Examining SR, what is it.
josX
a theory about light.
How do i know?
I read Einstein's work 'relativity', first published in 1916, ISBN
0-415-25384-5, i suggest everybody buys it, although you can get
a good part of it on usenet too because i copied it because it was
relevant to the discussion (hope the losses to the publisher are
compensated by this free advertisement).
Could you know what SR is about?
Yes, *if* you are going to read Einstein, and not some other author,
because any other author will make mistakes as well, however, they
are irrelevant because they will be simple "author-mistakes" then,
not mistakes of the theory itself. If, however, Einstein makes mistakes,
the theory dies and his credibility is gone.
What does it claim, has it to do with particles in accelerators?
Not directly no. It has to do with light only, then formula's which
are derived after making certain logical mistakes can be applied
to other phenomenon as well.
These other phenomena, do they support these formula's?
Particle-accelerators claim they do.
[gullable people may now leave...]
Are these people trustable still?
No, they accepted SR, their minds and their honesty are in doubt.
What does it say about light!
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
Which problem does it solve?
They claim it solves MMX experiment (Michelson-Morley), who measured
the speed of light to go with the Earth.
Well, does it?
No, it restates the result in an irrational way.
How!
It takes the entire Earth as a simple observer (human), and simply
defines light to always have the same speed relative to him.
Why.
Because Einstein couldn't imagine light having any other speed then
300,000km/sec relative to him in a vacuum.
Was there a good reason for that?
Perhaps: Einstein couldn't imagine it any other way.
But there is proof of this right, physical proof verifying this?
No.
Nothing?
Nothing.
No kidding?
Ask the SRists.
Ok, what about lengthcontraction and all that.
Unproven, doesn't make any sense. Paradoxes are never actually solved
if you care to look at them closely.
But why does everybody believe it then!!
Beats me too.
I can't believe you are right because that just can't happen.
I know. But it has.
Crackpot!
Fine.
You can't show a single mistake in Einstein eh?
I can.
Where?
'relativity chap 9'
Bullshit!
No, just look.
He was right, i know he was, we have computers thanks to him, and GPS...
Just look.
Asshole.
Just look.
Jerk!
Just look. WHy is 1+1, 2?
Axiom ofcourse, dipshit
1bean in a cup and 1bean in a cup = 2 beans in a cup: true because of
experiment
And how often do i need to do that?
As many times as you like.
That is an infinite amount then, to be sure?
Only for idiots.
See? Nothing is sure, not Einstein, not Newton, it's all postulates.
No it's not, Newton is proven by experiment and was based upon reality,
Einstein just fantasized something that couldn't even be imagined.
Can you imagine a laser-beam going on the moon with the same relative
speed relative to the moon, and the astronaut running away on the moon?
Yes!
<etc etc...>
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:akvfge$11e$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> SR, or "special relativity" is a theory of A. Einstein. It is
> a theory about light.
>
> How do i know?
> I read Einstein's work 'relativity', first published in 1916, ISBN
Hey, Patrick Reany, satisfied now?
> 0-415-25384-5, i suggest everybody buys it, although you can get
> a good part of it on usenet too because i copied it because it was
> relevant to the discussion (hope the losses to the publisher are
> compensated by this free advertisement).
>
> Could you know what SR is about?
> Yes, *if* you are going to read Einstein, and not some other author,
> because any other author will make mistakes as well, however, they
> are irrelevant because they will be simple "author-mistakes" then,
> not mistakes of the theory itself. If, however, Einstein makes mistakes,
> the theory dies and his credibility is gone.
Credibility:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=aart90$sdl$1...@news1.xs4all.nl
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_ugroup=alt.alien.visitors&as_uauthors=josx
Dirk Vdm
David Lockert Lie
Uncle Al
[snip]
Hey, stooopid - have you come to terms with each of the 24 GPS
satellites carrying four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full
relativistic corrections being applied?
http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
This URL cures josX infections.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
David McAnally
>http://www.homepages.hetnet.nl/~ejlange/SRT.html
I have just read some of this page. Erik Lange made a fundamental error
when he assumed that the coordinates of the coordinate systems, which he
labelled as C and C', were identical with the much more specialized
instances that he gave earlier. One such example was where he wrote:
"I wanted to make clear from the start that the distance C' travels
should not be described by x since this variable already describes the
distance light travels. Therefore it can now be absolutely clear that
x may not be used in this equation when it describes the movement of
C'. Using the same variable x for different distances corrupts the
derivation and makes it false."
This identification of x with the distance that light travels in time t is
Erik Lange's own personal convention based on an earlier specific example
which described the trajectory of a light ray passing through the origin
of the coordinate system. His claim of falsity was built on his own
logical error. As is standard with cranks, Erik Lange took what looked
like it might be a mistake, and magnified that to a "falsity of the
derivation" without even bothering to wait and see if anybody could answer
his charges. He then writes that we should note the very distinction that
he just failed to make. He then writes:
"When we consider the statement x' = 0 to be about a coordinate then we
should do the same for x = vt in which x and t then must be zero too,
which makes v undefined."
without justifications, and follows it up with:
"When on the other hand we consider x' = 0 to be about a covered
distance for t'>0, the equation x' - ct' = 0 is no longer valid since
c is not equal to 0."
He also wrote:
"I consider, for instance, the postulate of the constant speed of light
to be in contradiction with Galilean transformation and therefore
false; the relativity of speeds in general makes one absolute speed
impossible, whilst the postulate itself should make usage of Galilean
transformation in the derivation of the relativistic transformation
equations out of the question. Yet, all of the derivations are based
on Galilean transformation."
The lack of rigourous logic in this last passage is absolutely staggering.
Considering the glaring howlers that I have already picked up, I don't
really need to discuss the rest of the webpage, except to point out that
Erik Lange is obviously not a physicist, and obviously has no idea what
constitutes a rigourous logical argument. In other words, Erik Lange is
just another in a long line of cranks, and for David Lockert Lie to
suggest this webpage as a commentary on relativity is an insult
(particularly when you consider that he shares the same surname as the
Norwegian mathematician Sophus Lie).
David McAnally
------
keith stein
> a theory about light.
Right. A wrong theory about light eh!
Yes!
--
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
Marco Nelissen
> SR, or "special relativity" is a theory of A. Einstein. It is
> a theory about light.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
It is the story of a moron.
David Lockert Lie
Spaceman
I love 8,9 and 10
:)
thanks!
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Jan Bielawski
> SR, or "special relativity" is a theory of A. Einstein. It is
> a theory about light.
No, it's not.
> How do i know?
> I read Einstein's work 'relativity', first published in 1916, ISBN
> 0-415-25384-5,
Stop reading ancient tomes and get a normal physics textbook, or
better yet, a tutor. In science there are no shortcuts and if you want
to master a subject you have to learn *it*, NOT its *poetic
descriptions*.
> You can't show a single mistake in Einstein eh?
> I can.
You can't, and you haven't ever shown a single thing wrong with SR.
Never. All of your so-called "proofs" are ravings without any content.
> Can you imagine a laser-beam going on the moon with the same relative
> speed relative to the moon, and the astronaut running away on the moon?
Yes, that's a consequence of the time and length measurements not
being absolute. If you know how to keep time and length measurements
absolute while preserving Maxwell's equations, please let everybody
know. We are all dying out of curiosity here. Until then - stop
pontificating. Ask questions instead and learn.
Jan Bielawski
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<akvfge$11e$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>> SR, or "special relativity" is a theory of A. Einstein. It is
>> a theory about light.
>
>No, it's not.
Yes, it is. It is build on two pillars:
1 the whole of physics, minus some parts that Einstein wanted to kill off
2 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
Light. It's the key of this dark theory.
>> How do i know?
>> I read Einstein's work 'relativity', first published in 1916, ISBN
>> 0-415-25384-5,
>
>Stop reading ancient tomes and get a normal physics textbook, or
>better yet, a tutor. In science there are no shortcuts and if you want
>to master a subject you have to learn *it*, NOT its *poetic
>descriptions*.
The poetic descriptions are from the Master, they should be correct to
the letter.
>> You can't show a single mistake in Einstein eh?
>> I can.
>
>You can't, and you haven't ever shown a single thing wrong with SR.
>Never. All of your so-called "proofs" are ravings without any content.
One word: mutual-timedilation.
That's unsolvable paradox right there.
>> Can you imagine a laser-beam going on the moon with the same relative
>> speed relative to the moon, and the astronaut running away on the moon?
>
>Yes, that's a consequence of the time and length measurements not
>being absolute.
Explain what you mean with not being absolute. Are there little devils
on the equipment who reset things when you look at it when moving ?
> If you know how to keep time and length measurements
>absolute while preserving Maxwell's equations, please let everybody
>know. We are all dying out of curiosity here. Until then - stop
>pontificating. Ask questions instead and learn.
I don't pontificate, you do.
> Ask questions instead and learn.
Horrific, to think of what you actually mean: "grovel at my dirty feet
and beg my great wisdom for a drop of holy water".
F=m*a, proven
c'=c, pontificated
Newton: a hero.
Einstein: a flake.
--
jos
Michael J
> One word: mutual-timedilation.
> That's unsolvable paradox right there.
Jos, one last try before I let the medics take over: Go to
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/visual.html.
This site contains links to various visualizations of minkowski space & Co,
using virtually no math, and even directly addressing your "unsolvable
paradox". Even a moron like you should be able to grasp it after a while.
josX
Sorry, unbrainwashable. Brain remains intact after attempts, and springs
back into shape with the demand "and, where was the evidence for that
again?", or "aha, so how does this paradox resolve in this theory ?".
--
jos
Michael J
> Sorry, unbrainwashable. Brain remains intact after attempts, and springs
> back into shape with the demand "and, where was the evidence for that
> again?", or "aha, so how does this paradox resolve in this theory ?".
Well, then, you're probably right - nothing can be proven. So why do you
still bother to post a zillion mails a day here when you have no proof that
this group here exists?
Spaceman
>Stop reading ancient tomes and get a normal physics textbook, or
>better yet, a tutor.
translation,
stop reading Einstein to prove Einstein wrong,
It's just too easy.
<LOL>
Spaceman
>Jos, one last try before I let the medics take over: Go to
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/visual.html.
sorry,
that is yet another bad link from a moron that has no clue
how clock "must" work and what they "must" have for faults.
Dear Mike,
Are you going to "research a clock"
or stay ignorant "about time" forever.
josX
You post against the wrong person, i say things can be proven with
physical evidence or made cedible using rationale (unbroken logical
analyses, etc, you know: words that convince because of their inherent
correctness).
--
jos
Ilja Schmelzer
> >> I read Einstein's work 'relativity', first published in 1916, ISBN
> >> 0-415-25384-5,
> >Stop reading ancient tomes and get a normal physics textbook
> The poetic descriptions are from the Master, they should be correct to
> the letter.
LOL. You mingle science with religion.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Spaceman
>LOL. You mingle science with religion.
No,
Relativity and QM do when they place a clock as a God.
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) writes:
>>>> I read Einstein's work 'relativity', first published in 1916, ISBN
>>>> 0-415-25384-5,
>
>>>Stop reading ancient tomes and get a normal physics textbook
>
>>The poetic descriptions are from the Master, they should be correct to
>>the letter.
>
>LOL. You mingle science with religion.
No, Einstein does, and he puts in some scifi too.
Religion: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
Scifi: Lorentzian hogwash.
Unfinished bisnis: Maxwells equations.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> physical evidence or made cedible using rationale (unbroken logical
> analyses, etc, you know: words that convince because of their inherent
> correctness).
You said once that your TV is a mind control device. Where is the proof?
You said once that escape velocity does not exist. Where is the proof?
You said once that an object moving without a force acting on it will
keep moving forever. Where is the proof?
And what about those aliens from Zeta?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Michael J" <wrlb...@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:3d75fef0$0$34538$91ce...@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net>:
> > Sorry, unbrainwashable. Brain remains intact after attempts, and springs
> > back into shape with the demand "and, where was the evidence for that
> > again?", or "aha, so how does this paradox resolve in this theory ?".
>
> Well, then, you're probably right - nothing can be proven.
Right. But for our smart little jos, everything must
be "proofed" ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
Are we now to understand that you believe that there is something wrong
with Maxwell's equations? If I am right, please explain where your
worry stems from.
If I am wrong, please clarify that bit which so cursively says
"Unfinished bisnis: Maxwells equations"
Franz Heymann
josX
If they model something real, but cannot make it's speed change when
the object is described/computed (it's trajectory for instance) from
a moving co-ordinate-system that changes it's motion (accelerates and
then goes to inertial again for instance), then the model is incomplete.
Franz, i wondered where you did go after i defeated you :) (we both
know i did), suddenly you went away. Now you're back. Changed your
mind on SR?
--
jos
josX
>"Ja La" <no...@nowhere.dk> writes:
>>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
>>news:al5f6v$t4i$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>>> "Ja La" <ja...@g-it.dk> writes:
>>>
>>> So you think that a person who can't tell the difference between a
>>> logically constructed argument and a crank's groundless rant against
>>> relativity is deserving of a place at a university of science and
>>> technology?
>
>>As far as I can see that person didn't say anything at all, but gave two
>>links without any comment.
>>On that basis I'm not in a position to judge if he deserves a place
>>anywhere - except that I think everyone deserves that right in the first
>>place.
>
>He gave the first comment in response to one of josX's many rants without
>comment. This is tantamount to directing josX to a site that he believed
>was right - and in this case, he also believed the site backed up josX
>(the site "analyzed" the derivation of the Lorentz Transformation to
>demonstrate that the derivation is not rigourous). His only response to a
>criticism of the first site was to direct our attention to another site
I never point to sites dude. Where are you getting this nonsense from.
Trying to put me down no matter what?
>that says that the Lorentz Transformation has no logical basis (on the
>incredibly flimsy pretext that the formulae for x' and t' in the Lorentz
>Transformation are dependent on the relative speed v - from the same
>"logic", we would conclude that the Galilean Transformation has no logical
>basis either). This is tantamount to saying that he agreed with the
>incredibly flimsy pretext.
Another point for "SRists going over to use blatant lies".
>>I can't know what you base your judgement upon, but I appears as a "rush to
>>justice" without any evidence: you are feeding the trolls <g>
>
>If he disagreed with what was on the sites, then he should have said so
>when he gave the links. For that matter, if he disagreed with what was on
>the sites, why give the links at all?
I never point to sites, i can do my own work/thinking.
--
jos
Michael J
I usually enjoy dadaism, occasionally even yours, but, frankly, your recent
babble just works on my nerves. Therefore - PLONK.
Hasta la vista
M
Spaceman
>Dear man from space,
It's SpaceMan.
I'm not from space.
I own some space.
I am from earth
so,
It would be more correct to say
Dear Spaceman of Earth,
>I usually enjoy dadaism, occasionally even yours, but, frankly, your recent
>babble just works on my nerves. Therefore - PLONK.
Poor puppy dog.
can't figure out a clocks faults huh?
Your bad.
Not mine.
Thanks!
Uncle Al
[snip]
Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
carries four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied?
http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Aardvark
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:al556s$6be$8...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >>Ilja wrote:
> >>>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) writes:
> >>>>>> I read Einstein's work 'relativity', first published in 1916, ISBN
> >>>>>> 0-415-25384-5,
>
> >>>>>Stop reading ancient tomes and get a normal physics textbook
>
> >>>>The poetic descriptions are from the Master, they should be correct to
> >>>>the letter.
> >>>
> >>>LOL. You mingle science with religion.
> >>
> >>No, Einstein does, and he puts in some scifi too.
> >>Religion: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
> >>Scifi: Lorentzian hogwash.
> >>Unfinished bisnis: Maxwells equations.
> >
> >Are we now to understand that you believe that there is something wrong
> >with Maxwell's equations? If I am right, please explain where your
> >worry stems from.
> >If I am wrong, please clarify that bit which so cursively says
> >"Unfinished bisnis: Maxwells equations"
>
> If they model something real, but cannot make it's speed change when
> the object is described/computed (it's trajectory for instance) from
> a moving co-ordinate-system that changes it's motion (accelerates and
> then goes to inertial again for instance), then the model is incomplete.
>
I know English isn't your first language, so let me help you. What you
meant to write was
"Being an incompetent dropout, I don't actually understand Maxwell's
Equations (the same way that I really have no clue about Relativity),
but I've started to realise that they represent an awkward refutation
of all the ignorant drivel that I have been spouting ad nauseam on
Usenet. Specifically, their correctness implicitly requires the
correctness of the postulates of Relativity, and although I can
continue to obstinately ignore nearly 100 years of experimental tests
of Relativity, it is stretching even my limitless stupidity to claim
that Electromagnetism has not been tested and completely vindicated.
However to admit that "the constancy of the speed of light hypothesis"
might be right is too humiliating to contemplate, therefore I will
indulge in some mystical metaphysical babble along the lines that
Maxwell's Equations are just an "incomplete model", that somehowget
the numbers right by accident (a bit ike the Lorentz transformations;
isn't it a remarkable coincidence that all these allegedly wrong
theories somehow keep spitting out the right numbers?).
Therefore I will continue to spam the physics newsgroups for the
foreseeable future with half-baked, wholly erroneous thought
experiments that I claim show up a problem with classical
Electromagnetism. The fact that I do not know any classical EM - I was
too stupid to complete my undergraduate degree - will not stop me.
It's my right as a certified idiot to fill Usenet with my drivel,
after all I've got to do something to fill my day as I am too stupid
and obstinate to be able to hold down a job."
Glad to have been of help.
Tom Salerno
> David McAnally lied:
> >"Ja La" <no...@nowhere.dk> writes:
> >>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> >>news:al5f6v$t4i$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >>> "Ja La" <ja...@g-it.dk> writes:
> >>>
> >>> So you think that a person who can't tell the difference between a
> >>> logically constructed argument and a crank's groundless rant against
> >>> relativity is deserving of a place at a university of science and
> >>> technology?
>
> >>As far as I can see that person didn't say anything at all, but gave two
> >>links without any comment.
> >>On that basis I'm not in a position to judge if he deserves a place
> >>anywhere - except that I think everyone deserves that right in the first
> >>place.
> >
> >He gave the first comment in response to one of josX's many rants without
> >comment. This is tantamount to directing josX to a site that he believed
> >was right - and in this case, he also believed the site backed up josX
> >(the site "analyzed" the derivation of the Lorentz Transformation to
> >demonstrate that the derivation is not rigourous). His only response to a
> >criticism of the first site was to direct our attention to another site
>
> I never point to sites dude. Where are you getting this nonsense from.
> Trying to put me down no matter what?
I think that this is conclusive proof that Jos Boersema has no English
comprehension skills. I read David McAnally's comments above to mean that
David Lie (who is apparently at the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology and that David Lie pointed to the first site for you to look
at, and when the first site was criticized, then David Lie pointed to
another site. I note particularly David McAnally's words:
> >This is tantamount to directing josX to a site that he believed
If David McAnally had meant that *you* pointed to the sites as you have
asserted in no uncertain terms above, then the above quote would say that
you were directing yourself to the site. This alone shows what an utter
incompetent you are when it comes to English comprehension. I have read
all the correspondence up to the point of your ridiculous response, and
anybody with even a modicum of intelligence would have been able to tell
that he was referring to Lie when he wrote the above. Why didn't you?????
It must be your ego. People always have to be talking about you, don't
they! It never even occurred to you that they could be talking about
somebody else.
> >that says that the Lorentz Transformation has no logical basis (on the
> >incredibly flimsy pretext that the formulae for x' and t' in the Lorentz
> >Transformation are dependent on the relative speed v - from the same
> >"logic", we would conclude that the Galilean Transformation has no logical
> >basis either). This is tantamount to saying that he agreed with the
> >incredibly flimsy pretext.
>
> Another point for "SRists going over to use blatant lies".
So your justification for this remark is "SRists ALWAYS lie", is it. Or
do you back ANYBODY who doesn't like SR, even if they use the most
ridiculous arguments to justify their position, simply because they
disagree with SR? I can't see any other reason why you should make this
response. Reiterating what David wrote:
> >that says that the Lorentz Transformation has no logical basis (on the
> >incredibly flimsy pretext that the formulae for x' and t' in the Lorentz
> >Transformation are dependent on the relative speed v - from the same
> >"logic", we would conclude that the Galilean Transformation has no logical
> >basis either). This is tantamount to saying that he agreed with the
> >incredibly flimsy pretext.
This means that David stated that the argument given on John T. Nordberg's
site is that because the Lorentz Transformation gives the expressions for
x' and t' in terms of the speed v, then the Lorentz Transformation as
given is wrong (and that John T. Nordberg uses this as his only
justification). David censured this logic as 'flimsy'. David also
suggested that Lie agreed with the illogical comments on the website in
question. So at which point do you believe that he was lying?
(1) When he stated that John T. Nordberg's site used the argument
that the Lorentz Transformation was wrong *specifically*
because it expresses x' and t' in terms of v?
(2) When he stated that the dependence of x' and t' on v was not
sufficient reason to dismiss the Lorentz Transformation?
(3) When he said that David Lie agreed with John T. Nordberg's
claims?
If your answer is (1), then tell us why John T. Nordberg described the
argument as circular. If your answer is (2), then by the same logic,
the dependence is also sufficient reason to dismiss the Galilean
Transformation (how does it feel to see at least one argument against the
Lorentz Transformation that you can't use since exactly the same argument
would destroy your beloved Galilean Transformation as well?). If your
answer is (3), then how can you presume to speak for Lie? How can you
possibly know what Lie was thinking when he posted the pointer to John T.
Nordberg's website?
And just as a reminder, the expression for x' in the Galilean
Transformation in which you so passionately believe is x' = x-vt. This
equation would be ripped apart immediately by John T. Nordberg since it
defines a length (x') in terms of a speed (v) - these are John T.
Nordverg's own words (John T. Nordberg's argument then goes that speed is
defined in terms of length, and so defining the length x' in terms of the
speed c is a circular argument).
> >>I can't know what you base your judgement upon, but I appears as a "rush to
> >>justice" without any evidence: you are feeding the trolls <g>
> >
> >If he disagreed with what was on the sites, then he should have said so
> >when he gave the links. For that matter, if he disagreed with what was on
> >the sites, why give the links at all?
>
> I never point to sites, i can do my own work/thinking.
Nobody ever said you did. And if you had even a modicum of intelligence
you would have known that David was referring to Lie. I know that English
isn't your first language, but that doesn't justify your being insulting
by reading sentences incorrectly (although you probably did it
deliberately).
Tom S.
Spaceman
<snipped basic insult crap that is all the SRists have left to use>
Dear Zaphod.
Do you understand these three english words.
The clock malfunctioned.
Do you?
If you do,
you best appologize to Jos.
If you don't.
keep being a foolish clock worshipper.
:)
and...
Guess what?
the clock is not a God.
You lose!
You actually have no clue about clocks faults huh?
Michael J. Strickland
news:7ea72541.02090...@posting.google.com...
Postulate not hypothesis. Do you know the difference?
Postulate: "A hypothesis advanced as an essential PRESUPPOSITION
[my emphasis], condition, or premise of a train of reasoning."
While you're discussing educational attainment. Have you passed
high school english yet?
Have you read Einsteins original 1905 paper ("On the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies")?
He called them postulates not hypotheses.
...
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services quali...@att.net
703-560-7380
---------------------------------------------------------------
josX
Perhaps because i know what to expect from your kind.
>It must be your ego. People always have to be talking about you, don't
>they! It never even occurred to you that they could be talking about
>somebody else.
People often talk to eachother here in an effort to put me down.
See? You are also trying to get the most out of this.
>And just as a reminder, the expression for x' in the Galilean
>Transformation in which you so passionately believe is x' = x-vt. This
>equation would be ripped apart immediately by John T. Nordberg since it
>defines a length (x') in terms of a speed (v) - these are John T.
>Nordverg's own words (John T. Nordberg's argument then goes that speed is
>defined in terms of length, and so defining the length x' in terms of the
>speed c is a circular argument).
>
>> >>I can't know what you base your judgement upon, but I appears as a "rush to
>> >>justice" without any evidence: you are feeding the trolls <g>
>> >
>> >If he disagreed with what was on the sites, then he should have said so
>> >when he gave the links. For that matter, if he disagreed with what was on
>> >the sites, why give the links at all?
>>
>> I never point to sites, i can do my own work/thinking.
>
>Nobody ever said you did. And if you had even a modicum of intelligence
>you would have known that David was referring to Lie. I know that English
>isn't your first language, but that doesn't justify your being insulting
>by reading sentences incorrectly (although you probably did it
>deliberately).
--
jos
Ja La
"Tom Salerno" <zaphod_beeb...@yahoo.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4f457ade.02090...@posting.google.com...
>How can you
> possibly know what Lie was thinking when he posted the pointer to John T.
> Nordberg's website?
How can anyone?
David McAnally
>How can anyone?
Is David Lockert Lie a friend of yours? Why are you taking the trouble to
defend him when he can't be bothered to take the trouble to defend
himself? David Lockert Lie knows what he meant when posted the addresses
of both websites, and his reason for so doing, but he apparently can't be
bothered telling us.
If I had been giving the address of a site with whose contents I disagreed,
particularly in a newsgroup such as this, I would have at least commented
that I disagreed with the contents of the website, rather than leave
whether or not I agreed with the contents to the speculation of others,
and I would probably have explained why I was posting the web address.
The fact that David Lockert Lie didn't do either strongly suggests that he
agreed wholeheartedly with the contents of both websites. He has had
plenty of opportunity to come out and tell us that I was wrong in
supposing that he agreed with the contents of the websites, and the longer
he waits, the more compelling my conclusion about him seems. The ball in
in his court. It is up to him to defend himself, not you.
David McAnally
--------
Tom Salerno
What do you mean by "my kind"? Is this your only excuse for
misinterpreting what a person writes - that you read what you expect them
to write in preference to what they actually write? Is that why people
can't communicate with you - because you can't be bothered actually
reading what they write?
> >It must be your ego. People always have to be talking about you, don't
> >they! It never even occurred to you that they could be talking about
> >somebody else.
>
> People often talk to eachother here in an effort to put me down.
So you assume that *every* communication is an effort to put you down???
What an ego you must have. You should make sure that a communication is
an effort to put you down before you attack it. David McAnally was
putting down David Lie, to use your terminology, but I saw no effort to
put you down in that communication - in fact, if you had bothered paying
attention, you would have seen that he was justifying his comment that
David Lie did not belong in a University of Science and Technology.
What do you mean by "trying to get the most out of this"? You wrote
'Another point for "SRists going over to use blatant lies".'. I presumed
that you were suggesting that David was lying. Was I wrong in this
presumption? If I was wrong, then what did you mean by the comment? And
if I was right, then tell me at which of the three points above you
thought he was lying. It's a simple enough question which you should be
able to answer. If he wasn't lying at any of these three points, then he
wasn't lying in the paragraph, and you must have meant something else with
your comment. My extra comments to go with the three alternative points
are merely only trying to tie you down to an explicit justification for
your claim of lying at that point, or to inform you of the consequence of
claiming that he was lying at point 2 (i.e. that the same "logic" would
sink the Galilean Tranformation as well as the Lorentz Transformation).
Is this how you get out of questions that you don't want to answer - by
diverting attention from the question and pretending that your inquisitor
is at fault? This a coward's way out of answering.
Tom S.
josX
SRists, people believing in SR in this NG?
1. lies
2. playing on emotions
3. brushing aside paradoxes
4. thinking science is not about evidence
5. newton is not proven
6. muons and particle-accelerators proof SR
> Is this your only excuse for
>misinterpreting what a person writes - that you read what you expect them
>to write in preference to what they actually write? Is that why people
>can't communicate with you - because you can't be bothered actually
>reading what they write?
Ok, i'm sorry for what happened. I'm sure you're pretty pleased with it
though.
>>>It must be your ego. People always have to be talking about you, don't
>>>they! It never even occurred to you that they could be talking about
>>>somebody else.
>>
>>People often talk to eachother here in an effort to put me down.
>
>So you assume that *every* communication is an effort to put you down???
>What an ego you must have. You should make sure that a communication is
>an effort to put you down before you attack it. David McAnally was
>putting down David Lie, to use your terminology, but I saw no effort to
>put you down in that communication - in fact, if you had bothered paying
>attention, you would have seen that he was justifying his comment that
>David Lie did not belong in a University of Science and Technology.
None of you belongs even near any university.
You perfectly fit my model of the SRist. You are licking your chops right
now, i'm done with this.
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
Can't ?
>>>And just as a reminder, the expression for x' in the Galilean
>>>Transformation in which you so passionately believe is x' = x-vt. This
>>>equation would be ripped apart immediately by John T. Nordberg since it
>>>defines a length (x') in terms of a speed (v) - these are John T.
>>>Nordverg's own words (John T. Nordberg's argument then goes that speed is
>>>defined in terms of length, and so defining the length x' in terms of the
>>>speed c is a circular argument).
>>>
>>>> >>I can't know what you base your judgement upon, but I appears as a "rush to
>>>> >>justice" without any evidence: you are feeding the trolls <g>
>>>> >
>>>> >If he disagreed with what was on the sites, then he should have said so
>>>> >when he gave the links. For that matter, if he disagreed with what was on
>>>> >the sites, why give the links at all?
>>>>
>>>> I never point to sites, i can do my own work/thinking.
>>>
>>>Nobody ever said you did. And if you had even a modicum of intelligence
>>>you would have known that David was referring to Lie. I know that English
>>>isn't your first language, but that doesn't justify your being insulting
>>>by reading sentences incorrectly (although you probably did it
>>>deliberately).
--
jos
Ja La
"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:al8mbo$uin$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> "Ja La" <no...@nowhere.dk> writes:
>
> >"Tom Salerno" <zaphod_beeb...@yahoo.com.au> skrev i en
meddelelse
> >news:4f457ade.02090...@posting.google.com...
> >>How can you
> >> possibly know what Lie was thinking when he posted the pointer to John
T.
> >> Nordberg's website?
>
> >How can anyone?
>
> Is David Lockert Lie a friend of yours? Why are you taking the trouble to
> defend him when he can't be bothered to take the trouble to defend
> himself
I take it that you perceive yourself as "anyone".
I don't know mr. Lie, and I take no trouble in defending him; in any case
that is hardly relevant.
My point is that anyone should be allowed to express himself without fear of
being attacked and slandered alone on the grounds of a hypothesis.
Whether he thinks A or B, or agrees with Jos or you, he deserves the right
to express an opinion, the benefit of doubt, and a courteous treatment as
long as he has not behaved obviously rude (as indeed Jos has).
Some accuses Jos for ignoring facts, and he accuses others for conclusions
without evidence.
Frankly, even thought you through lengthy posts has elaborated you
argumentation, and even while you may very well be right, I find that your
evidence for your conclusion is too weak to call for your rather harsh
personal attack.
Is David Lockert Lie an enemy of yours? Why are you taking the trouble to
attack him when he can't be bothered to fight you <g>
David McAnally
>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:al8mbo$uin$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> "Ja La" <no...@nowhere.dk> writes:
>>
>> >"Tom Salerno" <zaphod_beeb...@yahoo.com.au> skrev i en
>meddelelse
>> >news:4f457ade.02090...@posting.google.com...
>> >>How can you
>> >> possibly know what Lie was thinking when he posted the pointer to John
>T.
>> >> Nordberg's website?
>>
>> >How can anyone?
>>
>> Is David Lockert Lie a friend of yours? Why are you taking the trouble to
>> defend him when he can't be bothered to take the trouble to defend
>> himself
>I take it that you perceive yourself as "anyone".
>I don't know mr. Lie,
Then why are you bothering? This is a newsgroup rife with trolls. When
people post links to websites which purport to disprove relativity (the
second with logic so ridiculous, that it was laughable), and they post
them without comment, that is very suggestive that they are also trolls.
I made one simple comment that a person who posted the link to the website
with the laughable logic should perhaps not be in a university of science
and technology. I cannot see why you are taking it so amiss. David
Lockert Lie pretty well made it clear that he agreed with the contents of
the webistes. JosX (whom I have thankfully kill-filed) apparently made
some comments about relativity, and David Lockert Lie just posted the link
without comment, which can only be read as if he intended the contents of
the website to be read in response. The same interpretation can be taken
for David Locert Lie's second posting. I guess that I will have to add
you to my kill-file as well. *PLONK!* Goodbye.
Uncle Al
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> SRists, people believing in SR in this NG?
> 1. lies
Please list the lies, and who uttered them.
> 2. playing on emotions
Why not?
> 3. brushing aside paradoxes
You have quoted only two very ancient "paradoxes", representing them
under various fancy cloaks. Both "paradoxes" arise from a partial
understanding and incorrect application of SR, and both were disposed of
around eighty years ago.
> 4. thinking science is not about evidence
Evidence is crucial for the successful progress of science.
> 5. newton is not proven
No postulate of physics can ever be proven. In fact, none of the three
laws of Newton have been proven.
In particular, Newton II is plainly not in agreement with experimental
evidence.
> 6. muons and particle-accelerators proof SR
*All* situations in which speeds commensurate with that of light can be
imparted to particles provide evidence in favour of the predictions of
SR.
*No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction exists. I
repeat, *No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction
exists.
> None of you belongs even near any university.
That is rather rich, coming from one who, in his own words, copped out
after a few months as a student..
[snip]
i'm done with this.
I hope fervently that you mean it this time.
>
> Can you proof to us:
> relativity of simultaneity
> lengthcontraction
> timedilation
Proven on a daily basis in high energy physics laboratories in which the
extended mean lives of fast unstable particles is bread and butter
stuff.
> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
> relativistic addition of velocities
Proven daily in high energy physics experiments such as the decay of
unstable particles in flight.
> Can't ?
If it were possible to design experiments in which questions could be
put to the test, such experiments would have been designed by now.
It is not necessary to do an impossible experiment to provide evidence
in favour of a set of hypotheses. It is quite a common circumstance to
make a prediction from the postulates and then to put the prediction to
the test.
Let's make a counter request: Prove (the verb is to prove, not to
proof) Newton I for us.
[snip]
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"David Lockert Lie" <dav...@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:akvm8i$l93$1...@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> http://www.homepages.hetnet.nl/~ejlange/SRT.html
How about a few explanatory words?
Franz Heymann
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:3d784cf2$0$12325$e4fe...@dreader3.news.xs4all.nl...
>
>[snip]
>
>> SRists, people believing in SR in this NG?
>> 1. lies
>
>Please list the lies, and who uttered them.
SR = science
1+1=2 because of axioms
geometry is geometry because of axioms
postulate-2 is not irrational
the twin paradox is solved
science is not about evidence
etc, you know this stuff
>> 2. playing on emotions
>
>Why not?
Dunno.
>> 3. brushing aside paradoxes
>
>You have quoted only two very ancient "paradoxes", representing them
>under various fancy cloaks. Both "paradoxes" arise from a partial
>understanding and incorrect application of SR, and both were disposed of
>around eighty years ago.
Doesn't convince me. Jezus' existance was confirmed 2000 years ago by
eye witness say the catholic priests, this is eye-testimony to you too ?
>> 4. thinking science is not about evidence
>
>Evidence is crucial for the successful progress of science.
Then i guess you are going to tell us where 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum was first measured around the beginning
of this century right??
>> 5. newton is not proven
>
>No postulate of physics can ever be proven.
Postulates are not part of science, only part of religions.
Newton is proven, try to play soccer, or another sport you like. Waterpolo?
> In fact, none of the three
>laws of Newton have been proven.
Quite a bizare statement in a science group.
>In particular, Newton II is plainly not in agreement with experimental
>evidence.
During your seances with Marco ?
>> 6. muons and particle-accelerators proof SR
>
>*All* situations in which speeds commensurate with that of light can be
>imparted to particles provide evidence in favour of the predictions of
>SR.
*All* situations involving miraculous healing close to holy places can
be ascribed to the holy force of God. This is what the priests who
research miracles say! Don't you believe them?!!!?
<lol>
>*No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction exists. I
>repeat, *No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction
>exists.
*No* evidence whatsoever which is contarry to the doctrine of the catholic
church. I repeat, *No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction
exists.
You notice your problem?
You are untrusted, you have "lost the credibility to merely spout".
BTW, this credibility never existed in proper science: Newton demonstrated
his stuff with devices for instance. Now we are back in the dark ages
thanks to people like yourself.
>> None of you belongs even near any university.
>
>That is rather rich, coming from one who, in his own words, copped out
>after a few months as a student..
>
>[snip]
>
> i'm done with this.
>
>I hope fervently that you mean it this time.
>>
>> Can you proof to us:
>> relativity of simultaneity
>> lengthcontraction
>> timedilation
>
>Proven on a daily basis in high energy physics laboratories in which the
>extended mean lives of fast unstable particles is bread and butter
>stuff.
By the faithfull who are so nice to do the interpretation of the data for us.
>> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
>> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
>> relativistic addition of velocities
>
>Proven daily in high energy physics experiments such as the decay of
>unstable particles in flight.
Don't you think these particles notice it that they move?
>> Can't ?
>
>If it were possible to design experiments in which questions could be
>put to the test, such experiments would have been designed by now.
If they couldn't and haven't been done yet, then the claims fall to the
side. SR falls to the side because of this.
>It is not necessary to do an impossible experiment to provide evidence
>in favour of a set of hypotheses. It is quite a common circumstance to
>make a prediction from the postulates and then to put the prediction to
>the test.
No, that is not science. That is the dark midle ages.
>Let's make a counter request: Prove (the verb is to prove, not to
>proof) Newton I for us.
Go play soccer.
--
jos
Franz Heymann
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:3d784cf2$0$12325$e4fe...@dreader3.news.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> SRists, people believing in SR in this NG?
> >> 1. lies
> >
> >Please list the lies, and who uttered them.
>
> SR = science
> 1+1=2 because of axioms
> geometry is geometry because of axioms
> postulate-2 is not irrational
> the twin paradox is solved
> science is not about evidence
> etc, you know this stuff
I think you do not have the cognitive power to understand my request,
judging by the silly reply you gave, but, ever hopeful, I repeat it
here:
Please list the lies, and who uttered them.
If you fail to respond properly, I take it thayt you are unable to
support your allegations.
>
> >> 2. playing on emotions
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Dunno.
>
> >> 3. brushing aside paradoxes
> >
> >You have quoted only two very ancient "paradoxes", representing them
> >under various fancy cloaks. Both "paradoxes" arise from a partial
> >understanding and incorrect application of SR, and both were disposed
of
> >around eighty years ago.
>
> Doesn't convince me.
Your lack of grey cells is not the concern of your readers.
> Jezus' existance was confirmed 2000 years ago by
> eye witness say the catholic priests, this is eye-testimony to you too
?
You know perfectly well that you are attempting a side-track. By the
way, the bloke's name is Jesus. And there is no reason to doubt that
there was such a revolutionary in Palestine at that time.
>
> >> 4. thinking science is not about evidence
> >
> >Evidence is crucial for the successful progress of science.
>
> Then i guess you are going to tell us where 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum was first measured around the
beginning
> of this century right??
No, JosX. I am not the kind who will fall into that trap. The
experiment of which you speak is a physical impossibility.
But you don't seem to realise that Newton I has not ever been proved
either.
And, in case you are not aware of it, Newton II fails conspicuously for
electrons with KE in excess of about 10 KeV.
>
> >> 5. newton is not proven
> >
> >No postulate of physics can ever be proven.
>
> Postulates are not part of science, only part of religions.
You should polish your knowledge of the scientific method. *All*
theories start with a set of hypotheses, without *any* exception.
> Newton is proven, try to play soccer, or another sport you like.
Waterpolo?
No theory can ever be proven.
Newtonian mechanics in particular, fails quite spectacularly to predict
correctly the motions of fast particles. Newtonian mechanics says the
time to complete a circular orbit of a charged particle in a uniform
transverse magnetic field is independent of the KE of the particle. It
ain't so.
> > In fact, none of the
three
> >laws of Newton have been proven.
>
> Quite a bizare statement in a science group.
There is nothing bizarre about that statement. It is a totally correct
statement. In fact the second law has been shown to fail quite
spectacularly for fast particles.
What is bizarre is that you have the gall to keep on posting in spite of
the fact that you have absolutely no notion whatsoever about what the
scientific method is, or what the current status of Newton's Laws are.
Ye gods, you don't even know that they are postulates.
>
> >In particular, Newton II is plainly not in agreement with
experimental
> >evidence.
>
> During your seances with Marco ?
No. From personal experience with designing betatrons, synchrotrons and
microtrons, and with a close knowledge of why the original Berkeley
cyclotron could not accelerate protons beyond about 20 MeV, and why
cloverleaf cyclotrons can work up to hundreds of MeV.
>
> >> 6. muons and particle-accelerators proof SR
> >
> >*All* situations in which speeds commensurate with that of light can
be
> >imparted to particles provide evidence in favour of the predictions
of
> >SR.
>
> *All* situations involving miraculous healing close to holy places can
> be ascribed to the holy force of God. This is what the priests who
> research miracles say! Don't you believe them?!!!?
You are being idiotic. It shows. You also did not read what I said.
Either that, or you are bereft of cognitive power, because you side
tracked my assertion instead of dealing with it.
>
> <lol>
Maniacal laughter, I take it?
>
> >*No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction exists. I
> >repeat, *No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction
> >exists.
>
> *No* evidence whatsoever which is contarry to the doctrine of the
catholic
> church. I repeat, *No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a
prediction
> exists.
You are side tracking again. We are talking of physics and the fact
that it is the business of physics to test the predictions of a theory.
Perhaps your meagre intellect will understand the following better:
There have ben hundreds of thousands of experiments all over the world
in the past 7/8 of a century in which a mistaken prediction of SR would
have stuck out like a sore thumb. No such results exist.
>
> You notice your problem?
Indeed I have. My problem is to try and communicate with a baboon.
> You are untrusted, you have "lost the credibility to merely spout".
> BTW, this credibility never existed in proper science: Newton
demonstrated
> his stuff with devices for instance. Now we are back in the dark ages
> thanks to people like yourself.
We both know that that paragraph was just a filler.
>
> >> None of you belongs even near any university.
> >
> >That is rather rich, coming from one who, in his own words, copped
out
> >after a few months as a student..
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> > i'm done with this.
> >
> >I hope fervently that you mean it this time.
> >>
> >> Can you proof to us:
> >> relativity of simultaneity
> >> lengthcontraction
> >> timedilation
> >
> >Proven on a daily basis in high energy physics laboratories in which
the
> >extended mean lives of fast unstable particles is bread and butter
> >stuff.
>
> By the faithfull who are so nice to do the interpretation of the data
for us.
I bet you have never studied the design principles of a synchrotron, and
I bet you have never read a paper in which the extended mean life of an
unstable particle is analysed.
>
> >> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
>
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
> >> relativistic addition of velocities
> >
> >Proven daily in high energy physics experiments such as the decay of
> >unstable particles in flight.
>
> Don't you think these particles notice it that they move?
They don't actually. Therein lies the beauty which seems to have
escaped you.
>
> >> Can't ?
> >
> >If it were possible to design experiments in which questions could be
> >put to the test, such experiments would have been designed by now.
>
> If they couldn't and haven't been done yet, then the claims fall to
the
> side. SR falls to the side because of this.
Not at all. As in the case of Newton's laws, one tests the postulates
by testing predictions made from the postulates.
>
> >It is not necessary to do an impossible experiment to provide
evidence
> >in favour of a set of hypotheses. It is quite a common circumstance
to
> >make a prediction from the postulates and then to put the prediction
to
> >the test.
>
> No, that is not science. That is the dark midle ages.
Boy, do you have a lot to learn!
>
> >Let's make a counter request: Prove (the verb is to prove, not to
> >proof) Newton I for us.
>
> Go play soccer.
I thought so.
Amen
Franz Heymann
> --
> jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alb38a$muk$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>Franz Heymann wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3d784cf2$0$12325$e4fe...@dreader3.news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> SRists, people believing in SR in this NG?
>>>> 1. lies
>>>
>>>Please list the lies, and who uttered them.
>>
>>SR = science
>>1+1=2 because of axioms
>>geometry is geometry because of axioms
>>postulate-2 is not irrational
>>the twin paradox is solved
>>science is not about evidence
>>etc, you know this stuff
>
>I think you do not have the cognitive power to understand my request,
>judging by the silly reply you gave, but, ever hopeful, I repeat it
>here:
>
>Please list the lies, and who uttered them.
The SRists trolling this group, science in general, physics community in
particular.
>If you fail to respond properly, I take it thayt you are unable to
>support your allegations.
Your posts are all the support i need. The rest is up to law enforcement
or perhaps investigative commities from the political world.
>>>> 2. playing on emotions
>>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>>Dunno.
>>
>>>> 3. brushing aside paradoxes
>>>
>>>You have quoted only two very ancient "paradoxes", representing them
>>>under various fancy cloaks. Both "paradoxes" arise from a partial
>>>understanding and incorrect application of SR, and both were disposed of
>>>around eighty years ago.
>>
>> Doesn't convince me.
>
>Your lack of grey cells is not the concern of your readers.
ignores the point
>> Jezus' existance was confirmed 2000 years ago by
>> eye witness say the catholic priests, this is eye-testimony to you too ?
>
>You know perfectly well that you are attempting a side-track. By the
>way, the bloke's name is Jesus. And there is no reason to doubt that
>there was such a revolutionary in Palestine at that time.
I am trying to establish how far you will go with your gullability.
>>>> 4. thinking science is not about evidence
>>>
>>>Evidence is crucial for the successful progress of science.
>>
>>Then i guess you are going to tell us where 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
>>-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum was first measured around the beginning
>>of this century right??
>
>No, JosX.
Why am i not suprised.
> I am not the kind who will fall into that trap. The
>experiment of which you speak is a physical impossibility.
Meaning....?
(For the dumbasses: what does that mean for the scientific value of SR.)
>But you don't seem to realise that Newton I has not ever been proved
>either.
>And, in case you are not aware of it, Newton II fails conspicuously for
>electrons with KE in excess of about 10 KeV.
I doubt that.
Do you believe in miracles researched by catholic priests?
After all *they* passed bible-course, did you?
(For the dumn SR groupies: SR and Catholicism are both religions,
both supported by their own faithfull researchers who have nothing
more then very weak circumstantial evidence and no proof of the real
issue (Jesus divinity or postulate-2).)
>>>> 5. newton is not proven
>>>
>>>No postulate of physics can ever be proven.
>>
>>Postulates are not part of science, only part of religions.
>
>You should polish your knowledge of the scientific method. *All*
>theories start with a set of hypotheses, without *any* exception.
Then why doesn't my math, my geometry and my physics rely on hypotheses.
Why does only Einstein need postulates ?
>> Newton is proven, try to play soccer, or another sport you like.
>> Waterpolo?
>
>No theory can ever be proven.
"dogs give birth to live young"
Solopsistic idiot.
>Newtonian mechanics in particular, fails quite spectacularly to predict
>correctly the motions of fast particles. Newtonian mechanics says the
>time to complete a circular orbit of a charged particle in a uniform
>transverse magnetic field is independent of the KE of the particle. It
>ain't so.
Lone particle behaviour is difficult to analyse.
>>> In fact, none of the three
>>>laws of Newton have been proven.
>>
>>Quite a bizare statement in a science group.
>
>There is nothing bizarre about that statement. It is a totally correct
>statement. In fact the second law has been shown to fail quite
>spectacularly for fast particles.
Spectacularly enough for the SRists to grab the spotlight, draw in attention
and money ?
>What is bizarre is that you have the gall to keep on posting in spite of
>the fact that you have absolutely no notion whatsoever about what the
>scientific method is, or what the current status of Newton's Laws are.
>Ye gods, you don't even know that they are postulates.
Wash your hands before you dare point at Newton you fool.
>>>In particular, Newton II is plainly not in agreement with experimental
>>>evidence.
>>
>>During your seances with Marco ?
>
>No. From personal experience with designing betatrons, synchrotrons and
>microtrons, and with a close knowledge of why the original Berkeley
>cyclotron could not accelerate protons beyond about 20 MeV, and why
>cloverleaf cyclotrons can work up to hundreds of MeV.
Knowing that you worked on these things, and that you do not care about
total paradox in SR, we know enough about the credibility of the claims
that particle-accelerators require SR to work. It ain't high Franz.
>>>> 6. muons and particle-accelerators proof SR
>>>
>>>*All* situations in which speeds commensurate with that of light can be
>>>imparted to particles provide evidence in favour of the predictions of
>>>SR.
>>
>>*All* situations involving miraculous healing close to holy places can
>>be ascribed to the holy force of God. This is what the priests who
>>research miracles say! Don't you believe them?!!!?
>
>You are being idiotic. It shows. You also did not read what I said.
>Either that, or you are bereft of cognitive power, because you side
>tracked my assertion instead of dealing with it.
It is you who lack cognitive power to see the relevance of my assertions
and to understand the objection raised in it.
>> <lol>
>
>Maniacal laughter, I take it?
The amuzement of knowing your position.
>>>*No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction exists. I
>>>repeat, *No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction
>>>exists.
>>
>>*No* evidence whatsoever which is contarry to the doctrine of the catholic
>>church. I repeat, *No* evidence whatsoever which is contrary to a prediction
>>exists.
>
>You are side tracking again. We are talking of physics and the fact
>that it is the business of physics to test the predictions of a theory.
First test the basis of a theory before bothering with it's predictions.
>Perhaps your meagre intellect will understand the following better:
>There have ben hundreds of thousands of experiments all over the world
>in the past 7/8 of a century in which a mistaken prediction of SR would
>have stuck out like a sore thumb. No such results exist.
Keep on it Franz, print flyars.
>> You notice your problem?
>
>Indeed I have. My problem is to try and communicate with a baboon.
>
>> You are untrusted, you have "lost the credibility to merely spout".
>> BTW, this credibility never existed in proper science: Newton demonstrated
>> his stuff with devices for instance. Now we are back in the dark ages
>> thanks to people like yourself.
>
>We both know that that paragraph was just a filler.
You don't understand the objection raised.
>>>> None of you belongs even near any university.
>>>
>>>That is rather rich, coming from one who, in his own words, copped out
>>>after a few months as a student..
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>> i'm done with this.
>>>
>>>I hope fervently that you mean it this time.
>>>>
>>>> Can you proof to us:
>>>> relativity of simultaneity
>>>> lengthcontraction
>>>> timedilation
>>>
>>>Proven on a daily basis in high energy physics laboratories in which the
>>>extended mean lives of fast unstable particles is bread and butter
>>>stuff.
>>
>> By the faithfull who are so nice to do the interpretation of the data for us.
>
>I bet you have never studied the design principles of a synchrotron, and
>I bet you have never read a paper in which the extended mean life of an
>unstable particle is analysed.
Analyzed by someone like you?
Why should i bother knowing you rely on your faith in postulate-2 and the
stupidity level that acceptance as fact proves within the scientific
community.
>>>> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
>>>> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
>>>> relativistic addition of velocities
>>>
>>>Proven daily in high energy physics experiments such as the decay of
>>>unstable particles in flight.
>>
>>Don't you think these particles notice it that they move?
>
>They don't actually. Therein lies the beauty which seems to have
>escaped you.
So you have talked to them. You asked them "do you notice the whizzing
by of subatomic particles" and they said "no, we didn't have a clue, we
were reading up on Propaganda Technique, we worship Einstein, we don't
have to make sense anymore".
>>>> Can't ?
>>>
>>>If it were possible to design experiments in which questions could be
>>>put to the test, such experiments would have been designed by now.
>>
>>If they couldn't and haven't been done yet, then the claims fall to the
>> side. SR falls to the side because of this.
>
>Not at all. As in the case of Newton's laws, one tests the postulates
>by testing predictions made from the postulates.
Newton derived from reality, Einstein from his failing solopsistic
imagination (not an insult, merely discreptive, Einstein believed things
didn't exist outside of being measuerd, that is just about the definition
of solopsism).
>>>It is not necessary to do an impossible experiment to provide evidence
>>>in favour of a set of hypotheses. It is quite a common circumstance to
>>>make a prediction from the postulates and then to put the prediction to
>>>the test.
>>
>>No, that is not science. That is the dark midle ages.
>
>Boy, do you have a lot to learn!
Good thing i know how to spot a brainwasher.
>>>Let's make a counter request: Prove (the verb is to prove, not to
>>>proof) Newton I for us.
>>
>>Go play soccer.
>
>I thought so.
>Amen
Just do it.
--
jos
Spaceman
>Please list the lies, and who uttered them.
The big lie is.
time changed rate.
The fact against it is.
clocks malfuntion.
Still refuse to "research" a clocks faults huh?
Poor Franz,
another time traveler sinking fast "in" time.
:)
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> First test the basis of a theory before bothering with it's
predictions.
A theory is in general tested precisely by testing its predictions.
JosX, do yourself a favour and read up about the scientific method
instead of periodically pronouncing nonsense.
[snip]
> Why should i bother knowing you rely on your faith in postulate-2 and
the
> stupidity level that acceptance as fact proves within the scientific
> community.
It might amuse JosX to realise that I personally don't start SR with the
two postulates that he does. I start with different postulates. These
are
I As before about the laws of physics being the same in all inertial
frames.
II Maxwell's equations are a correct description of electromagnetic
fields.
Someone with a lot more intellect than JosX can derive all of SR from
these two.
The beauty of starting with these postulates is that if II is true, then
the only transformation which will retain the form of the classical EM
equations when going from one inertial frame to another is in fact the
Lorentz transform. Then bingo, everything else in SR follows. The
Galilean transformation does not do the trick.
So JosX has a problem: If he wants to throw out SR, he has to discard
either of the two postulates which I quote above, or both. Which is it
to be, JosX?
>
> >>>> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
> >>>> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
> >>>> relativistic addition of velocities
> >>>
> >>>Proven daily in high energy physics experiments such as the decay
of
> >>>unstable particles in flight.
> >>
> >>Don't you think these particles notice it that they move?
> >
> >They don't actually. Therein lies the beauty which seems to have
> >escaped you.
>
> So you have talked to them. You asked them "do you notice the whizzing
> by of subatomic particles" and they said "no, we didn't have a clue,
we
> were reading up on Propaganda Technique, we worship Einstein, we don't
> have to make sense anymore".
Our readers might wish to draw conclusions about your logical abilities
from the previous few paragraphs, so I leave them in their full glory.
>
> >>>> Can't ?
> >>>
> >>>If it were possible to design experiments in which questions could
be
> >>>put to the test, such experiments would have been designed by now.
> >>
> >>If they couldn't and haven't been done yet, then the claims fall to
the
> >> side. SR falls to the side because of this.
> >
> >Not at all. As in the case of Newton's laws, one tests the
postulates
> >by testing predictions made from the postulates.
>
> Newton derived from reality,
Newton's laws are not derived from anything. If you believe otherwise,
please state the postulates from which they are derived.
Newton II fails at high speeds.
> Einstein from his failing solopsistic
> imagination (not an insult, merely discreptive, Einstein believed
things
> didn't exist outside of being measuerd, that is just about the
definition
> of solopsism).
You have now both misspelt and misused a newly acquired word three times
in two posts. Get yourself a new one. Preferably a shorter one.
>
> >>>It is not necessary to do an impossible experiment to provide
evidence
> >>>in favour of a set of hypotheses. It is quite a common
circumstance to
> >>>make a prediction from the postulates and then to put the
prediction to
> >>>the test.
> >>
> >>No, that is not science. That is the dark midle ages.
> >
> >Boy, do you have a lot to learn!
>
> Good thing i know how to spot a brainwasher.
>
> >>>Let's make a counter request: Prove (the verb is to prove, not to
> >>>proof) Newton I for us.
> >>
> >>Go play soccer.
> >
> >I thought so.
> >Amen
>
> Just do it.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> Knowing that you worked on these things, and that you do not care
about
> total paradox in SR, we know enough about the credibility of the
claims
> that particle-accelerators require SR to work. It ain't high Franz.
[snip]
If Dirk vdM sees this little gem, he might consider adding it to his
dossier on the merry quips of JosX. That is, if he has room left in
that screed.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:alb38a$muk$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >>Franz Heymann wrote:
> >>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:3d784cf2$0$12325$e4fe...@dreader3.news.xs4all.nl...
> >>>
> >>>[snip]
> >>>
> >>>> SRists, people believing in SR in this NG?
> >>>> 1. lies
> >>>
> >>>Please list the lies, and who uttered them.
> >>
> >>SR = science
> >>1+1=2 because of axioms
> >>geometry is geometry because of axioms
> >>postulate-2 is not irrational
> >>the twin paradox is solved
> >>science is not about evidence
> >>etc, you know this stuff
> >
> >I think you do not have the cognitive power to understand my request,
> >judging by the silly reply you gave, but, ever hopeful, I repeat it
> >here:
> >
> >Please list the lies, and who uttered them.
>
> The SRists trolling this group, science in general, physics community
in
> particular.
What is there in the sentence "Please list the lies, and who uttered
them" which you do not understand? Unless my eyesight is worse than I
think, you did not list any lies, and you did not list the person who
uttered each of these putative lies. Could it be that you are at a loss
for something to say?
>
> >If you fail to respond properly, I take it thayt you are unable to
> >support your allegations.
>
> Your posts are all the support i need. The rest is up to law
enforcement
> or perhaps investigative commities from the political world.
So I am right.that you cannot support your contention that there are
physicists who have been lying about SR. Par for the course.
>
> >>>> 2. playing on emotions
> >>>
> >>>Why not?
> >>
> >>Dunno.
> >>
> >>>> 3. brushing aside paradoxes
> >>>
> >>>You have quoted only two very ancient "paradoxes", representing
them
> >>>under various fancy cloaks. Both "paradoxes" arise from a partial
> >>>understanding and incorrect application of SR, and both were
disposed of
> >>>around eighty years ago.
> >>
> >> Doesn't convince me.
> >
> >Your lack of grey cells is not the concern of your readers.
>
> ignores the point
On the contrary, I have pointed quite precisely to the reason why you
are unable to get to grips with SR.
>
> >> Jezus' existance was confirmed 2000 years ago by
> >> eye witness say the catholic priests, this is eye-testimony to you
too ?
> >
> >You know perfectly well that you are attempting a side-track. By the
> >way, the bloke's name is Jesus. And there is no reason to doubt that
> >there was such a revolutionary in Palestine at that time.
>
> I am trying to establish how far you will go with your gullability.
Balls. You did not have anything more cogent to say. Don't bluff.
>
> >>>> 4. thinking science is not about evidence
> >>>
> >>>Evidence is crucial for the successful progress of science.
> >>
> >>Then i guess you are going to tell us where
1way-1beam-multiobserver-
> >>-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum was first measured around the
beginning
> >>of this century right??
> >
> >No, JosX.
>
> Why am i not suprised.
We have been here dozens of times. The basis of the scientific method
has been explained to you an equal number of times. You have failed to
understand it an equal number of times, so it would be a waste of effort
to try and explain to you once again.
>
> > I am not the kind who will fall into that trap. The
> >experiment of which you speak is a physical impossibility.
>
> Meaning....?
> (For the dumbasses: what does that mean for the scientific value of
SR.)
That the experiment which you wish to see done is a physical
impossibility. Read the long screed produced by Stephen Speicher about
six weeks ago in which he showed what the typical problem was. And do
your own legwork finding Stephen's post.
>
> >But you don't seem to realise that Newton I has not ever been proved
> >either.
> >And, in case you are not aware of it, Newton II fails conspicuously
for
> >electrons with KE in excess of about 10 KeV.
>
> I doubt that.
Your doubts are a consequence of your meagre intellect and knowledge
base.. Go and read up about the experiments in the late 19th/early
20th century in which Newtonian mechanics predicted an incorrect angle
of bend in a magnetic field for electrons with KE around 10 KeV.
> Do you believe in miracles researched by catholic priests?
> After all *they* passed bible-course, did you?
> (For the dumn SR groupies: SR and Catholicism are both religions,
> both supported by their own faithfull researchers who have nothing
> more then very weak circumstantial evidence and no proof of the real
> issue (Jesus divinity or postulate-2).)
JosX appears to have run out of steam, so we will give him a little
rest.
>
> >>>> 5. newton is not proven
> >>>
> >>>No postulate of physics can ever be proven.
> >>
> >>Postulates are not part of science, only part of religions.
You are drivelling. What about Newton's three postulates about
mechanics and one postulate about gravity?
> >
> >You should polish your knowledge of the scientific method. *All*
> >theories start with a set of hypotheses, without *any* exception.
>
> Then why doesn't my math, my geometry and my physics rely on
hypotheses.
All mathematics is based on axioms. That is the in word for hypotheses
in maths.
All physics is based on postulates. That is the in word for hypotheses
in physics.
>
> Why does only Einstein need postulates ?
Because he was developing a theory in physics. Any theory always has to
start out with postulates.
>
> >> Newton is proven, try to play soccer, or another sport you like.
> >> Waterpolo?
> >
> >No theory can ever be proven.
>
> "dogs give birth to live young"
>
> Solopsistic idiot.
No theory can ever be proven. One can only amass more and more evidence
in favour of a theory, or demolish it in one fell stroke by a single
contrary observation.
Newton II was demolished in this fashion. It turned out to be but a low
speed approximation to a more general theory.
By the way, you are misusing the word "solipsist". Look it up in the
dictionary.
>
> >Newtonian mechanics in particular, fails quite spectacularly to
predict
> >correctly the motions of fast particles. Newtonian mechanics says
the
> >time to complete a circular orbit of a charged particle in a uniform
> >transverse magnetic field is independent of the KE of the particle.
It
> >ain't so.
>
> Lone particle behaviour is difficult to analyse.
You have run out of things to say, so you decided to parrot some
half-understood concept.
>
> >>> In fact, none of the
three
> >>>laws of Newton have been proven.
> >>
> >>Quite a bizare statement in a science group.
> >
> >There is nothing bizarre about that statement. It is a totally
correct
> >statement. In fact the second law has been shown to fail quite
> >spectacularly for fast particles.
>
> Spectacularly enough for the SRists to grab the spotlight, draw in
attention
> and money ?
And the improved theory.
>
> >What is bizarre is that you have the gall to keep on posting in spite
of
> >the fact that you have absolutely no notion whatsoever about what the
> >scientific method is, or what the current status of Newton's Laws
are.
> >Ye gods, you don't even know that they are postulates.
>
> Wash your hands before you dare point at Newton you fool.
Newton II is only a low speed approximation to a more general theory.
It fails miserably and totally at high velocities. It truly does.
>
> >>>In particular, Newton II is plainly not in agreement with
experimental
> >>>evidence.
> >>
> >>During your seances with Marco ?
> >
> >No. From personal experience with designing betatrons, synchrotrons
and
> >microtrons, and with a close knowledge of why the original Berkeley
> >cyclotron could not accelerate protons beyond about 20 MeV, and why
> >cloverleaf cyclotrons can work up to hundreds of MeV.
>
> Knowing that you worked on these things, and that you do not care
about
> total paradox in SR,
There are no paradoxes in SR. They exist only in your feeble mind.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Van de moortel
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:alg8t2$njm$6...@helle.btinternet.com...
Got it:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#KnowingThat
Title: "Knowing that you worked on these things..."
Thanks :-)
Dirk Vdm
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alf47v$g41$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>
>[snip]
>
>> First test the basis of a theory before bothering with it's
>> predictions.
>
>A theory is in general tested precisely by testing its predictions.
No, a theory doesn't pop into existance from nowhere. Not in credible
uncorrupted science anywhere (wherever that may be practiced these days,
not in any official bisnis that's a surity).
>JosX, do yourself a favour and read up about the scientific method
>instead of periodically pronouncing nonsense.
If you want to know the scientific method, i suggest you spell my posts out.
>[snip]
>> Why should i bother knowing you rely on your faith in postulate-2 and the
>> stupidity level that acceptance as fact proves within the scientific
>> community.
>
>It might amuse JosX to realise that I personally don't start SR with the
>two postulates that he does. I start with different postulates. These
>are
>
>I As before about the laws of physics being the same in all inertial
>frames.
>II Maxwell's equations are a correct description of electromagnetic
>fields.
Ah, you lie a thin layer of smoke over postulate 2. How much fun for
you.
>Someone with a lot more intellect than JosX can derive all of SR from
>these two.
Someone smart won't bother with such games, certainly not given the
fact that Maxwell needs a small patch (a factor) for relative observer
speed. Shall i provide the patch for you? Here it comes: "v". Now do
your shit and patch up Maxwell's equations for the speed of light.
c'=c+v.
>The beauty of starting with these postulates is that if II is true
But it isn't true.
> then
>the only transformation which will retain the form of the classical EM
>equations when going from one inertial frame to another is in fact the
>Lorentz transform. Then bingo, everything else in SR follows. The
>Galilean transformation does not do the trick.
Ofcourse not, because that transformation is actually something that
makes sense and works. To work with the retarded c'=c you need something
even more retarded: mutual timedilation and mutual lengthcontraction and
the worst of all: relativity of simultaneity utter chaos reigns.
>So JosX has a problem: If he wants to throw out SR, he has to discard
>either of the two postulates which I quote above, or both. Which is it
>to be, JosX?
Maxwell is half work. I throw out number 2 and ask a simple patch for
the formula of Maxwell governing wave-speed of light. Maxwell can
doppler-shift, he should speed shift as well in a rational and sensible
way.
>>>>>> postulate-2 of special relativity (1way-1beam-multiobserver-
>>>>>> -lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum)
>>>>>> relativistic addition of velocities
>>>>>
>>>>>Proven daily in high energy physics experiments such as the decay of
>>>>>unstable particles in flight.
>>>>
>>>>Don't you think these particles notice it that they move?
>>>
>>>They don't actually. Therein lies the beauty which seems to have
>>>escaped you.
>>
>>So you have talked to them. You asked them "do you notice the whizzing
>>by of subatomic particles" and they said "no, we didn't have a clue, we
>> were reading up on Propaganda Technique, we worship Einstein, we don't
>> have to make sense anymore".
>
>Our readers might wish to draw conclusions about your logical abilities
>from the previous few paragraphs, so I leave them in their full glory.
Thanks.
You know what my experience is with "bad" guys ?
They are stupid.
You fit the profile my boy.
>>>>>> Can't ?
>>>>>
>>>>>If it were possible to design experiments in which questions could be
>>>>>put to the test, such experiments would have been designed by now.
>>>>
>>>>If they couldn't and haven't been done yet, then the claims fall to the
>>>> side. SR falls to the side because of this.
>>>
>>>Not at all. As in the case of Newton's laws, one tests the postulates
>>>by testing predictions made from the postulates.
>>
>>Newton derived from reality,
>
>Newton's laws are not derived from anything. If you believe otherwise,
>please state the postulates from which they are derived.
>
>Newton II fails at high speeds.
No he doesn't, Newton II fails in phycisists propaganda for their phony
discoveries and theories.
>> Einstein from his failing solopsistic
>> imagination (not an insult, merely discreptive, Einstein believed things
>> didn't exist outside of being measuerd, that is just about the definition
>> of solopsism).
>
>You have now both misspelt and misused a newly acquired word three times
>in two posts. Get yourself a new one. Preferably a shorter one.
>
>>>>>It is not necessary to do an impossible experiment to provide evidence
>>>>>in favour of a set of hypotheses. It is quite a common circumstance to
>>>>>make a prediction from the postulates and then to put the prediction to
>>>>>the test.
>>>>
>>>>No, that is not science. That is the dark midle ages.
>>>
>>>Boy, do you have a lot to learn!
>>
>>Good thing i know how to spot a brainwasher.
>>
>>>>>Let's make a counter request: Prove (the verb is to prove, not to
>>>>>proof) Newton I for us.
>>>>
>>>>Go play soccer.
>>>
>>>I thought so.
>>>Amen
>>
>>Just do it.
Perhaps you can play soccer in jail then.
--
jos
josX
No, but maybe you are?
>>>If you fail to respond properly, I take it thayt you are unable to
>>>support your allegations.
>>
>>Your posts are all the support i need. The rest is up to law enforcement
>>or perhaps investigative commities from the political world.
>
>So I am right.that you cannot support your contention that there are
>physicists who have been lying about SR. Par for the course.
I need not say more then "postulate-2", or "lying about the twin paradox".
>>>>>> 2. playing on emotions
>>>>>
>>>>>Why not?
>>>>
>>>>Dunno.
>>>>
>>>>>> 3. brushing aside paradoxes
>>>>>
>>>>>You have quoted only two very ancient "paradoxes", representing them
>>>>>under various fancy cloaks. Both "paradoxes" arise from a partial
>>>>>understanding and incorrect application of SR, and both were disposed of
>>>>>around eighty years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't convince me.
>>>
>>>Your lack of grey cells is not the concern of your readers.
>>
>>ignores the point
>
>On the contrary, I have pointed quite precisely to the reason why you
>are unable to get to grips with SR.
Not impressed with fuzzbabble ?
Won't be impressed by insults or appeals to "become one with the `smart'
dudes" ?
>>>> Jezus' existance was confirmed 2000 years ago by
>>>> eye witness say the catholic priests, this is eye-testimony to you too ?
>>>
>>>You know perfectly well that you are attempting a side-track. By the
>>>way, the bloke's name is Jesus. And there is no reason to doubt that
>>>there was such a revolutionary in Palestine at that time.
>>
>>I am trying to establish how far you will go with your gullability.
>
>Balls. You did not have anything more cogent to say. Don't bluff.
I don't. You bluff, and i call it. Anything to show for physical evidence
of Postulate-2? Any explanation at all for
Twin paradox: 0->.99999c in 1.8 sec
Tripduration: 9*10^9 years
You may define a preferred frame-of-reference during the acceleration
if you prefer, but not afterwards, because to make frames remember
their acceleration and to use that to determine a preferred frame,
is to define the "frame that never accelerated in the history of the
universe" as the de-facto preferred frame (absolute reference frame),
and you would have defined relativity as absolutism.
?
No?
thought so. You are not the first, and probably won't be the last either.
>>>>>> 4. thinking science is not about evidence
>>>>>
>>>>>Evidence is crucial for the successful progress of science.
>>>>
>>>>Then i guess you are going to tell us where 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
>>>>-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum was first measured around the beginning
>>>>of this century right??
>>>
>>>No, JosX.
>>
>>Why am i not suprised.
>
>We have been here dozens of times. The basis of the scientific method
>has been explained to you an equal number of times. You have failed to
>understand it an equal number of times, so it would be a waste of effort
>to try and explain to you once again.
Evasion.
Science should be built upon evidence. Anything less is corruption,
the phycisists are purpetrating systemic corruption for almost a century
now. (Very easily proven, just read sci.physics.)
>>> I am not the kind who will fall into that trap. The
>>>experiment of which you speak is a physical impossibility.
>>
>>Meaning....?
>>(For the dumbasses: what does that mean for the scientific value of SR.)
>
>That the experiment which you wish to see done is a physical
>impossibility. Read the long screed produced by Stephen Speicher about
>six weeks ago in which he showed what the typical problem was. And do
>your own legwork finding Stephen's post.
And what does that mean for the structure of modern phycisists theories ?
Right: it falls like a house of cards.
>>>But you don't seem to realise that Newton I has not ever been proved
>>>either.
>>>And, in case you are not aware of it, Newton II fails conspicuously for
>>>electrons with KE in excess of about 10 KeV.
>>
>> I doubt that.
>
>Your doubts are a consequence of your meagre intellect and knowledge
>base.. Go and read up about the experiments in the late 19th/early
>20th century in which Newtonian mechanics predicted an incorrect angle
>of bend in a magnetic field for electrons with KE around 10 KeV.
Newton would math-model, and research further. Newton had no reason to
keep a particular scam in the air, because he did work that will stand
the test of 10,000 years easily, if not far longer.
>> Do you believe in miracles researched by catholic priests?
>> After all *they* passed bible-course, did you?
>> (For the dumn SR groupies: SR and Catholicism are both religions,
>> both supported by their own faithfull researchers who have nothing
>> more then very weak circumstantial evidence and no proof of the real
>> issue (Jesus divinity or postulate-2).)
>
>JosX appears to have run out of steam, so we will give him a little
>rest.
>
>>>>>> 5. newton is not proven
>>>>>
>>>>>No postulate of physics can ever be proven.
>>>>
>>>>Postulates are not part of science, only part of religions.
>
>You are drivelling. What about Newton's three postulates about
>mechanics and one postulate about gravity?
Not postulates. Go play soccer.
>>>You should polish your knowledge of the scientific method. *All*
>>>theories start with a set of hypotheses, without *any* exception.
>>
>>Then why doesn't my math, my geometry and my physics rely on
>>hypotheses.
>
>All mathematics is based on axioms. That is the in word for hypotheses
>in maths.
>All physics is based on postulates. That is the in word for hypotheses
>in physics.
<LOL>!
I think we have a confession in our corruption case!
>> Why does only Einstein need postulates ?
>
>Because he was developing a theory in physics. Any theory always has to
>start out with postulates.
Ofcourse not. Even theories which start out with postulates have a starting
point in reality. Postulates is just code for "low grade fantasy and declare
it 'assumed'"-physics. I call that corrupt physics if you don't mind.
>>>> Newton is proven, try to play soccer, or another sport you like.
>>>> Waterpolo?
>>>
>>>No theory can ever be proven.
>>
>>"dogs give birth to live young"
>>
>>Solopsistic idiot.
>
>No theory can ever be proven.
"a clear sky is blue during the day"
Look up.
> One can only amass more and more evidence
>in favour of a theory, or demolish it in one fell stroke by a single
>contrary observation.
>Newton II was demolished in this fashion. It turned out to be but a low
>speed approximation to a more general theory.
In your dreams.
>By the way, you are misusing the word "solipsist". Look it up in the
>dictionary.
>
>>>Newtonian mechanics in particular, fails quite spectacularly to predict
>>>correctly the motions of fast particles. Newtonian mechanics says the
>>>time to complete a circular orbit of a charged particle in a uniform
>>>transverse magnetic field is independent of the KE of the particle. It
>>>ain't so.
>>
>>Lone particle behaviour is difficult to analyse.
>
>You have run out of things to say, so you decided to parrot some
>half-understood concept.
Lone particle behaviour is difficult to analyse.
What a retard.
Do you think phycisists are trusted sources after 1905 ?
Were there your precious accelerators then to make SR remotely credible
(ignoring that it's already false by paradox) ?
How about you explain to us the twin-paradox goofball.
>>>>> In fact, none of the three
>>>>>laws of Newton have been proven.
>>>>
>>>>Quite a bizare statement in a science group.
>>>
>>>There is nothing bizarre about that statement. It is a totally correct
>>>statement. In fact the second law has been shown to fail quite
>>>spectacularly for fast particles.
>>
>>Spectacularly enough for the SRists to grab the spotlight, draw in attention
>>and money ?
>
>And the improved theory.
Yes. Like "everything is ok, smile boys!"
>>>What is bizarre is that you have the gall to keep on posting in spite of
>>>the fact that you have absolutely no notion whatsoever about what the
>>>scientific method is, or what the current status of Newton's Laws are.
>>>Ye gods, you don't even know that they are postulates.
>>
>>Wash your hands before you dare point at Newton you fool.
>
>Newton II is only a low speed approximation to a more general theory.
>It fails miserably and totally at high velocities. It truly does.
No it doesn't. It works beautifully even then. Your speed problems are
coming from friction, your mass increase could come from picking up
extra particles.
How do particle accelerators (which is THE thing franz whines and whines
about to no end) proof the constancy of light ?
They don't. But it's a diversion, so Franz likes it. Like saying you washed
someones car when you are suspected of a murder.
>>>>>In particular, Newton II is plainly not in agreement with experimental
>>>>>evidence.
>>>>
>>>>During your seances with Marco ?
>>>
>>>No. From personal experience with designing betatrons, synchrotrons and
>>>microtrons, and with a close knowledge of why the original Berkeley
>>>cyclotron could not accelerate protons beyond about 20 MeV, and why
>>>cloverleaf cyclotrons can work up to hundreds of MeV.
>>
>>Knowing that you worked on these things, and that you do not care
>>about
>> total paradox in SR,
>
>There are no paradoxes in SR. They exist only in your feeble mind.
c'=c -> paradox
t'>t && t<t' -> paradox
x'<x && x>x' -> paradox
RoS -> solopsistic garbage from hell
--
jos
Mike
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:alf47v$g41$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >either of the two postulates which I quote above, or both. Which is it
> >to be, JosX?
>
> Maxwell is half work. I throw out number 2 and ask a simple patch for
> the formula of Maxwell governing wave-speed of light. Maxwell can
> doppler-shift, he should speed shift as well in a rational and sensible
> way.
>
Guess what, JosX, this was tried and it didn't work! Do you honestly
think no one ever tried to make Maxwell's equations Galilean
invariant? Instead, Maxwell's equations, as they stand, correctly
describe all electromagnetic phenomena known. If you try to follow
your prescription to doctor Maxwell's equations so that c --> c + v
you get predictions at odds with reality. For example, circuits
should no longer work properly if you are not in the "ether rest
frame" or whatever you want to call it where c is just c. And yet
they do.
So, again, what's it gonna be:
1.) the laws of physics are not the same for all inertial observers
or
2.) your car radio stops working correctly when you get on the freeway
well?
Mike
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<algeoc$bdd$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>>Franz Heymann wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:alf47v$g41$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>>So JosX has a problem: If he wants to throw out SR, he has to discard
>>>either of the two postulates which I quote above, or both. Which is it
>>>to be, JosX?
>>
>>Maxwell is half work. I throw out number 2 and ask a simple patch for
>>the formula of Maxwell governing wave-speed of light. Maxwell can
>>doppler-shift, he should speed shift as well in a rational and sensible
>>way.
>
>Guess what, JosX, this was tried and it didn't work!
Stop fooling around.
> Do you honestly
>think no one ever tried to make Maxwell's equations Galilean
>invariant?
Aparently nobody did. You just need to add 'v' to a formula about the
speed of light: c'=c+v. Is that difficult?
> Instead, Maxwell's equations, as they stand, correctly
>describe all electromagnetic phenomena known.
Adding a "v" term would be of no concequence. Our speeds relative to
light are virtually negligeble, and mostly we are even stationary wrt
Earth.
> If you try to follow
>your prescription to doctor Maxwell's equations so that c --> c + v
>you get predictions at odds with reality.
I don't think so.
> For example, circuits
>should no longer work properly if you are not in the "ether rest
>frame" or whatever you want to call it where c is just c. And yet
>they do.
Read this people: he thinks /electrical/ circuits will stop working
when we add "v" to c'=c.
>So, again, what's it gonna be:
>
>1.) the laws of physics are not the same for all inertial observers
The speed of a waterwave or ligthwave is not the same in all inertial
reference frame. So in a true sense, the laws of physics are not the
same for all inertial observers: objects have different speeds for
all inertial observers. Has nothing to do with any sensible meaning
of the principle of relativity, but everything with Einsteins anality.
>or
>
>2.) your car radio stops working correctly when you get on the freeway
>
>well?
Why would a car radio stop working if c'=c+v.
--
jos
Franz Heymann
I take it that this response means that you are retracting your
assertion that physicists have been promulgating lies about SR. I
consider it a serious weakness in your character that you do not have
the integrity to retract more directly.
>
> >>>If you fail to respond properly, I take it thayt you are unable to
> >>>support your allegations.
> >>
> >>Your posts are all the support i need. The rest is up to law
enforcement
> >>or perhaps investigative commities from the political world.
> >
> >So I am right.that you cannot support your contention that there are
> >physicists who have been lying about SR. Par for the course.
>
> I need not say more then "postulate-2", or "lying about the twin
paradox".
The two postulates of SR still stand solidly. No experiment has yet
produced an answer contrary to a prediction of SR.
The so-called twin paradox is no paradox. It has been explained to you
many times. Its consequences have been verified in the laboratory. The
fact that you do not have the intellectual capacity to come to grips
with the situation is your own private problem.
[snip]
[snip]
> >We have been here dozens of times. The basis of the scientific
method
> >has been explained to you an equal number of times. You have failed
to
> >understand it an equal number of times, so it would be a waste of
effort
> >to try and explain to you once again.
>
> Evasion.
>
> Science should be built upon evidence. Anything less is corruption,
Good. You appear to be learning.
The evidence of many hundreds of thousands of observations of the
behaviour of objects moving at extremely high speeds is in total
agreement with the behaviour predicted by SR.
I trust that you will now shut your trap, lest you are accused of being
corrupt.
> the phycisists are purpetrating systemic corruption for almost a
century
> now. (Very easily proven, just read sci.physics.)
Please provide one example of this corruption of which you speak, and
say who this malfeasant is who perpetrated the corruption. Please don't
just give a throw-away title, but give enough details to allow us to
join you in condemning it.
>
> >>> I am not the kind who will fall into that trap. The
> >>>experiment of which you speak is a physical impossibility.
> >>
> >>Meaning....?
> >>(For the dumbasses: what does that mean for the scientific value of
SR.)
> >
> >That the experiment which you wish to see done is a physical
> >impossibility. Read the long screed produced by Stephen Speicher
about
> >six weeks ago in which he showed what the typical problem was. And
do
> >your own legwork finding Stephen's post.
>
> And what does that mean for the structure of modern phycisists
theories ?
There are very many putative experiments which are impossible to
perform. They are incapable of producing evidence for or against a
postulate, so you can forget them.
>
> Right: it falls like a house of cards.
No.
>
> >Your doubts are a consequence of your meagre intellect and knowledge
> >base.. Go and read up about the experiments in the late 19th/early
> >20th century in which Newtonian mechanics predicted an incorrect
angle
> >of bend in a magnetic field for electrons with KE around 10 KeV.
>
> Newton would math-model, and research further. Newton had no reason to
> keep a particular scam in the air, because he did work that will stand
> the test of 10,000 years easily, if not far longer.
You are behind he times by more than a century.
Electrons with kinetic energies of more than 10 KeV were shown not to
obey Newton II in 1897 by Kaufmann. This was before the days of SR.
Strangely enough, after the advent of SR a decade or so later, this
anomalous behaviour was completely explained by SR.
You are also behind the times by about three quarters of a century.
Newtonian mechanics predict that protons move on orbits perpendicular to
a uniform magnetic field with a period independent of the KE of the
proton. This was blown in the first half of the last century, when it
was found that *faster* protons in fact had a *longer* period. This
counter intuitive result is in fact in complete quantitative agreement
with what is predicted by SR.
I bet JosX either ignores that statement, or at best makes some flippant
remark aboout it. He will pretend not to know that both the
circumstances I describe are fully documented in the public domain.
>
> >> Do you believe in miracles researched by catholic priests?
> >> After all *they* passed bible-course, did you?
> >> (For the dumn SR groupies: SR and Catholicism are both religions,
> >> both supported by their own faithfull researchers who have nothing
> >> more then very weak circumstantial evidence and no proof of the
real
> >> issue (Jesus divinity or postulate-2).)
> >
> >JosX appears to have run out of steam, so we will give him a little
> >rest.
> >
> >>>>>> 5. newton is not proven
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No postulate of physics can ever be proven.
> >>>>
> >>>>Postulates are not part of science, only part of religions.
> >
> >You are drivelling. What about Newton's three postulates about
> >mechanics and one postulate about gravity?
>
> Not postulates. Go play soccer.
Every theory *has* to have one or more postulates. If you cannot
understand that, then there is either something wrong with your
knowledge of the English language, or you should not have copped out of
University before they had taught you something about the scientific
method. The postulates of Newtonian mechanics are usually referred to
as his "laws of motion".
Incidentally, I have just noticed that just below here, four rounds ago,
I tried to tell you the same thing. You still haven't bothered to get
off your arse to go and do some reading up on the basis of the
scientific method.
> >>>You should polish your knowledge of the scientific method. *All*
> >>>theories start with a set of hypotheses, without *any* exception.
> >>
> >>Then why doesn't my math, my geometry and my physics rely on
> >>hypotheses.
> >
> >All mathematics is based on axioms. That is the in word for
hypotheses
> >in maths.
> >All physics is based on postulates. That is the in word for
hypotheses
> >in physics.
>
> <LOL>!
>
> I think we have a confession in our corruption case!
>
> >> Why does only Einstein need postulates ?
> >
> >Because he was developing a theory in physics. Any theory always has
to
> >start out with postulates.
>
> Ofcourse not. Even theories which start out with postulates have a
starting
> point in reality. Postulates is just code for "low grade fantasy and
declare
> it 'assumed'"-physics. I call that corrupt physics if you don't mind.
>
Enough is enough. I am sick and tired of wasting my time arguing with
an idiot. Let someone else have the joy of wiping the floor with you.
Goodbye for now.
Franz Heymann
David McAnally
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<algeoc$bdd$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>> Franz Heymann wrote:
>> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>> >news:alf47v$g41$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> >
>> >So JosX has a problem: If he wants to throw out SR, he has to discard
>> >either of the two postulates which I quote above, or both. Which is it
>> >to be, JosX?
>>
>> Maxwell is half work. I throw out number 2 and ask a simple patch for
>> the formula of Maxwell governing wave-speed of light. Maxwell can
>> doppler-shift, he should speed shift as well in a rational and sensible
>> way.
>>
>Guess what, JosX, this was tried and it didn't work! Do you honestly
>think no one ever tried to make Maxwell's equations Galilean
>invariant?
Actually, I've twice mentioned, on this group, that I read in a book on
relativity that attempts to modify Maxwell's Equations so that they were
Galilean-invariant led to the prediction of electromagnetic phenomena that
were not supported by experiment (as I previously remarked, I haven't
really tried to do the work myself). I don't think that josX understands
the above statement, and I don't think he understands the significance
(although I tried to explain the significance). The trouble with josX is
that he doesn't know Maxwell's Equations and he can't be bothered looking
them up, so he keeps hypothesising that Maxwell's Equations have something
to do with waves. The fact that they are equations governing the
behaviour of the electromagnetic field, and the fact that the range of
applicability of Maxwell's Equations is MUCH greater than just the
prediction of electromagnetic waves which travel at speed c in free space,
are of course lost on him. Presumably josX does not know what the wave
equation looks like, but it would be interesting to see his attempts to
derive the wave equation from Maxwell's Equations. It would also be
interesting to see josX's attempts to modify the equations so that they
are Galilean-invariant (does he have enough mathematics background to do
so?). Because there are those who can't be bothered looking the equations
up, here are the macroscopic equations:
div B = 0
curl E = - @B/@t
div D = \rho
curl H = J + @D/@t
where @f/@t denotes the partial derivative with respect to t (here is one
place where Eleaticus stuffed up - he really believed that under the
Galilean Transformation, @f/@t' = @f/@t, and he justified it on the basis
that t' = t - all attempts to point out that it didn't follow from t' = t
were met with contempt and ridicule). Note the complete absence of c from
the above equations. I will leave josX to look up what E, B, D, H, \rho,
J, are if he does become inspired to modify Maxwell's Equations to becaome
Galilean-invariant. And to josX, don't make Eleaticus's mistake as
detailed above: remember that under the Galilean Transformation
@/@t' = @/@t + v @/@x,
@/@x' = @/@x,
@/@y' = @/@y,
@/@z' = @/@z.
The microscopic version of Maxwell's Equations (in SI units) is
div B = 0
curl E = - @B/@t
div E = \rho/\epsilon_0
curl B = \mu_0 (J + \epsilon_0 @E/@t)
with a word of warning that \rho and J here are not quite the same as in
the macroscopic equations (if you look up E, B, etc above, you will no
doubt see the nontrivial difference between the defintions of \rho and the
definitions of J between the microscopic and macroscopic case). Since c
is dependent on the constants \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 (I won't bother giving
the relation - it can be checked at the same time as the rest of the
stuff), it will be interesting to see how josX modifies \epsilon_0 and
\mu_0 so that c becomes sqrt(c^2 + v^2 - 2cv cos(\phi)) (after all this is
the appropriate formula rather than c+v or c-v under Galilean
Transformations).
David McAnally
>Instead, Maxwell's equations, as they stand, correctly
>describe all electromagnetic phenomena known. If you try to follow
>your prescription to doctor Maxwell's equations so that c --> c + v
>you get predictions at odds with reality. For example, circuits
>should no longer work properly if you are not in the "ether rest
>frame" or whatever you want to call it where c is just c. And yet
>they do.
>So, again, what's it gonna be:
>1.) the laws of physics are not the same for all inertial observers
>or
>2.) your car radio stops working correctly when you get on the freeway
>well?
>Mike
josX
<bore>
No i don't retract, why should i.
>>>>>If you fail to respond properly, I take it thayt you are unable to
>>>>>support your allegations.
>>>>
>>>>Your posts are all the support i need. The rest is up to law enforcement
>>>>or perhaps investigative commities from the political world.
>>>
>>>So I am right.that you cannot support your contention that there are
>>>physicists who have been lying about SR. Par for the course.
>>
>>I need not say more then "postulate-2", or "lying about the twin paradox".
>
>The two postulates of SR still stand solidly. No experiment has yet
>produced an answer contrary to a prediction of SR.
No experiment yet has produced an answer contrary to God exists.
>The so-called twin paradox is no paradox. It has been explained to you
>many times. Its consequences have been verified in the laboratory.
What happened was the clock goofed because it got off the ground and
it's tickrate was affected adversely.
> The
>fact that you do not have the intellectual capacity to come to grips
>with the situation is your own private problem.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>We have been here dozens of times. The basis of the scientific method
>>>has been explained to you an equal number of times. You have failed to
>>>understand it an equal number of times, so it would be a waste of effort
>>>to try and explain to you once again.
>>
>>Evasion.
>>
>>Science should be built upon evidence. Anything less is corruption,
>
>Good. You appear to be learning.
Weirdo. This is my position since day 1. It is your position that science
can adequately be build upon fantasy/postulates. Trying to win by
adopting the oponents view and pretending it is yours.
>The evidence of many hundreds of thousands of observations of the
>behaviour of objects moving at extremely high speeds is in total
>agreement with the behaviour predicted by SR.
<friction>
>I trust that you will now shut your trap, lest you are accused of being
>corrupt.
>
>> the phycisists are purpetrating systemic corruption for almost a century
>> now. (Very easily proven, just read sci.physics.)
>
>Please provide one example of this corruption of which you speak, and
>say who this malfeasant is who perpetrated the corruption.
You for instance.
> Please don't
>just give a throw-away title, but give enough details to allow us to
>join you in condemning it.
c'=c -> paradoxical, zero physical evidence
mutual timedilation -> unproven, paradoxical
mutual lengthcontraciton -> unproven, paradoxical
relativity of simultaneity -> simple error in logic, problem adequately
explained by "classical mechanics"
equality of acceleration and gravity -> mistake, logic violates SR.
>>>>> I am not the kind who will fall into that trap. The
>>>>>experiment of which you speak is a physical impossibility.
>>>>
>>>>Meaning....?
>>>>(For the dumbasses: what does that mean for the scientific value of SR.)
>>>
>>>That the experiment which you wish to see done is a physical
>>>impossibility. Read the long screed produced by Stephen Speicher about
>>>six weeks ago in which he showed what the typical problem was. And do
>>>your own legwork finding Stephen's post.
>>
>>And what does that mean for the structure of modern phycisists theories ?
>
>There are very many putative experiments which are impossible to
>perform. They are incapable of producing evidence for or against a
>postulate, so you can forget them.
>
>> Right: it falls like a house of cards.
>
>No.
It never stood upright.
>>>Your doubts are a consequence of your meagre intellect and knowledge
>>>base.. Go and read up about the experiments in the late 19th/early
>>>20th century in which Newtonian mechanics predicted an incorrect angle
>>>of bend in a magnetic field for electrons with KE around 10 KeV.
>>
>>Newton would math-model, and research further. Newton had no reason to
>>keep a particular scam in the air, because he did work that will stand
>>the test of 10,000 years easily, if not far longer.
>
>You are behind he times by more than a century.
Considdering the situation in physics that's a nice thing to say.
>Electrons with kinetic energies of more than 10 KeV were shown not to
>obey Newton II in 1897 by Kaufmann. This was before the days of SR.
friction for instance
>Strangely enough, after the advent of SR a decade or so later, this
>anomalous behaviour was completely explained by SR.
ofcourse it wasn't /explained/. Friction is an /explanation/, all SR
does at the most is math-model it.
>You are also behind the times by about three quarters of a century.
>Newtonian mechanics predict that protons move on orbits perpendicular to
>a uniform magnetic field with a period independent of the KE of the
>proton. This was blown in the first half of the last century
such arrogance
> when it
>was found that *faster* protons in fact had a *longer* period. This
>counter intuitive result is in fact in complete quantitative agreement
>with what is predicted by SR.
Nothing to do with anything, protons are bombarded with a lot when they
move, this aparently affects them in the discovered way.
>I bet JosX either ignores that statement, or at best makes some flippant
>remark aboout it. He will pretend not to know that both the
>circumstances I describe are fully documented in the public domain.
I bet that Franz will *never* burn his own hands on the twin-paradox, and
will eternally be trotting out the pseudoevidence of SR so he can be on
relatively safe grounds.
>>>> Do you believe in miracles researched by catholic priests?
>>>> After all *they* passed bible-course, did you?
>>>> (For the dumn SR groupies: SR and Catholicism are both religions,
>>>> both supported by their own faithfull researchers who have nothing
>>>> more then very weak circumstantial evidence and no proof of the real
>>>> issue (Jesus divinity or postulate-2).)
>>>
>>>JosX appears to have run out of steam, so we will give him a little
>>>rest.
>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. newton is not proven
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No postulate of physics can ever be proven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Postulates are not part of science, only part of religions.
>>>
>>>You are drivelling. What about Newton's three postulates about
>>>mechanics and one postulate about gravity?
>>
>>Not postulates. Go play soccer.
>
>Every theory *has* to have one or more postulates.
Then why don't i need them to base physics/math/geometry on ?
> If you cannot
>understand that, then there is either something wrong with your
>knowledge of the English language, or you should not have copped out of
>University before they had taught you something about the scientific
>method.
You don't get it do you.
The "scientific method" is that which leads to truth, if that is doing
experiments, then it is doing experiments.
> The postulates of Newtonian mechanics are usually referred to
>as his "laws of motion".
Not postulates, discoveries.
>Incidentally, I have just noticed that just below here, four rounds ago,
>I tried to tell you the same thing. You still haven't bothered to get
>off your arse to go and do some reading up on the basis of the
>scientific method.
I know what it is: experience/experiments.
I know what you try to turn it into: chaos.
How do your particle-accelerators proof 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
>>>>>You should polish your knowledge of the scientific method. *All*
>>>>>theories start with a set of hypotheses, without *any* exception.
>>>>
>>>>Then why doesn't my math, my geometry and my physics rely on
>>>>hypotheses.
>>>
>>>All mathematics is based on axioms. That is the in word for hypotheses
>>>in maths.
>>>All physics is based on postulates. That is the in word for hypotheses
>>>in physics.
>>
>><LOL>!
>>
>>I think we have a confession in our corruption case!
>>
>>>> Why does only Einstein need postulates ?
>>>
>>>Because he was developing a theory in physics. Any theory always has to
>>>start out with postulates.
>>
>>Ofcourse not. Even theories which start out with postulates have a starting
>>point in reality. Postulates is just code for "low grade fantasy and declare
>>it 'assumed'"-physics. I call that corrupt physics if you don't mind.
>
>Enough is enough. I am sick and tired of wasting my time arguing with
>an idiot. Let someone else have the joy of wiping the floor with you.
>
>Goodbye for now.
Yeah. Care to explain why c'=c+v is so hard to patch into Maxwells
equations for relative lightspeed? He doesn't have such an equation?
Then his work is half-done, and i don't think he meant his equations
to be explained the way you and Einstein are taking them.
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> Mike wrote:
> > Do you honestly
> >think no one ever tried to make Maxwell's equations Galilean
> >invariant?
>
> Aparently nobody did. You just need to add 'v' to a formula about the
> speed of light: c'=c+v. Is that difficult?
As usual, you missed half of the sentence you think you are
replying to.
Please go through the process of doing this with Maxwell's
equations and see what happens and if the result looks like
Maxwell's equations.
Maxwell's equations.
The equations of Maxwell.
The four equations Maxwell wrote describing electromagnetic
radiation.
Maxwell.
Maxwell's equations.
Do you understand now that this discussion refers to Maxwell's
equations and what happens when you put in c' = c+v? They
are not invariant.
You claim that you can make Maxwell's equations (that's
MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS) invariant (that's INVARIANT) by
doing this velocity transformation. Please show us how that
is done. Brighter minds than yours have tried and failed.
Your reply should show MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS and INVARIANCE
UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATION.
MAXWELL. GALILEO. INVARIANCE.
- Randy
David McAnally
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Mike wrote:
>> > Do you honestly
>> >think no one ever tried to make Maxwell's equations Galilean
>> >invariant?
>>
>> Aparently nobody did. You just need to add 'v' to a formula about the
>> speed of light: c'=c+v. Is that difficult?
>As usual, you missed half of the sentence you think you are
>replying to.
>Please go through the process of doing this with Maxwell's
>equations and see what happens and if the result looks like
>Maxwell's equations.
I have actually given Maxwell's Equations in another posting. The main
problem for Jos Boersema is that c does not explicitly appear in Maxwell's
Equations, so it is not just a simple case of replacing c by c+v, or
rather sqrt(c^2 + v^2 - 2cv cos(\phi)), which would be more appropriate
even if Jos probably has no idea where this expression comes from (i.e.
there aren't any 'c's to replace in Maxwell's Equations). In other words,
his simplistic solution just doesn't work.
So josX, you have Maxwell's Equations from my other posting, and you have
been challenged by several to modify them to make them Galilean-invariant
and to do it without knowing where to find any c to modify to
sqrt(c^2 + v^2 - 2cv cos(\phi)), as a check of the equations that I
supplied will demonstrate no explicit mention of c - you have to be more
subtle in your modifications. You also need to include transformation
laws for E, B, D, H, \rho and J within your derivation, recalling that for
consistency, if you transform these quantities with a Galilean
transformation for speed v, and then follow that with a Galilean
transformation for speed w, then you must get the same answer that you
would have with a Galilean transformation for speed v+w, and that this
requirement holds for v and/or w negative as well as positive.
David McAnally
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Mike wrote:
>>> Do you honestly
>>>think no one ever tried to make Maxwell's equations Galilean
>>>invariant?
>>
>>Aparently nobody did. You just need to add 'v' to a formula about the
>>speed of light: c'=c+v. Is that difficult?
>
>As usual, you missed half of the sentence you think you are
>replying to.
>
>Please go through the process of doing this with Maxwell's
>equations and see what happens and if the result looks like
>Maxwell's equations.
Not today.
I already gave the truth: c'=c+v.
Don't always ask for more.
>The equations of Maxwell.
>
>The four equations Maxwell wrote describing electromagnetic
>radiation.
>
>Maxwell.
>
>Maxwell's equations.
i got that, Maxwell.
>Do you understand now that this discussion refers to Maxwell's
>equations and what happens when you put in c' = c+v? They
>are not invariant.
I don't think Maxwells equations are at all about lightspeed as
seen from different coordinate systems, i think they are all about
light close-in to earth, and all from the Earth-frame.
Like saying soundspeed is 343 m/sec, and doing stuff, but never
going outside of the airspeed=0 coordinate system.
This is no suprise given the speed of light: 300,000,000m/sec.
It is so fast, it barely matters even if you fly around the earth
in the shuttle at Mach 25 (somehom i thought that was it's speed,
1 circle in 1-hour 1-quarter (light does 7.5 circles in a second)).
>You claim that you can make Maxwell's equations (that's
>MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS) invariant (that's INVARIANT)
Ah thanks "maxwell, invariant", got it.
> by
>doing this velocity transformation. Please show us how that
>is done. Brighter minds than yours have tried and failed.
Here, the Maxwell-equation for lightspeed:
c
here, the maxwell-equation for lightspeed, usable for relative lightspeed:
c'=c+v
>Your reply should show MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS and INVARIANCE
>UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATION.
I showed it's equation for lightspeed: c
>MAXWELL. GALILEO. INVARIANCE.
HOOPA. SCROMBA. SNORGOS.
--
jos
Uncle Al
[snip]
Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
carries either four cesium atomic clocks or three rubidum atomic
clocks in orbit, with full relativistic corrections being applied.
http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
This URL cures josX infections.
Einstein-Cartan theory operates in Riemann-Cartan spacetime, U^4,
which is a paracompact, Hausdorff, connected, C^(infinity), and
oriented 4-dimensional manifold on which are defined a local Lorentz
metric g and a linear affine connection "cap gamma," with
gamma "an element of" GL^+ (4,R)
the set of all arbitrary linear transformations on the manifold with
positive determinants and which is metric, i.e. Dg =0. From "cap
gamma" a curvature and a torsion tensor can be obtained on U^4.
1) If the torsion tensor vanishes, Riemann-Cartan spacetime becomes
the pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, V^4;
2) If the curvature tensor vanishes, it becomes Weitzenboeck
spacetime, A^4;
3) If both tensors vanish, it becomes Minkowski spacetime, M^4.
The pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, V^4 (i.e. with a signature of (-, +,
+, +)), is the one used by GR to describe gravity.
Hey, stooopid, all your boring ignorant spewing about Einstein must
now be duplicated byte for byte to piss and moan about Weitzenboeck,
too. Metric and affine theories of gravitation give the same answers,
but affine/teleparallel theories contain no spacetime curvature.
Idiot.
josX
So, the equations of Maxwell don't include a formula for the speed of
light?
Then i present to the scientific community:
c = x / t
where c = 300,000km/sec, for the speed of light relative and local
to the Earth (MMX), with the more general formula:
c+v = x / t
Make me famous.
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:alig48$ps0$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> So, the equations of Maxwell don't include a formula for the speed of
> light?
>
> Then i present to the scientific community:
> c = x / t
> where c = 300,000km/sec, for the speed of light relative and local
> to the Earth (MMX), with the more general formula:
> c+v = x / t
>
> Make me famous.
No need for that.
Try a search engine and look for "Jos Boersema"
Already world famous.
Dirk Vdm
josX
Try "manpages-nl", 1,250 hits =).
Anything you have done get this much hits Dorky ?
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> Try "manpages-nl", 1,250 hits =).
Not bad for someone who barely speaks english...
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> So, the equations of Maxwell don't include a formula for the speed of
> light?
>
> Then i present to the scientific community:
> c = x / t
> where c = 300,000km/sec, for the speed of light relative and local
> to the Earth (MMX), with the more general formula:
> c+v = x / t
>
> Make me famous.
Whereby the hollowness of one JosX is displayed in its full glory.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
[Snip]
> >Please go through the process of doing this with Maxwell's
> >equations and see what happens and if the result looks like
> >Maxwell's equations.
>
> Not today.
> I already gave the truth: c'=c+v.
> Don't always ask for more.
Nor tomorrow, nor........
Thus is JosX's hollow sham nature exposed yet again.
[snip]
> This is no suprise given the speed of light: 300,000,000m/sec.
> It is so fast, it barely matters even if you fly around the earth
> in the shuttle at Mach 25 (somehom i thought that was it's speed,
> 1 circle in 1-hour 1-quarter (light does 7.5 circles in a second)).
Has JosX ever heard of the work of Haefele and Keating in this very
selfsame context?
>
[snip]
>
> HOOPA. SCROMBA. SNORGOS.
Thus is the real JosX revealed.
Franz Heymann
josX
thanks
--
jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alifg0$olt$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>[Snip]
>>>Please go through the process of doing this with Maxwell's
>>>equations and see what happens and if the result looks like
>>>Maxwell's equations.
>>
>>Not today.
>>I already gave the truth: c'=c+v.
>>Don't always ask for more.
>
>Nor tomorrow, nor........
>
>Thus is JosX's hollow sham nature exposed yet again.
Yup, what a sham
i am
Anyway, where was that evidence located, evidence for 1way-1beam-
-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum, it should be there
but i can't find it, did you see it somewhere ?
>[snip]
>> This is no suprise given the speed of light: 300,000,000m/sec.
>> It is so fast, it barely matters even if you fly around the earth
>> in the shuttle at Mach 25 (somehom i thought that was it's speed,
>> 1 circle in 1-hour 1-quarter (light does 7.5 circles in a second)).
>
>Has JosX ever heard of the work of Haefele and Keating in this very
>selfsame context?
He has not.
>[snip]
>>
>> HOOPA. SCROMBA. SNORGOS.
>
>Thus is the real JosX revealed.
Brilliant.
--
jos
David McAnally
> <3D7CA925...@atl.lmco.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: fox.uq.net.au
>X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 1031585675 17253 203.101.255.1 (9 Sep 2002 15:34:35 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: ne...@uq.edu.au
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Sep 2002 15:34:35 GMT
>X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 #1 (NOV)
>Xref: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au sci.physics.relativity:308505 sci.physics:723196
>Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
I have been thinking about the properties that the Galilean form of
Maxwell's Equations would have to satisfy. Maxwell's Equations are:
div B = 0,
curl E = - @B/@t,
div D = \rho,
curl H = J + @D/@t,
where @f/@t is the partial derivative of f with respect to t, etc. These
are the macroscopic equations. The microscopic equations are
div B = 0,
curl E = - @B/@t,
div E = \rho/\epsilon_0,
curl B = \mu_0 (J + \epsilon_0 @E/@t).
The task for Jos Boersema, or anybody else who cares to, is to modify
these equations so that they are Galilean-invariant. Of course, this is
not just a simple case of rewriting the equations. The task is to find
transformation laws for E, B, D, H, \rho, \epsilon_0, \mu_0 (in the
microscopic equations, \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 are constants), and to modify
the equations themselves so that:
(1) The modified Maxwell's Equations are rotationally invariant;
(2) The modified Maxwell's Equations are translationally invariant
in both space and time;
(3) If E, B, D, H, \rho, J, etc, are transormed under a Galilean
boost with velocity v, and then transformed under a Galilean
boost with velocity w, then the nett transformation must be
the same as that which is obtained under a Galilean boost
with velocity v+w (Galilean boosts mutually commute, whereas
Lorentz boosts in different directions do not);
(4) E, B, D, H, \rho, J, etc, are unchanged by a Galilean boost
with velocity 0 (I know that this should go without saying,
but I thought that it would be just as well to mention it);
(5) Any vector fields or scalar fields which are introduced in
the modifications must be accompanied by their transformation
laws;
(6) If the untransformed vector fields undergo a common rotation
and the untransformed scalar fields remain unchanged, then,
providing the Galilean boost also undergoes the same rotation,
the transformed vector fields must also undergo the same
rotation, and the transformed scalar fields must remain
unchanged;
(7) either \rho E + J x B must be Galilean-invariant or the force
law F = q (E + v x B) must be modified, and Galilean-
invariance must hold for the new force density (if electric
charge is invariant under Galilean Transformations, then you
have no choice for the transformation laws for \rho and J -
they must be given by \rho' = \rho, J' = J - \rho v [this is
another place where Eleaticus had problems - he was utterly
convinced that the correct transformation for J was J' = J].
Since it is known that disturbances in the electromagnetic field
propagate, then it would be nice to show that they propagate under the
influence of the modified equations.
So there you have it - you need to make sure that your transformation
satisfies the above conditions.
The coordinate transformation for the Galilean boost with velocity w is:
t' = t,
x' = x - w_x t,
y' = y - w_y t,
z' = z - w_z t,
and the differential operators transform as:
@/@t' = @/@t + w_x @/@x + w_y @/@y + w_z @/@z,
@/@x' = @/@x,
@/@y' = @/@y,
@/@z' = @/@z.
David McAnally
josX
c' = c + v
>The task for Jos Boersema, or anybody else who cares to, is to modify
>these equations so that they are Galilean-invariant. Of course, this is
>not just a simple case of rewriting the equations. The task is to find
>transformation laws for E, B, D, H, \rho, \epsilon_0, \mu_0 (in the
>microscopic equations, \epsilon_0 and \mu_0 are constants), and to modify
>the equations themselves so that:
>
> (1) The modified Maxwell's Equations are rotationally invariant;
?
> (2) The modified Maxwell's Equations are translationally invariant
> in both space and time;
Sigh.
Some things are not invariant in space and time for all observers, one
such is relative speed of things (take a look at a soccer ball one day).
Well well well, look him violate his own theory.
"Waves in a medium after all: disturbance in the /electromagnetic field/".
That's you "aether".
>So there you have it - you need to make sure that your transformation
>satisfies the above conditions.
>
>The coordinate transformation for the Galilean boost with velocity w is:
>
> t' = t,
>
> x' = x - w_x t,
>
> y' = y - w_y t,
>
> z' = z - w_z t,
>
>and the differential operators transform as:
>
> @/@t' = @/@t + w_x @/@x + w_y @/@y + w_z @/@z,
>
> @/@x' = @/@x,
>
> @/@y' = @/@y,
>
> @/@z' = @/@z.
>
>David McAnally
<snip>
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message news:alkm6l$hn$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
[snip nice little job for jos ;-) ]
David, you might have missed a recent thread on this on s.p.research:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=a60io5$m66$1...@uwm.edu
(View Complete Thread, original post 1, replies 2,11,25,26,27
and whatever you fancy)
I can easily follow the original post, but after that I have to back out.
It's such a *long* time ago, <sigh>, but I'm sure you can go along all
the way. Enjoy!
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
That is obvious from your nonsensical posts. Why don't you read up
about it?
You are thre eone who is always bleating about evidence.
>
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> HOOPA. SCROMBA. SNORGOS.
> >
> >Thus is the real JosX revealed.
>
> Brilliant.
Franz Heymann
josX
You don't like that ?
keith stein
David McAnally
Thanks for mentioning these postings. I note that there was a nice
differential geometry discussion going, justifying the invariance of dF =
0 under all changes of coordinate. With the Hodge star operation, which
does require a metric, then the inhomogeneous equations are invariant only
under elements of the Poincare group, as I think has been noted, but I
have always thought that the Hodge star operation does admit of a
generalization (unfortunately, the generalization does not admit of
defining the *d* on k-forms - the coderivative, so to speak). The
generalization is for any n-dimensional manifold endowed with a measure
represented by an odd n-form which is nowhere zero. It maps k-forms to
exterior products of order n-k of tangent vectors, and exterior products
of order n-k of tangents vectors to k-forms. Unfortunately, as I noted
earlier, the one drawback of this generalization is that it cannot be used
to define either the coderivative or the Laplace-Beltrami operator. For
those operators, you do need a metric. I guess that is the reason why the
Hodge star operation is restricted in the manner that it is.
With respect to the suggested solution to the problem of making Maxwell's
Equations Galilean-invariant, the constitutive equations look interesting,
but of course, they have the drawback of having three real parameters
which must be determined in the frame in question. I wonder if the
suggested solution was the only option, or whether there are other
modifications to make the equations Galilean-invariant (modifications
without explicit dependence on V, for example).
>Dirk Vdm
David
-------
David McAnally
> <alif2b$gr5$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> <alkm6l$hn$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> <9emf9.18$_J4.3...@news.cpqcorp.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: fox.uq.net.au
>X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 1031743125 13653 203.101.255.1 (11 Sep 2002 11:18:45 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: ne...@uq.edu.au
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Sep 2002 11:18:45 GMT
>X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 #1 (NOV)
>Xref: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au sci.physics.relativity:308991 sci.physics:724221
>"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
>>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message news:alkm6l$hn$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>>[snip nice little job for jos ;-) ]
>>David, you might have missed a recent thread on this on s.p.research:
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=a60io5$m66$1...@uwm.edu
>> (View Complete Thread, original post 1, replies 2,11,25,26,27
>> and whatever you fancy)
>>I can easily follow the original post, but after that I have to back out.
>>It's such a *long* time ago, <sigh>, but I'm sure you can go along all
>>the way. Enjoy!
[SNIP]
>With respect to the suggested solution to the problem of making Maxwell's
>Equations Galilean-invariant, the constitutive equations look interesting,
>but of course, they have the drawback of having three real parameters
>which must be determined in the frame in question. I wonder if the
>suggested solution was the only option, or whether there are other
>modifications to make the equations Galilean-invariant (modifications
>without explicit dependence on V, for example).
I just thought I'd add that the solution offered also satisfied all the
necessary conditions that I laid down for a Galilean-invariant
modification to Maxwell's Equations, provided that one treats the
parameter V as a rotational vector.
>>Dirk Vdm
David
-------
keith stein
Maxwell was a Galilean, and Maxwell's e-m theory is Galilean.
No modification whatsoever is required, provided one does
not remove the medium, which is why Maxwell insisted :-
"A MEDIUM NECESSARY"
Maxwell's medium was not "aether", he never mentions "aether"
once in his e-m theory. His primary example of a medium was air,
and in general Maxwell's medium is just the " matter " the e-m wave
is passing through eh!
--
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
keith stein
"ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY SYNCHRONISED CLOCKS,
WHICH CAN BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FINITE VELOCITY OF
THE SIGNAL CONNECTING THE CLOCKS, MUST DISAPPEAR WHENEVER
THE CLOCKS ARE BROUGHT TO ANY COMMON LOCATION"
Now both the SR and GR time dilations are of this sort in that if you
put c equal to infinity in the time dilations formula, the claimed time
dilations reduce to zero, and, according to my "better theory", those
clock discrepancies will also disappear whenever the clocks are
reunited.
I want to see Stein's Law checked by the very simple procedure
of taking a couple of clocks up to the MIR space station on separate
flights. This is a good experimental technique because this way both
clocks have been subjected to virtually identical accelerations, and
yet,according to relativity theory, they will differ by an unmistakable
26 microseconds per day. Why has this never been done Daryl ?
There has only been one attempt to measure the claimed SR time dilations
using ADJACENT clocks, and this failed! I know of course that Mssrs
Hafele and Keating did claim their experiment as a success for SR, but
if you read Dr.Kelly's "Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on
Airborne Clocks", Published by The Institution of Engineers of Ireland,
February 1996,(ISNB 1 787012 22 9), then you would see that this was
only achieved by flagrantly massaging their results, in a totally
unscientific manner.
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3D7774FA...@hate.spam.net...
> josX wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
> carries four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
> corrections being applied?
<snip>
Please don't anyone tell me about the 'GPS'. Those clocks being compared
on GPS tests are 20,000 km apart. That's a long way from 'ADJACENT'!
Also the GPS time dilations are in the opposite sense to the predictions
of SR. Yes I do know how you claim they are as predicted by GR, but
that's not the point. I want to see the 'SR time dilations' on adjacent
clocks. You relativists keep claiming that in principle it is possible
to send one twin on a journey, and on his/her return discover that
he/she is years younger than his/her stay at home brother/sister. Yet no
one has been able to show me an experiment which confirms even a few
microseconds of 'SR' time dilation' on 'ADJACENT' clocks, even though it
should be very easy to demonstrate this 'SR twin effect', on the Mir,
for example.
From: keith stein
Date: 1998/01/10
Gregory L. Hansen
_Maxwell on Heat and Statistical Mechanics_, ed. Garber, Brush, Everitt,
Associated University Press, 1995, page 154,
"When the gas is enclosed in a vessel whose sides are at the same
temperature as itself the energy lost by communication to the aether must
be compensated by an equal amount of energy communicated by the aether..."
Paper on the Motion of the Earth Through the Ether, _The Scientific
Letters and Papers of James Clerk Maxwell_, vol II, ed. Harman, Cambridge
University Press, 1995, page 149,
"In fact if the density of the ether within the body is mu^2 times
that outside it, and if we suppose the ether outside to be undisturbed by
the motion of the body, and the motion of the ether inside to be
independent of the shape of the body..."
Etc.
Not only did Maxwell have in mind an aether that permeates other
materials, he even called it the aether! I've already quoted these to
you, so what's the problem, eh?
--
"Knowing how to use your power tools properly will greatly reduce the risk
of personal injury." -- Norm Abram
Spaceman
>Now both the SR and GR time dilations are of this sort in that if you
>put c equal to infinity in the time dilations formula, the claimed time
>dilations reduce to zero, and, according to my "better theory", those
>clock discrepancies will also disappear whenever the clocks are
>reunited.
I'm sorry keith,
They will not.
A g-force change will only effect the "changing in motion clock"
the "changing motion clock" will always run slower
than the "constant motion" clock.
"What is truly needed is a G-force shielding for the clock"
A very strong static field along with
(adjusting to new tick rate)
"should be slower with such electrostatic pressures"
should do it
:)
Then we can have a "pefect clock" finally and
all have a great laugh at GR,SR, and QM too.
:)
What wuld be real funny,
Is if someone like Uncle Al did such.
and "finally researched a frellin clock for once"
:)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
HenriWilson
<Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Heymann, you know as well as I do that the H & K experimet is a scientific
joke.
>>
>> He has not.
>
>That is obvious from your nonsensical posts. Why don't you read up
>about it?
>You are thre eone who is always bleating about evidence.
>
>>
>> >[snip]
>> >>
>> >> HOOPA. SCROMBA. SNORGOS.
>> >
>> >Thus is the real JosX revealed.
>>
>> Brilliant.
>
>Franz Heymann
>
Henri Wilson.
Theoretical and applied Physicist.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Franz Heymann
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:19pgous85fbrhm5ns...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Heymann, you know as well as I do that the H & K experimet is a
scientific
> joke.
Actually I know better. Henry is behind the times.
Franz Heymann
vertner vergon
--
------------------------------------------------
FREE: For Fun Gambling
Learn what the Pros know.
www.HalfbackCasinoAndSportsbook.com
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:amk7j3$46a$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
****************************************************************************
*****
Vergon:
I don't know what all the hoo ha is about the H&K experiment.
It would be relatively easy to send a synchronized clock up
in a satellite that would circle the globe in 90 minutes and give
a much more definitive reading.
Franz Heymann
"vertner vergon" <ver...@hisurfer.com> wrote in message
news:uorp1ah...@corp.supernews.com...
I believe NASA has done it with a low-flying satellite, but I cannot get
the URL.
Franz Heymann
HenriWilson
It has probably been censored by the physics establishment.
>
>Franz Heymann
>
Henri Wilson.
Theoretical and applied Physicist.
Also BSc(psychology, genetics)
vertner vergon
--
------------------------------------------------
FREE: For Fun Gambling
Learn what the Pros know.
www.HalfbackCasinoAndSportsbook.com
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:amlcs5$kp6$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
*************************************************************************
Vergon:
So why haven't we heard?
********************************************************************
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:tbisous5lpfioiedj...@4ax.com...
As you so often have pointed out, Henry,
the physics establishment doesn't censor the data,
they doctor them to make them fit the predictions of GR.
And they have done a great job in all the well known experiments:
Alley, Vessot, GPS
where even you have admitted that the data fits the predictions of GR.
But why do you think the establishment failed in faking the H&K experiment?
Why do you find that to be a joke?
Paul
Franz Heymann
The references for the space-borne eexperiment (done 9 years after
Haefele & Keating's airborne clocks) are
Vessot & Levine 1979 Gel. Rel. Grav. 10, 181-204
Vessot et al 1980 PRL 45, 2081, 2084.
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
>It would be relatively easy to send a synchronized clock up
>in a satellite that would circle the globe in 90 minutes and give
>a much more definitive reading.
>
Yup,
bit...
It is simply
A definitive reading of a "single type" clock malfunction only.
HenriWilson
The H & K results are not statistically significant.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
Cosmologist.
Franz Heymann
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
[snip]
That is an outright lie. Look at the tables of results given in the
FAQ.
Franz Heymann
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:2nq2pu8jol01264hb...@4ax.com...
I will tell you a little story, Henry.
You have 5 wrist watches.
You compare the time to a reference signal on the radio at
- say 0000 hours.
One day you set all the 5 clocks correctly at 00:00:00.
You compare the clocks to the reference the next day.
They Show:
A: 00:00:02
B: 23:59:58
C: 00:00:05
D: 00:00:06
E: 00:00:01
And the next day. They show:
A: 00:00:04
B: 23:59:56
C: 00:00:10
D: 00:00:12
E: 00:00:02
At the third day, you set all the clocks to 00:00:00 again.
You want to measure the time of some event later that day:
The clocks show:
A: 12:00:02
B: 12:00:00
C: 12:00:03
D: 12:00:04
E: 12:00:01
Can you figure out what the correct time of the event is?
With what precision can you determine the time?
Can you determine the time better than the raw data indicates?
Now you can wonder how this is relevant to the H&K experiment.
Paul
Franz Heymann
Sorry, I snipped too hard. I was, of course referring to Henry's
assertion that "The H & K results are not statistically significant."
Franz Heymann
HenriWilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:2nq2pu8jol01264hb...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:51:36 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> >> >> > > Heymann, you know as well as I do that the H & K experimet is a
You cannot calculate thhe precision with this data alone. You would need to
establish the standard deviation for each clock. The two preliminary tests
here give a SD of 0 for all the clocks.
>Can you determine the time better than the raw data indicates?
>
>Now you can wonder how this is relevant to the H&K experiment.
>
>Paul
>
Actually, the H&K would use the radio reference, not the clocks.
The latter just show errors and drift in the clocks themselves.
Henri Wilson.
Philosopher
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:v7i9pu4m75fskktuo...@4ax.com...
Well Henry?
Can you?
> >With what precision can you determine the time?
>
> You cannot calculate thhe precision with this data alone. You would need to
> establish the standard deviation for each clock. The two preliminary tests
> here give a SD of 0 for all the clocks.
These data are all you have. The precision of the measurements
themselves are in accordance with normal procedure +/-1 of
the least significant digit, e.g +/-1 second.
So what is the approximate precision?
The main point with this crude example is to be found in the next
question:
> >Can you determine the time better than the raw data indicates?
Which you didn't answer.
Well, Henry?
Can you?
> >
> >Now you can wonder how this is relevant to the H&K experiment.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> Actually, the H&K would use the radio reference, not the clocks.
>
> The latter just show errors and drift in the clocks themselves.
???
Are you saying that clocks weren't used in the H&K?
No?
So what ARE you saying?
Paul
David Evens
You're going to HAVE to learn how to do statistics, sometime. There
IS NO standard deviation for each clock in this data, Henry. Plug in
a sample size of 2 and the S.D. comes out undefinable.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Well go away and define 'zero' Evens.
GO RIGHT AWAY!
>
>>>Can you determine the time better than the raw data indicates?
>>>
>>>Now you can wonder how this is relevant to the H&K experiment.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>Actually, the H&K would use the radio reference, not the clocks.
>>
>>The latter just show errors and drift in the clocks themselves.
>>
>>Henri Wilson.
>>Philosopher
>>
>>See my animations at:
>>http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
HenriWilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
Yes Paul. Do you think I'm stupid?
I assume the answer you want is 12:00:01 to within 0.005. Don't ask me to
work out the SD.
>
>> >With what precision can you determine the time?
>>
>> You cannot calculate thhe precision with this data alone. You would need to
>> establish the standard deviation for each clock. The two preliminary tests
>> here give a SD of 0 for all the clocks.
>
>These data are all you have. The precision of the measurements
>themselves are in accordance with normal procedure +/-1 of
>the least significant digit, e.g +/-1 second.
>So what is the approximate precision?
>
>The main point with this crude example is to be found in the next
>question:
>
>> >Can you determine the time better than the raw data indicates?
>
>Which you didn't answer.
>Well, Henry?
>Can you?
Of course. You correct for known clock drift.
>
>> >
>> >Now you can wonder how this is relevant to the H&K experiment.
>> >
>> >Paul
>> >
>> Actually, the H&K would use the radio reference, not the clocks.
>>
>> The latter just show errors and drift in the clocks themselves.
>
>???
>Are you saying that clocks weren't used in the H&K?
>No?
>So what ARE you saying?
I'm saying the difference in the clock readings in th H&K is explained by
the fact that the two planes experienced different atmospheric turbulence
during their trips. The clocks didn't have the same acceleration regimes.
The experiment is a joke.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
Spaceman
>The experiment is a joke.
unless we "shield the clocks from motion"
A STATIC CHARGED FIELD THAT is monitored and adjusted to
"stay constant" and the clock must be "adjusted to the "new tick rate"
"with shields on"
:)
too simple?
C,mon,
someone do it and really make all these "time travelers" to yield.
:-)
A Certified StarShip Clock by Spaceman.