Can you imagine... [for soon-to-be-brainwashed SR students]
josX
In a space-war a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
as an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
Einstein claims he can, while he also claims he cannot understand the
concept of "space" ('relativity', A.E. (1916), chapter 3), and he cannot
imagine a photon/lightbeam going at zero velocity relative to him.
However, having waves travel at zero relative velocity relative to you
is nothing new in nature, it happens when you walk past a lake, or fly
with mach-1 in a plane.
The 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum behaviour
of light is claimed as fact, even though it is unimaginalbe, and there
zero evidence for it (we can't even measure the 1way speed of light yet).
This starting hypotheses is the archilles heel on which the entire modern
scientific establishment builds it's theoretical structure.
Just so you know what you are getting into.
--
jos
Uncle Al
>
> Can you imagine that:
>
> In a space-war a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
> as an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
The sum of two velocities V1 and V2, any two velocities, is (V1 +
V2)/[1 + (V1)(V2)/c^2)] One adds a cos(theta) term for when they
don't come at each other 180 degrees full on face to face. You don't,
of foruse, but people with working minds do.
The universe doesn't care if you are stooopid, except to crush you
without taking notice.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Randy Poe
>
> Can you imagine that:
>
> In a space-war a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
c, in all frames.
> as an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
Some velocity much less than c on the moon, and less
than c in all frames.
Why should we imagine these two different numbers to
be the same?
> Einstein claims he can
Cite?
- Randy
Courtney Mewton
> josX wrote:
> >
> > Can you imagine that:
> >
> > In a space-war a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
>
> c, in all frames.
>
> > as an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
>
> Some velocity much less than c on the moon, and less
> than c in all frames.
>
> Why should we imagine these two different numbers to
> be the same?
Our resident expert*, josX, is talking about the speed of light being the
same relative to the spaceship, and the astronaut on the ground. He isn't
talking about the velocity of the astronaut being that of light.
>
> > Einstein claims he can
I hope you answer my question about 1+1=2 jos.
Regards,
CJM
* "resident expert" being a false statement, of course.
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Can you imagine that:
>>
>> In a space-war a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
>
>c, in all frames.
>
>> as an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
>
>Some velocity much less than c on the moon, and less
>than c in all frames.
>
>Why should we imagine these two different numbers to
>be the same?
You are unclear.
>> Einstein claims he can
>
>Cite?
Postulate-2:
<'relativity' Einstein (1916) chapter 7>
(...)
In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the
velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at
school. Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the
conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual
difficulties? Let us consider how these difficulties arise.
(...)
For, like every other general law of
nature, the law of the transmission of light /in vacuo/ must, accord-
ing to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway
carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of
reference.
(...)
</quote>
I care to note that the law Einstein gave as the law the children
believe, is "the speed of light is 300,000km/sec in vacuo", and not
into what he changes it later without any justification: "the speed
of light is a constant in vacuo".
Like any good liar, he carefully writes around his main lie, making
sure he never gives the full blow of it in one sentence alone.
Very good of you to ask for a quote Randy, Bravo! You are a critical
man.
--
jos
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> [snip]
And if you were to out it all together into a single
sentence, JosX, what would it say? Tell us.
Patrick
josX
<snip>
>I hope you answer my question about 1+1=2 jos.
What question. 1+1=2, correct. I can even proof it without axioms.
Can you proof 1+1=2 with axioms ?
--
jos
Courtney Mewton
Oh, you must not have read my reply to one of your posts. Here we go
again:
jos:
>> Not at all. The measurements of velocity-of-man-in-train and velocity
>> of train and velocity-of-man-in-train-wrt-track can all be done
>> in one frame, what you claim is simply erroneous.
cjm:
>They can all be done in one frame, huh? So, the velocity-of-man-in-train
>is measured in the frame of the train, and the
>velocity-of-man-in-train-wrt-track is measured in the frame of the
>ground/track. I count *two* frames of reference.
This is what I mean by 1+1=2. Do you agree that there are two reference
frames, not one as you originally claimed?
Regards,
CJM
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you imagine that:
> >>
> >> In a space-war a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
> >
> >c, in all frames.
> >
> >> as an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
> >
> >Some velocity much less than c on the moon, and less
> >than c in all frames.
> >
> >Why should we imagine these two different numbers to
> >be the same?
>
> You are unclear.
[Grammatical aside]
Your sentence was improperly formed. Bravo on your command of English,
but this sentence does not say what you apparently intended.
Apparently you meant the velocity of the beam as measured by
the astronaut. This construction: "... laserbeam can have the
same speed relative to the moon... as an astronaut running
away..." says that the laserbeam has the same speed as
the astronaut. To convey what you apparently meant, you
would need to repeat the word "relative" or the word "to".
"laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon
as to an astronaut..."
or
"laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon
and relative to an astronaut...
I could only wish that I could speak another language so
well as to be concerned with such minor nuances.
[end of grammar lesson]
Anyway, in response to that version of the sentence, of
course I say "yes, I can imagine that, and so could
Einstein."
> Postulate-2:
> <'relativity' Einstein (1916) chapter 7>
> (...)
> In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the
> velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at
> school. Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the
> conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual
> difficulties? Let us consider how these difficulties arise.
> (...)
Yes, here he states that in order for this observation to
be true, there are drastic consequences. For both
observers to measure the same velocity, their measurements
of time, length, and simultaneity are all dependent on
relative motion. Those are consequences of this postulate,
and are testable.
There is no problem in imagining that this is the result of
the measurement, though. The question is, where does it
lead?
> For, like every other general law of
> nature, the law of the transmission of light /in vacuo/ must, accord-
> ing to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway
> carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of
> reference.
> (...)
> </quote>
>
> I care to note that the law Einstein gave as the law the children
> believe, is "the speed of light is 300,000km/sec in vacuo", and not
> into what he changes it later without any justification: "the speed
> of light is a constant in vacuo".
Do you believe that constant has a numerical value? What
do you think that number is?
Why do you think that these two statements are different?
- Randy
Marco Nelissen
> Can you imagine that:
- a person can actually believe his TV is a mindcontrol device
- a person can accept, without a single shred of evidence, that
aliens from the planet Zeta are telepathically communicating
their knowledge to us
- a person can deny reality, simply because he doesn't like it
I can imagine that, for I have read the moronic postings of Jos Boersema.
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:akl8g1$hj5$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> Just so you know what you are getting into.
By all means, do scare away the weak and gullible ones
among the soon-to-be students.
The ones you manage to discourage to take their first year,
are the ones who cannot think for themselves and who
would fail after 6 months anyway. Imagine someone like
Spacegoof taking a first year: -1 * -1 = -1
Thanks for volunteering to filter them out and save money
for the tax payer. You are doing an excellent job here.
Please do not stop.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>The ones you manage to discourage to take their first year,
>are the ones who cannot think for themselves and who
>would fail after 6 months anyway. Imagine someone like
>Spacegoof taking a first year: -1 * -1 = -1
Imagine stopping dorks like Dirk who think
"time can change rate"
<LOL>
Hey Dirk?
How many wavepeaks are in one "white" second worth of waves?
you are a clueless Jerk!
<LOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
josX
I count as many frames as i want, because you can attach a coordinate
system to anything you want, including to empty space in whatever
relative velocity to anything you desire.
And to the point, within the SR-hallucination: 1 frame only is necesary
if you want to measure the speed of a man-in-a-train-wrt-the-train and
of a man-in-a-train-wrt-the-train, and of the train, you can take all
measurements from one frame (for instance the track-frame), then conclude
that velocity-of-man-wrt-track = velocity-of-man-wrt-train + velocity-of-
-train.
Now troll somebody else with your SR nonsense.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> And to the point, within the SR-hallucination:
Hallucination? This hallucination has correctly predicted the workings
of high speed particle accelerators. Without S.R. there would be no deep
results from Quantum Theory. If this is an hallucination, what is being
awake like?
Ninety seven years of correct predictions. Count them.
Bob Kolker
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> And to the point, within the SR-hallucination:
>
>Hallucination? This hallucination has correctly predicted the workings
>of high speed particle accelerators. Without S.R. there would be no deep
>results from Quantum Theory. If this is an hallucination, what is being
>awake like?
Try the hammer trick, it works every time; if you believe in SR, you
are in serious need of it.
Do you know how mirical-workers get to do right predictions ?
One trick is to have the sick you are going to heal working for you.
Another that i once saw is have your accompliss tell you the stuff
you need to know over a radio-line directly to your ear. There is many
ways you can pull a lot of thing off.
If you see a counterfitted dollar bill which was red, would you accept
it even though it looks perfect otherwise ?
This is the same situation applied to science, the theory is thoroughly
unthinkable, unreal, selfcontradictory, see for yourself.
--
jos
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I count as many frames as i want, because you can attach a coordinate
> system to anything you want, including to empty space in whatever
> relative velocity to anything you desire.
The Number One physics misconception of all time: It is
meaningful to attach a reference system to empty space!
If we could meaningfully attach a reference frame to
"space," there would be no relativity in physics!!!!!
OK, jos, tell us how to do this trick.
> And to the point, within the SR-hallucination: 1 frame only is necesary
> if you want to measure the speed of a man-in-a-train-wrt-the-train and
> of a man-in-a-train-wrt-the-train, and of the train, you can take all
> measurements from one frame (for instance the track-frame), then conclude
> that velocity-of-man-wrt-track = velocity-of-man-wrt-train + velocity-of-
> -train.
>
> Now troll somebody else with your SR nonsense.
>
Nonsense or not, you're posting to a relativity NG,
so YOU can leave anytime.
Patrick
Barry
> Can you imagine that:
> In a space-war a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
> as an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
> Einstein claims he can, while he also claims he cannot understand the
> concept of "space" ('relativity', A.E. (1916), chapter 3), and he cannot
> imagine a photon/lightbeam going at zero velocity relative to him.
As I understand it, that is precisely what he had imagined.
He then decided that the imagined consequences of such a situation
conflicted with observation and that therefor such a situation could not
occur in nature.
Barry
Courtney Mewton
> Courtney Mewton wrote:
> >On 29 Aug 2002, josX wrote:
> >
> >> Courtney Mewton wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> >I hope you answer my question about 1+1=2 jos.
> >>
> >> What question. 1+1=2, correct. I can even proof it without axioms.
> >> Can you proof 1+1=2 with axioms ?
> >
> >Oh, you must not have read my reply to one of your posts. Here we go
> >again:
> >
> >jos:
> >>> Not at all. The measurements of velocity-of-man-in-train and velocity
> >>> of train and velocity-of-man-in-train-wrt-track can all be done
> >>> in one frame, what you claim is simply erroneous.
> >
> >cjm:
> >>They can all be done in one frame, huh? So, the velocity-of-man-in-train
> >>is measured in the frame of the train, and the
> >>velocity-of-man-in-train-wrt-track is measured in the frame of the
> >>ground/track. I count *two* frames of reference.
> >
> >This is what I mean by 1+1=2. Do you agree that there are two reference
> >frames, not one as you originally claimed?
>
> I count as many frames as i want,
Is that a fundamental postulate of mechanics? I thought the number of
frames were restricted to the actual number of frames used.
> because you can attach a coordinate
> system to anything you want, including to empty space in whatever
> relative velocity to anything you desire.
Okay.
>
> And to the point, within the SR-hallucination: 1 frame only is necesary
> if you want to measure the speed of a man-in-a-train-wrt-the-train and
> of a man-in-a-train-wrt-the-train, and of the train, you can take all
> measurements from one frame (for instance the track-frame), then conclude
> that velocity-of-man-wrt-track = velocity-of-man-wrt-train + velocity-of-
> -train.
I am interested in measurement. The point is: if I measure the velocity
of the man in the frame of the train, and I know the velocity of the train
relative to the ground, how many reference frames were employed in the
measurement?
> Now troll somebody else with your SR nonsense.
I've got more questions about your nonsense. But only after you answer
this one correctly.
Regards,
CJM
josX
In a space-war, a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
as relative to an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
Einstein claims he can, while he also claims he cannot understand the
concept of "space" ('relativity', A.E. (1916), chapter 3), and he cannot
imagine a photon/lightbeam going at zero velocity relative to him.
However, having waves travel at zero relative velocity relative to you
is nothing new in nature, it happens when you walk past a lake, or fly
with mach-1 in a plane. We are not merely talking in Einstein case about
waves in your body, we are talking about waves ... /everywhere in the
universe/.
The 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum behaviour
of light is claimed as fact, even though it is unimaginalbe, and there
zero evidence for it (we can't even measure the 1way speed of light yet).
This starting hypotheses is the archilles heel on which the entire modern
scientific establishment builds it's theoretical structure.
Just so you know what you are getting into.
--
jos
rryker1
josX wrote:
> Can you imagine that:
>
> In a space-war, a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
> as relative to an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
>
Rod: Yes, and it's true.
But please, say VELOCITY since light is a vector
therefore, any respect to the scalar must automatically
include the vector by nature and of mathematics. :)
>
> Einstein claims he can, while he also claims he cannot understand the
> concept of "space" ('relativity', A.E. (1916), chapter 3), and he cannot
> imagine a photon/lightbeam going at zero velocity relative to him.
Rod: Then he is correct.
> However, having waves travel at zero relative velocity relative to you
> is nothing new in nature, it happens when you walk past a lake, or fly
> with mach-1 in a plane. We are not merely talking in Einstein case about
> waves in your body, we are talking about waves ... /everywhere in the
> universe/.
Rod: Light is a mass less stuff.
Comparing it to masses of stuff is not kewl.
> The 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum behaviour
> of light is claimed as fact, even though it is unimaginalbe, and there
> zero evidence for it (we can't even measure the 1way speed of light yet).
Rod: Yes we can.
You are making your brain silly working on this.
Two dudettes are throwing a ball to and fro on
a moving train in front of your stationary butt. :)
If you use the background in your frame of ref.
to measure how far the ball traveled, then compare
this with how far the ball traveled in the train frame,
you will notice how stupid the comparing really
is wrt distance.
Yet, you and the train will measure the velocity as B, for ball,
as the same.:)
There is a transfer of momentum to the ball just as there
is for the light.
More to the point, there is a transfer of energy to the
ball as to the light.
> This starting hypotheses is the archilles heel on which the entire modern
> scientific establishment builds it's theoretical structure.
>
> Just so you know what you are getting into.
> --
> jos
Rod: See above.
--
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
Marco Nelissen
> Can you imagine that:
- a person can actually believe his TV is a mindcontrol device
josX
<snip>
>jos wrote:
>> The 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum behaviour
>> of light is claimed as fact, even though it is unimaginalbe, and there
>> zero evidence for it (we can't even measure the 1way speed of light yet).
>
>Rod: Yes we can.
>You are making your brain silly working on this.
>Two dudettes are throwing a ball to and fro on
>a moving train in front of your stationary butt. :)
>If you use the background in your frame of ref.
>to measure how far the ball traveled, then compare
>this with how far the ball traveled in the train frame,
>you will notice how stupid the comparing really
>is wrt distance.
>Yet, you and the train will measure the velocity as B, for ball,
>as the same.:)
>There is a transfer of momentum to the ball just as there
>is for the light.
>More to the point, there is a transfer of energy to the
>ball as to the light.
You don't understand SR, you don't understand what "relative speed"
means. Little suprise, because ignorance about SR is all that keeps
it up in the air. Learn it, and you will know it is insane.
So, PLEASE LEARN it!
Allow me to try to explain:
Relative speed is the speed something has relative to you.
You ride in a train, that means a trainstation has speed of 100km/h
for you for instance. The trainstation is NOT standing still, it moves
rapidly. The *train* IS standing still relative to you, the speed of
the train is zero (0) if you sit in the train. That is what relative speed
is about.
Now, a biker goes past the road at 15km/h with the direction of the train.
Do you know what the relative velocity of the biker is relative to the
train ?
Answer: 85 km/h
The relative speed of the biker relative to the train is 85 km/h.
What does special relativity say?
Postulate-2 (because Einstein couldn't imagine a lightbeam going at
zero relative velocity relative to him)
"The speed of light is the same relative to every inertial observer, it
must be 300,000km/sec"
Understanding it, is knowing it is an insanity.
Understand: relative velocity
Understand: what SR says
You just don't realize what SR says, and that's why you can believe in it.
It's not me with the bastard version, it's all of you, you just cannot
comprehend this is an insanity, you cannot believe this is actually what
is being said (probably because you are expecting something rational from
science, and if you don't get it, it must be your mistake).
Just read a book, learn SR, you'll see.
You want me to quote something to proof this is what SR says? just ask.
The resident SR-trolls will agree with me btw, that this is it(!), but
they are not here to do science, they are here to maintain the faith of
the faithfull, that's you all. They know it's wrong, that it's completely
and utterly wrong. But they benifit, that's all there is to it. And you
buy their stories without hesitation ! Stupid people.
--
jos
rryker1
josX wrote:
Rod: OK.
> Now, a biker goes past the road at 15km/h with the direction of the train.
Rod: Who's frame?
> Do you know what the relative velocity of the biker is relative to the
> train ?
Rod: No. Who's frame do you refer?
> Answer: 85 km/h
> The relative speed of the biker relative to the train is 85 km/h.
>
> What does special relativity say?
> Postulate-2 (because Einstein couldn't imagine a lightbeam going at
> zero relative velocity relative to him)
>
> "The speed of light is the same relative to every inertial observer, it
> must be 300,000km/sec"
>
> Understanding it, is knowing it is an insanity.
> Understand: relative velocity
> Understand: what SR says
> You just don't realize what SR says, and that's why you can believe in it.
> It's not me with the bastard version, it's all of you, you just cannot
> comprehend this is an insanity, you cannot believe this is actually what
> is being said (probably because you are expecting something rational from
> science, and if you don't get it, it must be your mistake).
>
> Just read a book, learn SR, you'll see.
> You want me to quote something to proof this is what SR says? just ask.
> The resident SR-trolls will agree with me btw, that this is it(!), but
> they are not here to do science, they are here to maintain the faith of
> the faithfull, that's you all. They know it's wrong, that it's completely
> and utterly wrong. But they benifit, that's all there is to it. And you
> buy their stories without hesitation ! Stupid people.
> --
> jos
Rod: jos, why don't we start with your confusion above
that I responded to.
Then we can move on. :)
josX
>Hi jos
Hi Rod
"past the road"
>> Do you know what the relative velocity of the biker is relative to the
>> train ?
>
>Rod: No. Who's frame do you refer?
Being obstinate ?
We can move on when you understand the normal view on velocities first.
If you cannot comprehend the normal view (with which SR agrees as a
border case i remind you), then there is no hope that you can understand
SR, and if you cannot understand SR, you cannot see how it is wrong.
If you don't undertand "relative speed", you will not understand what
"the speed of light relative to everything is the same" means.
Biker: 15km/h over road past tracks
Train: 100km/h over tracks
Station: 0km/h relative to tracks
Road: 0km/h relative to tracks
What is the speed of the biker relative to the train (you can round your
answer on 0 decimals) ?
Do you notice that speed is not the same speed as relative to the road?
That answers your bogus example with the ball on the train. The ball
DOES have different speeds relative to track and train. You didn't notice
because you didn't understand the concept "relative speed" (i guessed).
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:akni14$lhk$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> rryker1 wrote:
[snip]
> >Rod: jos, why don't we start with your confusion above
> >that I responded to.
> >Then we can move on. :)
>
> We can move on when you understand the normal view on velocities first.
> If you cannot comprehend the normal view (with which SR agrees as a
> border case i remind you), then there is no hope that you can understand
> SR, and if you cannot understand SR, you cannot see how it is wrong.
That is not a very original idea, is it?
It is exactly what everyone has been telling you ;-)
But lets scrutinize this and make a synopsis:
josX who does not understand SR, explains to Rod Ryker,
who does not understand SR either, that SR is wrong for
reasons that Rod cannot understand until he mis-understands
SR the same way as josX does. So first the levels of
mis-understanding must match before real communication
can take place.
Absolutely brilliant indeed :-))))
Dirk Vdm
josX
If you don't undertand "relative speed", you will not understand what
"the speed of light relative to everything is the same" means.
Biker: 15km/h over road past tracks
Train: 100km/h over tracks
Station: 0km/h relative to tracks
Road: 0km/h relative to tracks
What is the speed of the biker relative to the train (you can round your
answer on 0 decimals) ?
I think we need to start learning physics all over here.
Todays lesson: "relative speed", what does it mean.
Then we will go on examining waves and particles/objects where we can
have no confusion about, and see how they behave. We will exclude from
this, hypotheses which have no basis in experimental results (such as
postulate-2 of relativity-theory). Then we will ask the question how
likely it is for something to deviate from the described behaviour of
known waves/particles/objects, and what the results are under general
mathematic principles of good science. We will then introduce Lorentz
and discover why he doesn't help Einstein, we will examine Einsteins
rationale for relativity-of-simultaneity and discover a logical error.
Then we will examine various unsolvable paradoxes, and conclude that
we already have wasted too much time on an unproven hypotheses of a
man who could not imagine something moving at zero velocity with him,
while these things clearly DO happen in nature all the time. Then we
will examine why this man is listened to, and revered so often, and
hypothesize that it may be due to the promoting work of physisists,
the name of the theory and how it is presented in the media (as if it
is about "relativity", about which it is not!). Then we will examine
the braincapacity of the scientific community in investigating on which
the build mathematics, and we will discover that their system is wholly
void of rationale or reality, and that indeed, they are thoroughly stupid.
Then we will see what people chose: the easy way out "no, that can't
happen", and go hystorious. Or if they will say "yeah damn, there isn't
a shred of evidence for postulate-2, from which the whole modern physics
hangs as from a non-existing thread".
This course is free, and completely scientific (demanding proof and rationale
of everything).
Oposing this, are the SRians, who peddle in postulate and fuzzbabble.
The choice is up to the people :).
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aknjqt$nni$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#WrongWay
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=alt.alien.visitors&as_uauthors=josx
Dirk Vdm
TB
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>
> >> And to the point, within the SR-hallucination:
> >
> >Hallucination? This hallucination has correctly predicted the workings
> >of high speed particle accelerators. Without S.R. there would be no deep
> >results from Quantum Theory. If this is an hallucination, what is being
> >awake like?
>
> Try the hammer trick, it works every time; if you believe in SR, you
> are in serious need of it.
Now I know why Jos is so incapable of following logical arguments... He,
himself, has been trying the hammer trick too much!
-- TB
Marco Nelissen
> "the speed of light relative to everything is the same" means.
>
> Biker: 15km/h over road past tracks
> Train: 100km/h over tracks
> Station: 0km/h relative to tracks
> Road: 0km/h relative to tracks
Neither of them are moving at light speed, so what is your point?
Why don't you perform the same calculations using relativistic
velocity addition? I know you don't believe in relativity, but please,
indulge us: do the same calculations using relativistic velocity addition,
and let us know what you get.
rryker1
josX wrote:
> rryker1 wrote:
> >Hi jos
>
> Hi Rod
>
> >josX wrote:
> >>rryker1 wrote:
>
> <Big snip>
>
> That answers your bogus example with the ball on the train. The ball
> DOES have different speeds relative to track and train. You didn't notice
> because you didn't understand the concept "relative speed" (i guessed).
> --
> jos
Rod: Yes, you are correct. :)
Now listen, junior:
The ball has mass where there can be a transfer
of momentum.
Light has no mass and hence, there can be no transfer
of momentum.
While it is true that light is a vector, light has no mass.
Vector addition (classic) is irrelevant.
Stop treating mass less objects as though they have mass.
EM Waves are in their own class, and we are hopeful,
that you and others will _learn_ and understand. :):):)
rryker1
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Dirk Vdm
Rod: Read and understand what that magic eight ball of yours says:
"Lay down, dog"
josX
In a space-war, a laserbeam can have the same speed relative to the moon,
as relative to an astronaut running away from the beam on the moon.
Einstein claims he can, while he also claims he cannot understand the
concept of "space" ('relativity', A.E. (1916), chapter 3), and he cannot
imagine a photon/lightbeam going at zero velocity relative to him.
However, having waves travel at zero relative velocity relative to you
is nothing new in nature, it happens when you walk past a lake, or fly
with mach-1 in a plane. We are not merely talking in Einstein case about
waves in your body, we are talking about waves ... /everywhere in the
universe/.
The 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum behaviour
of light is claimed as fact, even though it is unimaginalbe, and there
zero evidence for it (we can't even measure the 1way speed of light yet).
This starting hypotheses is the archilles heel on which the entire modern
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:akpqsd$ekt$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Can you imagine that:
Small extract from:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=a3errf$ips$1...@news1.xs4all.nl
...
| Hi,
|
| Just a reminder and some additional information, to prevent spindoctoring
| and obfuscation by our debunking-squad.
|
|
| <quote old post of mine (see dejanews):>
|
| Hi, some recent predictions made by ZetaTalk.com you can hold against it
| of it doesn't come true, or for it if it does:
|
| 1. Satalites will begin to fail in 2002 and therefore cellphones will
| become less reliable. This will stimulate the use of CB-radio.
|
| 2. The economy will crash suddenly and unexpectedly, and ppl will go
| back to a bartering-system, since this is the most recent mode of
| trade/living (that is before this poleshift).
|
| 3. An object will appear for amateur astronomers in Orian/Taurus in 2002,
| which is reddish, and for which the cover-story is currently getting up
| to speed. This cover-story was way later than the ZT-site mentioned
| the object in the first place. The object is reddish.
|
| 4. Ppl will be pre-occupied with "sociological changes" in society and
| not take notice of the signs of the (probably coming) pole-shift in
| may-2003.
|
| <snip></quote>
...
Dirk Vdm
josX
>Hi jos
>
>josX wrote:
>
>> rryker1 wrote:
>> >Hi jos
>>
>> Hi Rod
>>
>> >josX wrote:
>> >>rryker1 wrote:
>>
>
>> <Big snip>
>>
>> That answers your bogus example with the ball on the train. The ball
>> DOES have different speeds relative to track and train. You didn't notice
>> because you didn't understand the concept "relative speed" (i guessed).
>> --
>> jos
>
>Rod: Yes, you are correct. :)
>Now listen, junior:
>The ball has mass where there can be a transfer
>of momentum.
>Light has no mass and hence, there can be no transfer
>of momentum.
It makes no difference if light is a wave or particle for this.
If the girls were wrestling with a rod, the shockwaves would travel
relative to the rod which is moving with the train, if someone
takes a bath on the train, the waves in the bath have a difference
velocity for the bader then for someone on the track.
Light's supposed masslessness is only hypothesized to get rid of
paradoxes. Completely arbitrarily, you suddenly "are not allowed" to pu
a coordinate system with it's origin at a ligthparticle (because it
would contract to zero lenght, and you don't want people to notice).
In true physics, co-ordinate systems are not things that influence
the world, and they can be attached to everything and anything, including
free-moving in whatever way you like, including FTL.
>While it is true that light is a vector, light has no mass.
Makes no difference, waves and particles all have difference when it
comes to relative speed: everything changes it's relative speed to you
when you start moving, or compare relative speeds of objects with someone
moving relative to you.
>Vector addition (classic) is irrelevant.
>Stop treating mass less objects as though they have mass.
>EM Waves are in their own class, and we are hopeful,
>that you and others will _learn_ and understand. :):):)
EM Waves have no proof that they are in their own class, i am hopefull
that over time relativity will erode away completely.
--
jos
rryker1
--
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
josX
>By Jos and good luck on your quest. :)
... but you are not swayed by real lack-of-evidence or real arguments,
you are staying with pseudo-science.
The science-way to do things would be to say "ok, you beat my arguments,
now i'll adopt yours", and then go again from the other side.
Why don't you play, you do already know what "relative speed" means now.
Afraid you will lose the argument and "should" adopt the anti-SR opinion
if you were honest ?
Spaceman
>Light has no mass and hence, there can be no transfer
>of momentum.
<ROFLOL>
<LOL>
Hey Junior!
Light must have momentum.
or..
It does not exist at all!
<LOL>
BTW: it's got mass too!
It's just too small for dickheads to figure out.
Robert J. Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> news:akpqsd$ekt$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>
>> Can you imagine that:
>>
>
> Small extract from:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=a3errf$ips$1...@news1.xs4all.nl
>
>
Snip utter insane garbage by Josx, disproved by what actually
happened as opposed to the deranged ravings of this strange man,
Josx.
Josx is a quite insane and out of touch. That is what happens when you
live in Zeta World for too long. His symptoms are similar to a condition
known as blindsight. The unfortunate sufferers of this derangement are
actually blind, but they are convinced that they see. They stumble about
believing their internal hallucinations are actually a reflection of the
state of the world. If Josx would stop wasting disk space, we might even
get around to having pity for this loon.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3D70D285...@attbi.com...
Indeed, a bit like what happened a few years ago with
George Gorilla, remember?
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
> Indeed, a bit like what happened a few years ago with
> George Gorilla, remember?
>
Before my time. What happened?
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3D713F0E...@attbi.com...
Just like josX, a frightening case of paranoid schizophrenia.
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Ageorge+author%3Agorilla
Look at the posts with the numbered subjects (all capitals).
He used a script to post thousands of these. It took a while
before he got the script properly working.
Apparently the google archives have removed a massive
amount of duplicates.
Then he suddenly stopped.
Dirk Vdm
josX
Can you proof to us:
relativity of simultaneity
lengthcontraction
timedilation
postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
relativistic addition of velocities
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:aksqc0$qdi$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
you forgot my middle name on this one.
Dirk Vdm
Marco Nelissen
rryker1
Spaceman wrote:
Rod: Light carries a momentum and I said
nothing to the contrary. I said light has no mass
and there can be no transfer of momentum from
source to light, which is true.
However, child of my domain, there is transfer of energy from
source to light.
IOW's, an energy to energy transfer.
And this should be your focus.
If you know your place. :):):)
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> Can you imagine that:
>
>- a person can actually believe his TV is a mindcontrol device
I don't.
>- a person can accept, without a single shred of evidence, that
> aliens from the planet Zeta are telepathically communicating
> their knowledge to us
I don't.
>- a person can deny reality, simply because he doesn't like it
I don't.
>I can imagine that, for I have read the moronic postings of Jos Boersema.
How about something pertaining to truth and experiment for a change.
--
jos
Spaceman
>Hi Jimmy, and lighten up. ;)
Hi Rod,
OK.>Rod: Light carries a momentum and I said
>nothing to the contrary. I said light has no mass
>and there can be no transfer of momentum from
>source to light, which is true.
No,
it's not true and has never been proven
and the experimnets with light all show a "mass in momentum"
other wise you are taking a "nothing moving" and measuring a
nothing moving.
Hint,
light is made of electron vibrations.
and those vibrations need mass to vibrate at all,
or you don't get any light at all.
>However, child of my domain, there is transfer of energy from
>source to light.
a vibration,
big whoop.
It's a simple transfre just like sound,
but mnay less frequencies and much higher
propagation speeds.
>IOW's, an energy to energy transfer.
>And this should be your focus.
>If you know your place. :):):)
I know my place,
my place is "placing the REAL back in the physic.
so far you have no REAL cause for that momentum.
Until you accept it as a mass.
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:akvb2n$lqt$4...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Marco Nelissen wrote:
> >In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >> Can you imagine that:
> >
> >- a person can actually believe his TV is a mindcontrol device
>
> I don't.
You mean josX-{2,3,4,5} don't.
>
> >- a person can accept, without a single shred of evidence, that
> > aliens from the planet Zeta are telepathically communicating
> > their knowledge to us
>
> I don't.
You mean josX-{1,3,4,5} don't
>
> >- a person can deny reality, simply because he doesn't like it
>
> I don't.
You mean josX-{1,2,4,5} don't
>
> >I can imagine that, for I have read the moronic postings of Jos Boersema.
>
> How about something pertaining to truth and experiment for a change.
for which instances josX-n do you mean?
Dirk Vdm
Marco Nelissen
> Marco Nelissen wrote:
>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>> Can you imagine that:
>>
>>- a person can actually believe his TV is a mindcontrol device
>
> I don't.
Then what was this all about:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=111&thl=1074829039,1074824443,1074739462,1074095419,1073944071,1073638342,1072958353,1072775642,1072741033,1072737802,1072732631,1072730931&seekm=3CCAFB5B.CF69F42D%40asu.edu
(the infamous "Jos' TV is a mind control device" episode)
>>- a person can accept, without a single shred of evidence, that
>> aliens from the planet Zeta are telepathically communicating
>> their knowledge to us
>
> I don't.
Then what was this all about:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:alt.alien.visitors+author:joshb%40mraha.kitenet.net&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=a530e8%24nrp%241%40news1.xs4all.nl&rnum=10
(in which Jos expresses his concern for the health of "the communicator",
the only link to the aliens from Zeta)
>>- a person can deny reality, simply because he doesn't like it
>
> I don't.
That what was this all about:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22escape+velocity%22+author:joshb%40mraha.kitenet.net&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=a3jcqk%24fsq%241%40news1.xs4all.nl&rnum=8
(in which Jos denies the concept of "escape velocity")
So, maybe you got over those insanities, but at one point you really did
believe in mind control devices, aliens and denied reality. Currently,
your delusion is centered around relativity again. Frankly, I think you
should just be locked up, but it's probably cheaper to just keep you
on wellfare...