts these
effects?
- Randy
josX
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>> If you can
>>>develop a theory that does not involve length-contraction and
>>>time-dilation, but that predicts reality as good as relativity,
>>>then by all means, publish it.
>>
>> Already been done proven: normal physics.
>
>If by "normal physics" you mean Newtonian physics, then you
>are wrong: the orbit of Mercury does not confirm to Newtonian
>mechanics, neither do particle accelerators or the GPS system.
>That means that we have PROVEN that "normal physics" is wrong!
>Relativity explains all this, and conventiently simplifies to
>"normal physics" for low speeds.
Normal physics would search for a cause to the orbit of Mercury being
off, it wouldn't use an insanity or absurdity to explain something.
I don't trust the reports on GPS because they are conflicting, at
any rate, a change is clockrate would be due to circumstances, not
because of the overly naive "time-itself-changed-because-the-clock-
-changed" childlike nonsense.
>> You should use normal physics, because they have been proven, you should
>
>As explained above, "normal physics" has been proven to be wrong.
>
>> not use SR because it has not been proven, and already been shown to
>> contain paradoxes while it's still in it's hypotheses stage.
>
>These "paradoxes" are all in your head. You keep confusing "Jos doesn't
>understand SR" with "SR is false".
For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down
on rail, and a gap in the tracks. The gap is not open at the bottom,
it's a closed gap. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside the gap,
with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very firmly on the
tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide in a socket
up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over the gap if
it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece of rails is
accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and moved over
the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is dependant
upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is lengthcontracted,
and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted
and the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last
part of it is over the gap.
Brainwashed parrot.
How do SRists claim this isn't a paradox:
come see come see:
the rail drops in the gap because the front end drops at a different
"time" then the back end (completely ignoring it doesn't even fit
in because of gap-lengthcontraction), and claiming there is no such
thing as 'things being solid' in SR (did i read that right?), this
to get around the iron plate welded to the rail.
You guys are a joke, i don't understand how you ever got this far.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Marco Nelissen wrote:
>> >josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> >> No i don't get it, i don't get how a thing can be two length.
>> >
>> >"not getting it" is not the same as "it is untrue". The theory
>> >of relativity appears to correctly predict reality.
>>
>> Does not predict anything other than light-speed going at c for all
>
>Really?
Really.
>Really? Are you really going to stand by this statement that
>there are no other predictions of relativity?
>
>There are no predictions regarding simultaneity, length
>contraction, time dilation? No predictions about mass-energy
>equivalence? No predictions about the amount of energy needed
>to accelerate particles to velocities near c?
That is all added garbage to the central paradox.
>The only prediction is the starting postulate?
Indeed.
First things first.
> Then why did
>you bother with all those diagrams about length contraction,
To proof that the theory is spun in an irrational and plainly
wrong direction which doesn't in any way make sense of the central
paradox of SR (the lightspeed insanity).
>etc, if you don't believe that relativity ever predicts these
>effects?
It doesn't /predict/ them, it uses them to obfuscate the central
paradox, i tried to lift the curtain on these obfuscations by
showing that they either do nothing to solve it, make senes of it,
or that their derivation was non-existant (simultaneity).
--
jos
Nicolaas Vroom
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net>
schreef in bericht news:ak33ee$i13$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> [repost]
> For realism it is better to use a piece of rail which is pressed down on
> rail, and a gap in the tracks. At rest, the rail exactly fits inside
> the gap, with no room to spare. Now the rail is pressed down very
> firmly on the tracks using a large thick plate of iron which can slide
> in a socket up and down. This ensures that the rail will hover over
> the gap if it still touches the tracks at any point. This piece
> of rails is accelerated at some fraction of the speed of light, and
> moved over the rails towards and over the gap. What will happen is
> dependant upon frame in SR: in the gap-frame, the rail is
lengthcontracted,
> and can slide in, in the rail-frame, the gap is length-contracted and
> the rail will reach the other side of the gap before the last part
> of it is over the gap.
>
Is this question not identical as the following example:
Consider a very long ladder consisting of many rungs.
The distance between each rung is h.
Take a rod slightly longer as 2*h
and move this rod in the direction of the rungs.
Suppose the length of the rod has contracted to h/2
The question is now:
Should the contracted rod not "fall" through the rod
(under the influence of gravity)
From the point of view of the rod the whole ladder
should contract.
This can either mean two things:
A) The whole ladder contracts meaning that the distance
between each rung should decrease.
B) The whole ladder should not decrease,
but only the size of each rung (ie each rung becomes thinner)
What ever A or B the result is the same:
from the point of view of the rod the rod cannot "fall"
(ie go through) the ladder.
How do we find out what is the right answer ?
(Part of the problem is that it is physical quite
different if you move the rod versus if you move the ladder.
For two observers on each it is the same.)
Nick.
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Marco Nelissen
>>There are no predictions regarding simultaneity, length
>>contraction, time dilation? No predictions about mass-energy
>>equivalence? No predictions about the amount of energy needed
>>to accelerate particles to velocities near c?
>
> That is all added garbage to the central paradox.
>
>>The only prediction is the starting postulate?
>
> Indeed.
It is clear that you don't know how to distinguish between
postulate, theory, and predictions.
Marco Nelissen
> Normal physics would search for a cause to the orbit of Mercury being
> off, it wouldn't use an insanity or absurdity to explain something.
> I don't trust the reports on GPS because they are conflicting, at
> any rate, a change is clockrate would be due to circumstances, not
> because of the overly naive "time-itself-changed-because-the-clock-
> -changed" childlike nonsense.
Which brings us right back to: "LALALALA JOES DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IT
LALALALALA SO SR MUST BE FALSE LALALALALALA". Relativity explains
reality. Perfectly. There may be other theories that also explain
reality perfectly, but we have not found such a theory yet, nor
do we have a need for one. "It's beyond Jos' comprehension" is
not sufficient reason to discard a working theory. Relativity
is simple, elegant, and it works. If you can up with something
that is even simpler, more elegant, and works as well, people
would flock to it. So far, you've only been whining.
> How do SRists claim this isn't a paradox:
> come see come see:
> the rail drops in the gap because the front end drops at a different
> "time" then the back end (completely ignoring it doesn't even fit
> in because of gap-lengthcontraction), and claiming there is no such
> thing as 'things being solid' in SR (did i read that right?),
No, you misunderstood that. Things can certainly be solid in SR,
what was said is that there is no such thing as a perfectly rigid
(non-elastic) substance.
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >> Marco Nelissen wrote:
> >> >josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >> >> No i don't get it, i don't get how a thing can be two length.
> >> >
> >> >"not getting it" is not the same as "it is untrue". The theory
> >> >of relativity appears to correctly predict reality.
> >>
> >> Does not predict anything other than light-speed going at c for all
> >
> >Really?
>
> Really.
You are a strange bird.
There is no arguing with someone who can't follow the
most basic rules of logic.
- Randy
MasterCougar
news:ak51fj$9td$6...@news1.xs4all.nl:
> No i don't get it, i don't get how a thing can be two length.
>
>
Thank you for supporting my statement that you are an idiot.
MasterCougar
news:ak5t6a$m6a$5...@news1.xs4all.nl:
> Does not predict anything other than light-speed going at c for all
> (one way, multiple observers at different relative speeds, same beam),
> a thing not been measured.
>
>
Moron. You don't know what you are talking about, you should just
shut up.
MasterCougar
news:ak668j$7ba$8...@news1.xs4all.nl:
>>Really?
>
> Really.
>
>
Yes, because you, JosX are a arogant fuck who thinks that if you
don't get it, it can't be real.
Dirk Bruere
"MasterCougar" <master...@snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9274F1F5D99...@130.133.1.4...
> On the dark and dreary 23 Aug 2002 jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) posted
> news:ak5t6a$m6a$5...@news1.xs4all.nl:
>
> > Does not predict anything other than light-speed going at c for all
> > (one way, multiple observers at different relative speeds, same beam),
> > a thing not been measured.
> >
> >
>
> Moron. You don't know what you are talking about, you should just
> shut up.
Since you are contributing nothing but insults, killfiled.
Dirk
MasterCougar
posted news:akapq1$1gq55l$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de:
> Since you are contributing nothing but insults, killfiled.
>
>
Ooh, I've been killfiled.
Henri Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajqbpm$plg$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> Eric Gisse wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >Stupid meaningless diagrams. Another repost from a textfile.
>>
>> I have to repost it until someone leaves it unsnipped and points
>> out the error. It's also a great tool in helping new people to
>> avoid the SR fuzzzapping of their young and tender minds.
>>
>> >Your diagrams are again, meaningless crap.
>>
>> I beg you pardon?
>>
>> > All you do is talk about
>> >length contraction and time dilation but you do not do the actual
>> >math. The speed of light always travels at c relative to any intertial
>> >observer. Time dilation is a consequence of that. All i ask is that
>> >you explain where these people went wrong.
>> >
>> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
>> >
>>
>> They didn't draw a diagram.
>> --
>> jos
>
>Nice one:
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#NoDiagram
>
>Thanks to Eric for drawing my attention to it.
>I had skipped this thread.
Ha!
A stumbling old bumbler named Dirk,
Was emphatic. His theory should work!
But as it crumbled and tumbled,
He just mumbled, "YOU FUMBLED".
How dumb IS this jumbled-up jerk?
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
Tom Yee
> you still have no "real" definition of i
> you still have no final and correct answer.
> your answer is just another problem not solved.
> What is wrong with you?
> That is not math!
> It is circular bullcrap of physics.
Complex numbers are of extreme usefulness in physics and engineering.
Think of positive numbers as arrows to the right. Think of negative
numbers as arrows to the left.
Let ---> equal +4
Let <--- equal -4
Multiplication by -1 corresponds to a rotation by 180 degrees.
---> times -1 equals <--- equals -4
Multiplication again by -1 rotates the arrow by another 180 degrees.
<--- times -1 equals ---> equals +4
Now, is rotation by 180 degrees the only type of rotation that can be?
Of course not!
Multiplication by the "imaginary" number i corresponds to rotation by
90 degrees in the counterclockwise direction.
A
---> times i equals | equals 4i
|
Multiplying again by i corresponds to another 90 degrees rotation in
the counterclockwise direction.
A
| times i equals <--- equals -4
|
Multiplying again gives you an arrow pointing down:
|
<--- times i equals | equals -4i
V
Finally,
|
| times i equals ---> equals +4
V
Other amounts of rotation can be represented by complex numbers, which
are mixtures of real and imaginary. For instance, rotation by 45
degrees counterclockwise can be represented by (sqrt(2)/2)*(1+i) and
rotation by 45 degrees clockwise can be represented by
(sqrt(2)/2)*(1-i)
You don't use imaginary numbers for counting, and you can't mark off a
tape measure in units of i. But imaginary and complex numbers are
powerful concepts.
-Tom