Truth Requires Undue Evidence -- TRUE
josX
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
Einstein believed it to be true.
Do we think this is enough ?
Do we ?
?
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al2orr$3j4$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> How about physical evidence for the postulate where it all hangs from.
How about "no one gives a shit about your howabouts"?
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Al
>
> How about physical evidence for the postulate where it all hangs from.
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!
AllYou!
You will not accept evidence which is contrary to what you believe to be the
truth. You have already stated this. So why ask for evidence here?
Eric Gisse
>How about physical evidence for the postulate where it all hangs from.
>
> 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
Why dont you tell us about this experiment?
What equipment is needed to do it? How hard would it be to do?
If this means so much to you, why dont you do the experiment yourself?
I surmise that if anyone else did it, you would bitch about them doing
it wrong and/or being biased against you and for SR.
You obviously care about this a lot, because you wont shut the fuck up
about it. Why dont you go to a University and ask nicely without
talking about "conspiracy" and "the man" holding you down?
When you finish the experiment, do tell us what the results are. Make
us a nice pdf with an abstract, meaningful diagrams, explanations,
equations, references, and all those other handy things that would
make you worth reading.
BTW: How would you know how fast the lightbeam was going if it was
only going 1 way?
Tris
How about quoting the second postulate as written?
"Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates with
determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."
How would you design an experiment to test this postulate?
For the benefit of the non-trolls, "Tests of Einstein's two postulates":
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#3.%20Te
sts%20of%20Einstein's%20two%20postulates
Bryan Reed
Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>If this means so much to you, why dont you do the experiment yourself?
>I surmise that if anyone else did it, you would bitch about them doing
>it wrong and/or being biased against you and for SR.
>
>You obviously care about this a lot, because you wont shut the fuck up
>about it. Why dont you go to a University and ask nicely without
>talking about "conspiracy" and "the man" holding you down?
>
Yeah, that's what's bizarre. This dork is spending an enormous amount of
effort on "debunking" relativity, but is somehow too lazy to actually
understand it in the first place.
Rule of thumb: If you can't understand it well enough that you could
describe it in detail in such a way that the proponents of the theory
would agree with your description, you aren't qualified to "debunk" it.
Another rule of thumb: In physics, if you can't do the math, you don't
know the theory.
Bryan
josX
I said scientists lost their unbiased objectivity in accepting SR on faith.
That means i cannot accept anything they say for vague issues just like that.
Even if they were honest, it wouldn't constitute evidence for SR what they
claim, because SR is build upon: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-
-in-a-vacuum, it needs evidence for that, which it doesn't have, hence, the
reason why scientists are untrusted.
Follow me sofar?
Secondly, i ask always for evidence, or damn good rationale. Newtons has
proof Einstein doesn't.
--
jos
josX
>On 3 Sep 2002 16:43:39 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>How about physical evidence for the postulate where it all hangs from.
>>
>> 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
>
>Why dont you tell us about this experiment?
What do you want to know. It was never done.
>What equipment is needed to do it? How hard would it be to do?
You need 1way measuring equipment for lightspeed, a lightbeam in
a vacuum, then you need another set of 1way measuring equipment mounted
on a cart and zap that at a significant fraction past a track over
which you shoot the light, and then measure the speed of the same
beam with the stationary and the moving equipment-sets.
>If this means so much to you, why dont you do the experiment yourself?
Technology can't do it right now.
>I surmise that if anyone else did it, you would bitch about them doing
>it wrong and/or being biased against you and for SR.
Perhaps you surmize wrong. OTOH, it cannot exist what SR claims, so
i'd like to see it done myself i guess. But at least there would be
a fake claim at evidence, and that would be mere scamming. Currently
the situation is much worse: you accept science on faith alone, while
being told to your face "we have no evidnce". THAT is the bigger problem
here: your gullability.
>You obviously care about this a lot, because you wont shut the fuck up
>about it.
:)
> Why dont you go to a University and ask nicely without
>talking about "conspiracy" and "the man" holding you down?
To the people who teach this stuff year in year out to students.
You think that will make an ounce of differnce?
Maybe you do, i don't.
>When you finish the experiment, do tell us what the results are.
I certainly will. In the meantime, shall we suspend this theory which
depends upon undone experimental facts ?
> Make
>us a nice pdf with an abstract, meaningful diagrams, explanations,
>equations, references, and all those other handy things that would
>make you worth reading.
:-)
>BTW: How would you know how fast the lightbeam was going if it was
>only going 1 way?
That's equipment dependant. Currently, equipment with that kind of
accuracy doesn't exist. Light is pretty fast.
--
jos
josX
>In article <fas9nugpleek6ghv6...@4ax.com>,
>Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>
>>If this means so much to you, why dont you do the experiment yourself?
>>I surmise that if anyone else did it, you would bitch about them doing
>>it wrong and/or being biased against you and for SR.
>>
>>You obviously care about this a lot, because you wont shut the fuck up
>>about it. Why dont you go to a University and ask nicely without
>>talking about "conspiracy" and "the man" holding you down?
>
>Yeah, that's what's bizarre. This dork is spending an enormous amount of
>effort on "debunking" relativity, but is somehow too lazy to actually
>understand it in the first place.
Correction for Bryan: understanding it means knowing where it goes into
the dark.
>Rule of thumb: If you can't understand it well enough that you could
>describe it in detail in such a way that the proponents of the theory
>would agree with your description, you aren't qualified to "debunk" it.
I guess you don't realize yet the nature of the proponents.
>Another rule of thumb: In physics, if you can't do the math, you don't
>know the theory.
In life: if you know the math, that doesn't mean you know anything, or
can think for yourself.
BTW, this is not a mathematical theory at the core, it's stating qualitative
things about the world, and logic and reason have something to say about
that if it doesn't make sense and lacks all evidence.
--
jos
Aatu Koskensilta
As a lurker I must say that I support you in e-mail.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@koti.soon.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
AllYou!
> AllYou wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:al2orr$3j4$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >> How about physical evidence for the postulate where it all hangs from.
> >>
> >> 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
> >>
> >> Einstein believed it to be true.
> >>
> >> Do we think this is enough ?
> >>
> >> Do we ?
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> >You will not accept evidence which is contrary to what you believe to be
the
> >truth. You have already stated this. So why ask for evidence here?
>
> I said scientists lost their unbiased objectivity in accepting SR on
faith.
> That means i cannot accept anything they say for vague issues just like
that.
> Even if they were honest, it wouldn't constitute evidence for SR what they
> claim, because SR is build upon:
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-
> -in-a-vacuum, it needs evidence for that, which it doesn't have, hence,
the
> reason why scientists are untrusted.
>
> Follow me sofar?
Yes. You will not accept evidence from anyone who believes that Sr is
valid.
>
> Secondly, i ask always for evidence, or damn good rationale. Newtons has
> proof Einstein doesn't.
But your definition of proof leaves it for you to define. Sound circular?
But that's exactly what you've said if the various posts you've made are put
together.
Definition of proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an
argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In
mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments
from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a
proof.
As this definition implies, theories cannot be proved. Certainly not
through experimentation. Experiments can demonstrate a theory, or show that
it is probably valid, or even prove that it is invalid. But even Newton's
laws cannot be proved by the classical definition.
You've simply made up your own definition to suit your reality. And by your
definition, SR cannot be proved. So you are doing nothing but spoofing
people for your own self-indulgence.
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/
Edward Green
Agreed.
> Another rule of thumb: In physics, if you can't do the math, you don't
> know the theory.
True, but how much math? A mature theory is cloaked in clouds of
math, but the math you need to achieve the first rule of thumb one is
much smaller. For example, I claim the special theory of relativity
reduces to a single hypothesis: that the laws of physics are locally
invariant in form under Lorentz transformation.
That claim seems to pass test one with many informed people, but just
how much math is implied? Not very much.
Marco Nelissen
> I said scientists lost their unbiased objectivity in accepting SR on faith.
> That means i cannot accept anything they say for vague issues just like that.
You lost your remaining credibility when you told us your TV is a
mindcontrol device, that means we cannot accept anything you say.
> Secondly, i ask always for evidence, or damn good rationale. Newtons has
> proof Einstein doesn't.
Where is Newton's proof that an object in motion without a force acting
on it will just keep moving forever? A competing theory predicts all
moving objects without a force acting on them to stop moving after
314 days. How can we tell which one is true?
Dirk Bruere
"Edward Green" <null...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2a0cceff.02090...@posting.google.com...
> bwr...@u.washington.edu (Bryan Reed) wrote in message
news:<al2tor$1o6k$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> > know the theory.
>
> True, but how much math? A mature theory is cloaked in clouds of
> math, but the math you need to achieve the first rule of thumb one is
> much smaller. For example, I claim the special theory of relativity
> reduces to a single hypothesis: that the laws of physics are locally
> invariant in form under Lorentz transformation.
And the only math needed to create the relevent equations is Pythagoras
Theorem.
Dirk
Eric Gisse
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>On 3 Sep 2002 16:43:39 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>How about physical evidence for the postulate where it all hangs from.
>>>
>>> 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
>>
>>Why dont you tell us about this experiment?
>
>What do you want to know. It was never done.
>
>>What equipment is needed to do it? How hard would it be to do?
>
>You need 1way measuring equipment for lightspeed, a lightbeam in
>a vacuum, then you need another set of 1way measuring equipment mounted
>on a cart and zap that at a significant fraction past a track over
>which you shoot the light, and then measure the speed of the same
>beam with the stationary and the moving equipment-sets.I
A one-way measuring aparratus? As far as i know there is no such
things.
I immediately see a problem. There is no such thing as a "one way
measuring device", in order to measure something you have to know when
the other end of your "ruler" has reached what you are measuring.
You cannot know the length of a line segment without knowing the
position of the beginning and the end. Could you explain how you would
work around that little problem, at least in theory, since the
engineering aspect is not there yet?
>
>>If this means so much to you, why dont you do the experiment yourself?
>
>Technology can't do it right now.
Yet you claim SR is false based on the experiment that cannot be done
with current technology.
>
>>I surmise that if anyone else did it, you would bitch about them doing
>>it wrong and/or being biased against you and for SR.
>
>Perhaps you surmize wrong. OTOH, it cannot exist what SR claims, so
>i'd like to see it done myself i guess. But at least there would be
>a fake claim at evidence, and that would be mere scamming. Currently
>the situation is much worse: you accept science on faith alone, while
>being told to your face "we have no evidnce". THAT is the bigger problem
>here: your gullability.
Im going to forget what i learned from the last time i had a debate
with you.
The line "it cannot exist what SR claims" does not mean anything to
me. I know english is a second language to you, so ill be patient with
that. Do you mean "it cannot do what SR claims" or something to that
effect?
I suppose you are right about the faith part - to an extent. Most
people do not have the time, energy (electron or mental), or the
knowledge to do many of the experiments that add credence to theorys.
But assuming science is a religion that is to be followed without
question is a fallacy of epic porportions. You must not have followed
the development of physics in the last 300 years.
>
>>You obviously care about this a lot, because you wont shut the fuck up
>>about it.
>
>:)
>
>> Why dont you go to a University and ask nicely without
>>talking about "conspiracy" and "the man" holding you down?
>
>To the people who teach this stuff year in year out to students.
>You think that will make an ounce of differnce?
>Maybe you do, i don't.
If you present yourself well, im willing to expect that you would at
least get the appearance of people paying attention to you.
>>When you finish the experiment, do tell us what the results are.
>
>I certainly will. In the meantime, shall we suspend this theory which
>depends upon undone experimental facts ?
The problem with your posts is that you ignore experiments that depend
on the validity of SR.
>
>> Make
>>us a nice pdf with an abstract, meaningful diagrams, explanations,
>>equations, references, and all those other handy things that would
>>make you worth reading.
>
>:-)
>
>>BTW: How would you know how fast the lightbeam was going if it was
>>only going 1 way?
>
>That's equipment dependant. Currently, equipment with that kind of
>accuracy doesn't exist. Light is pretty fast.
We can count individual photons. We can trap photons in sodium gas and
re-emit them at our lesiure. Are you really saying that we cannot do
your experiment because "light is pretty fast" ?
Look, you obviously think something is wrong with SR. Thats fine, many
people have thought that. You think you can prove it wrong, (im not
sure if the experiment is in SR's domain of applicability or not), So
why dont you? Look at the glorious sucess Uncle Al has had with his
evotos experiment, he not only posts it in HERE, but he actually sends
proposals to universities.
Why are you bothering with us, really? You ignore the evidence, your
arguments are unable to stand up to critical thought, and you lack the
education required to knock SR off its well-earned high horse. You
also argue against evidence that is widely known to be true. Why?
Oh yes, you never did explain how science has a vested interest in
keeping SR around. If i had a choice i would pick newtonian mechanics
over realativistic mechanics for the sheer ease of use alone, but i
dont have that choice because one is only an approximatation.
Note to Uncle Al: When i make it through my first 4 years of being an
undergrad, and nobody has done your experiment, i will, assuming i
have the knowledge base TO do it.
Bryan Reed
Edward Green <null...@aol.com> wrote:
>bwr...@u.washington.edu (Bryan Reed) wrote in message news:<al2tor$1o6k$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
>> know the theory.
>
>True, but how much math? A mature theory is cloaked in clouds of
>math, but the math you need to achieve the first rule of thumb one is
>much smaller. For example, I claim the special theory of relativity
>reduces to a single hypothesis: that the laws of physics are locally
>invariant in form under Lorentz transformation.
>
Special relativity is pretty simple, mathematically, so indeed you don't
need to know all that much math to follow it. But realize that to follow
what you've just said, someone has to know what a Lorentz transformation
is, and by "the laws of physics" you're implicitly talking about the
mathematical forms of equations. To really make sense out of your
hypothesis requires some math.
The thing is, our crackpot buddies can't even do this very basic math to
begin with. So they're disqualified from having meaningful opinions about
what the theory does and does not say.
Bryan
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:al34mi$rdh$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>AllYou wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:al2orr$3j4$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>> How about physical evidence for the postulate where it all hangs from.
>>>>
>>>> 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
>>>>
>>>> Einstein believed it to be true.
>>>>
>>>> Do we think this is enough ?
>>>>
>>>> Do we ?
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>>You will not accept evidence which is contrary to what you believe to be the
>>>truth. You have already stated this. So why ask for evidence here?
>>
>> I said scientists lost their unbiased objectivity in accepting SR
>> on faith. That means i cannot accept anything they say for vague
>> issues just like that. Even if they were honest, it wouldn't
>> constitute evidence for SR what they claim, because SR is build
>> upon: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy- -in-a-vacuum,
>> it needs evidence for that, which it doesn't have, hence, the reason
>> why scientists are untrusted.
>>
>> Follow me sofar?
>
>Yes. You will not accept evidence from anyone who believes that Sr is
>valid.
Since that means accepting it on faith, their objectivity is compromised
isn't it. Secondly, i do examine what they claim as evidence, and i notice
it misses the point, and it's lacking in rationale or solidness.
>> Secondly, i ask always for evidence, or damn good rationale. Newtons has
>> proof Einstein doesn't.
>
>But your definition of proof leaves it for you to define. Sound circular?
No. Your definition of science leaves it for you to define, sounds familiar?
>But that's exactly what you've said if the various posts you've made are put
>together.
Indeed, i've said "we need physical evidence of 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum", otherwise we accept SR on "must trust".
>Definition of proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an
>argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles.
There's no such thing as a premise in true science.
> In
>mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments
>from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a
>proof.
That's why mathematics is wrong there. Arrogant too.
>As this definition implies, theories cannot be proved.
How convenient.
> Certainly not
>through experimentation.
I beg you pardon??
Kick a ball, it proves F=m*a.
> Experiments can demonstrate a theory, or show that
>it is probably valid, or even prove that it is invalid. But even Newton's
>laws cannot be proved by the classical definition.
They are proved by the classical definition goof.
>You've simply made up your own definition to suit your reality. And by your
>definition, SR cannot be proved. So you are doing nothing but spoofing
>people for your own self-indulgence.
Do you realize that this is your rationale:
Redefine "proof" -> logical derivation from postulates agreed upon
Redefine "science" -> nothing can be proven in it from experiment
Irrational conclusion -> SR is proven.
--
jos
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> I said scientists lost their unbiased objectivity in accepting SR on faith.
>> That means i cannot accept anything they say for vague issues just like that.
>
>You lost your remaining credibility when you told us your TV is a
>mindcontrol device, that means we cannot accept anything you say.
Glad to hear it, because that makes it impossible for you to just worship
another "genius", and leave the thinking to others once more.
>> Secondly, i ask always for evidence, or damn good rationale. Newtons has
>> proof Einstein doesn't.
>
>Where is Newton's proof that an object in motion without a force acting
>on it will just keep moving forever? A competing theory predicts all
>moving objects without a force acting on them to stop moving after
>314 days. How can we tell which one is true?
Newton's F=m*a is proven, his wording of it perhaps not *completely*, but
he meant to put F=m*a into words.
--
jos
josX
>On 3 Sep 2002 20:06:22 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>>On 3 Sep 2002 16:43:39 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>>How about physical evidence for the postulate where it all hangs from.
>>>>
>>>> 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
>>>
>>>Why dont you tell us about this experiment?
>>
>>What do you want to know. It was never done.
>>
>>>What equipment is needed to do it? How hard would it be to do?
>>
>>You need 1way measuring equipment for lightspeed, a lightbeam in
>>a vacuum, then you need another set of 1way measuring equipment mounted
>>on a cart and zap that at a significant fraction past a track over
>>which you shoot the light, and then measure the speed of the same
>>beam with the stationary and the moving equipment-sets.I
>
>A one-way measuring aparratus? As far as i know there is no such
>things.
There is'nt.
>I immediately see a problem. There is no such thing as a "one way
>measuring device", in order to measure something you have to know when
>the other end of your "ruler" has reached what you are measuring.
yup...
>You cannot know the length of a line segment without knowing the
>position of the beginning and the end. Could you explain how you would
>work around that little problem, at least in theory, since the
>engineering aspect is not there yet?
Measure it up, if it's difficult, ask some construction people. They
will build the thing anyway, so, it's only natural to ask them.
>>>If this means so much to you, why dont you do the experiment yourself?
>>
>>Technology can't do it right now.
>
>Yet you claim SR is false based on the experiment that cannot be done
>with current technology.
I claim it false because of unsolved paradox, i claim in unscience because
of nonexistant evidence for it's base premise: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
>>>I surmise that if anyone else did it, you would bitch about them doing
>>>it wrong and/or being biased against you and for SR.
>>
>>Perhaps you surmize wrong. OTOH, it cannot exist what SR claims, so
>>i'd like to see it done myself i guess. But at least there would be
>>a fake claim at evidence, and that would be mere scamming. Currently
>>the situation is much worse: you accept science on faith alone, while
>>being told to your face "we have no evidnce". THAT is the bigger problem
>>here: your gullability.
>
>Im going to forget what i learned from the last time i had a debate
>with you.
>
>The line "it cannot exist what SR claims" does not mean anything to
>me. I know english is a second language to you, so ill be patient with
>that. Do you mean "it cannot do what SR claims" or something to that
>effect?
>
>I suppose you are right about the faith part - to an extent. Most
>people do not have the time, energy (electron or mental), or the
>knowledge to do many of the experiments that add credence to theorys.
>
>But assuming science is a religion that is to be followed without
>question is a fallacy of epic porportions. You must not have followed
>the development of physics in the last 300 years.
I agree, it's not what science should be, and indeed isn't, except
for modern physics. Modern physics is corrupt, but not everything is
corrupt.
>>>You obviously care about this a lot, because you wont shut the fuck up
>>>about it.
>>
>>:)
>>
>>> Why dont you go to a University and ask nicely without
>>>talking about "conspiracy" and "the man" holding you down?
>>
>>To the people who teach this stuff year in year out to students.
>>You think that will make an ounce of differnce?
>>Maybe you do, i don't.
>
>If you present yourself well, im willing to expect that you would at
>least get the appearance of people paying attention to you.
What good is that?
>>>When you finish the experiment, do tell us what the results are.
>>
>>I certainly will. In the meantime, shall we suspend this theory which
>>depends upon undone experimental facts ?
>
>The problem with your posts is that you ignore experiments that depend
>on the validity of SR.
Such as?
>>> Make
>>>us a nice pdf with an abstract, meaningful diagrams, explanations,
>>>equations, references, and all those other handy things that would
>>>make you worth reading.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>>BTW: How would you know how fast the lightbeam was going if it was
>>>only going 1 way?
>>
>>That's equipment dependant. Currently, equipment with that kind of
>>accuracy doesn't exist. Light is pretty fast.
>
>We can count individual photons. We can trap photons in sodium gas and
>re-emit them at our lesiure. Are you really saying that we cannot do
>your experiment because "light is pretty fast" ?
Yes.
>Look, you obviously think something is wrong with SR. Thats fine, many
>people have thought that.
But then they concluded "must trust", and got brainwashed into the silly
thing.
> You think you can prove it wrong, (im not
>sure if the experiment is in SR's domain of applicability or not), So
>why dont you?
I do it all the time. Currently, the focus is on it's lack of evidence,
proving it's not science.
> Look at the glorious sucess Uncle Al has had with his
>evotos experiment, he not only posts it in HERE, but he actually sends
>proposals to universities.
>
>Why are you bothering with us, really?
Because SR is a mindgame, and you are it's prey.
To kill SR, is to end the worship to it and the worship to Einstein.
> You ignore the evidence
I do not ignore the evidence. I just don't buy on "trust" the way
the scientists interpreted it for their flock.
> your
>arguments are unable to stand up to critical thought
Where. Show me an error in my reasoning.
> and you lack the
>education required to knock SR off its well-earned high horse. You
>also argue against evidence that is widely known to be true. Why?
Because it's not true. Because it's either faked, or interpreted falsely
(see muon), or it's not researched to the bottom yet.
>Oh yes, you never did explain how science has a vested interest in
>keeping SR around.
People have argued here against my success saying that they were afraid
the technology stocks would fall, and science-support in general would
crumble.
> If i had a choice i would pick newtonian mechanics
>over realativistic mechanics for the sheer ease of use alone, but i
>dont have that choice because one is only an approximatation.
Because you "..must trust..", i see. I know what you're thinking.
"This cannot be true, he must be a nut, even when i can't find a single
flaw in his reasoning, and he totally wipes the floor with axioms, he
is a nut... ".
Use your head, ask for evidence before you believe on faith. Do you think
how SR is build up ?
>Note to Uncle Al: When i make it through my first 4 years of being an
>undergrad, and nobody has done your experiment, i will, assuming i
>have the knowledge base TO do it.
First try to build a cart that can move at a significant fraction of
lightspeed. Light is pretty fast (in a vacuum, the issue in SR).
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Do you realize that this is your rationale:
> Redefine "proof" -> logical derivation from postulates agreed upon
> Redefine "science" -> nothing can be proven in it from experiment
> Irrational conclusion -> SR is proven.
SR (nor any other theory) has not been proven true. SR and other
accepted theories are to this day unfalsified by experiment. You do not
seem to understand that no physical theory can be proven true. Such a
theory can only be proven false by an experiment or observation which
refutes a prediction of the theory.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Newton's F=m*a is proven, his wording of it perhaps not *completely*, but
> he meant to put F=m*a into words.
Taking m to be the rest mass of a body, Newton's formula is falsified
everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running. If a constant
force of 1 g is exerted against a 1 gram body one would infer that the
body would be going in excess of c in a fairly short time.
This is not what happens.
If Newton's theory were true at all velocities, the Stanford Linear
Accelerator which is several kilometers long could be replaced by a
tunnel a few meters in length and run with a fraction of the power.
Wake up.
Bob Kolker
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Do you realize that this is your rationale:
>> Redefine "proof" -> logical derivation from postulates agreed upon
>> Redefine "science" -> nothing can be proven in it from experiment
>> Irrational conclusion -> SR is proven.
>
>SR (nor any other theory) has not been proven true.
Yes, SR (and many other theories) have been proven false.
Laying dead at my feet besides SR is for instance axiom-theory.
> SR and other
>accepted theories are to this day unfalsified by experiment.
So is God.
Falsification can be done by showing paradox as well (that means a theory
has no logical content, it's only a word-structure, but it's meaning
collapses unto itself).
> You do not
>seem to understand that no physical theory can be proven true.
You mean, i seem not be able to get brainwashed into accepting your
nonsense. F=m*a: proven.
> Such a
>theory can only be proven false by an experiment or observation which
>refutes a prediction of the theory.
Then you believe God is a scientific theory. It cannot be refuted by
experiment at this time, neither can SR.
The whole *point* of science is to have *positive* physical evidence.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Newton's F=m*a is proven, his wording of it perhaps not *completely*, but
>> he meant to put F=m*a into words.
>
>Taking m to be the rest mass of a body, Newton's formula is falsified
>everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running.
Not true:
1. These people are the religious faithfull.
2. Too much unknowns about the particles.
>everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running. If a constant
>force of 1 g is exerted against a 1 gram body one would infer that the
>body would be going in excess of c in a fairly short time.
How many 1gram bodies do you accelerate liar?
None, they are mere lone particles.
And bodies feel friction, undoubtedly, the particles accelerated in
the accelerator are encountering a lot of small stuff when zapping round.
>This is not what happens.
Ah, you regularly talk to these particles.
>If Newton's theory were true at all velocities, the Stanford Linear
>Accelerator which is several kilometers long could be replaced by a
>tunnel a few meters in length and run with a fraction of the power.
Only if there was no friction in the world.
In the /real/ world, there is.
In the /real/ world, there is also unknown phenomena.
>Wake up.
Talking to yourself ?
Explain to me why the phycisists accepted stark physical claim without
solid physical evidence (1905). You can't.
Explain why they accepted the relativistic hypotheses regarding adding
of velocities without proof, flying directly in the face of proven
Galileian addition of velocities (1905).
Explain why they listened to Einstein at all after knowing what a nonsense
he writes (1916), and noticing the blatant errors in his derivation of
relativity-of-simultaneity (chapter 9 'relativity').
Explain why without evidence, phycisist believe to this day that the
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum is happening,
while no particle, no wave, no object ever encountered behaves like this
irrational idea/fantasy.
Explain why they didn't notice error in his absurdity argument against
"light going at non-c velocities relative to an observer".
Explain why they tried to solve an apparently to them absurdity (no
absurdity at all btw) with even more absurdity (SR).
--
jos
AllYou!
> >Definition of proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an
> >argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles.
>
> There's no such thing as a premise in true science.
Which is why there's no such thing as proof in pure science. Now you're
getting it.
> > In
> >mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical
arguments
> >from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called
a
> >proof.
>
> That's why mathematics is wrong there. Arrogant too.
>
> >As this definition implies, theories cannot be proved.
>
> How convenient.
No, it's definative. The definition of the word proof and the definition of
the word science are mutually exclusive. Those are definitions. Why do
insist on using the same words as most of the scientific community, but
assigning your own definition to them? Is it because, with all the
fuzziness which loose and changing definitions gives you, your arguments
could not even be made?
> > Certainly not
> >through experimentation.
>
> I beg you pardon??
> Kick a ball, it proves F=m*a.
Absolutely not. First, your definition of the word *proof* is inconsistent
with what the rest of the scientific community (not just phyiscists) uses.
Second, just as with your string and nails experiment, your soccer ball
experiment is only valid to roughly approximate a principle. There are too
many other factors such as gravity and friction to prove anything. Besides,
as you've been told over and over again, there's a difference between proof
and evidence. Your experiments, any experiments, are evidence, they are not
proof. Not by the definition that is used by virtually everyone except you.
> > Experiments can demonstrate a theory, or show
that
> >it is probably valid, or even prove that it is invalid. But even
Newton's
> >laws cannot be proved by the classical definition.
>
> They are proved by the classical definition goof.
I don't even know what this means. Is this English?
> >You've simply made up your own definition to suit your reality. And by
your
> >definition, SR cannot be proved. So you are doing nothing but spoofing
> >people for your own self-indulgence.
>
> Do you realize that this is your rationale:
> Redefine "proof" -> logical derivation from postulates agreed upon
> Redefine "science" -> nothing can be proven in it from experiment
> Irrational conclusion -> SR is proven.
No one claims that SR is proven. Only that much, if not all, of it has been
demonstrated to be valid, and nothing has ever demonstrated that it is
invalid. But communicating this to you is useless because you insist on
using your own personal definitions of words like *proof*. You've seen to
it that we cannot communicate and then claim that no one has shown you
anything that you can accept. How can that ever happen when you refuse to
communicate?
Robert J. Kolker
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>
> josX wrote:
>
>>
>> Newton's F=m*a is proven, his wording of it perhaps not *completely*, but
>> he meant to put F=m*a into words.
>
>
> Taking m to be the rest mass of a body, Newton's formula is falsified
> everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running. If a constant
> force of 1 g is exerted against a 1 gram body one would infer that the
> body would be going in excess of c in a fairly short time.
Ooops. Misspoke. If a one gram mass were acclerated at g it would be
going at the speed of light in t = light speed/9.8 meter/sec^2. If
somone is up to dividing 300,000,000 by 10 that would come to 30,000,000
seconds. The number of seconds in a year is approx 365*24*3600. Round to
about 365*86*1000 and you get to light speed in less then a year. So
tell me Scottie, why aren't aren't our wee engines going at least warp
factor one?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> Then you believe God is a scientific theory. It cannot be refuted by
> experiment at this time, neither can SR.
Nonsense. God is refuted by the principle of noncontradiction. God is
omnipotent therefore He can make a stone so large that He cannot lift
it. The Deity goes down in flames!
Either tha or God is not Ominipotent, so why should we bother with Him.
What has He done for Us lately?
Bob Kolker
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:al4k1r$6qr$5...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>
>> >Definition of proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an
>> >argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles.
>>
>> There's no such thing as a premise in true science.
>
>Which is why
ah, you agree true science doesn't need premises/axioms/postulates.
> there's no such thing as proof in pure science.
There is: experimental data/verification, etc.
Just make sure your data and your claim line up.
To say light=observer-dependant, and show a particle in an accelerator
which you can't infinitely accelerate, that's a mismatch (topical mismatch).
> Now you're
>getting it.
>
>> > In
>> >mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments
>> >from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a
>> >proof.
>>
>> That's why mathematics is wrong there. Arrogant too.
>>
>> >As this definition implies, theories cannot be proved.
>>
>> How convenient.
>
>No, it's definative. The definition of the word proof and the definition of
>the word science are mutually exclusive.
oh my. Strong arguments!
And you dare to accuse *me* of wordgames eh? Don't you see that what you
do is a wordgame?
Redefine "science", redefine "proof", us as to make sure nobody notices
that SR is not scientific in the common sense of the word scientific.
> Those are definitions. Why do
>insist on using the same words as most of the scientific community, but
>assigning your own definition to them?
I use the common definition, the one used in society at large. That's where
language gets generated and assigned meaning. It's commonly understood that
for a claim to be scientific, there must be evidence suporting it.
> Is it because, with all the
>fuzziness which loose and changing definitions gives you, your arguments
>could not even be made?
My definitions are very simple.
>>> Certainly not
>>>through experimentation.
>>
>>I beg you pardon??
>>Kick a ball, it proves F=m*a.
>
>Absolutely not.
Try it.
> First, your definition of the word *proof* is inconsistent
>with what the rest of the scientific community (not just phyiscists) uses.
I do not care for the scientific communities redefenition of common words
to suit their mindtricks.
>Second, just as with your string and nails experiment, your soccer ball
>experiment is only valid to roughly approximate a principle.
Then i suggest you apply the correct error-margins to the experiments.
All perfectly classical.
> There are too
>many other factors such as gravity and friction to prove anything.
Did you try it already ?
> Besides,
>as you've been told over and over again, there's a difference between proof
>and evidence. Your experiments, any experiments, are evidence, they are not
>proof. Not by the definition that is used by virtually everyone except you.
Evidence/proof, basically theyre the same thing. "To make credible beyond
a shadow of a doubt".
Cut the wordgames.
By your definitions, God is a proven fact. Or, God is a disproven fact,
whichever is the common opinion. Then, nobody can change that opinion because
both proof/eviednce and disproof/counterevidence of God doesn't exist.
>>> Experiments can demonstrate a theory, or show that
>>>it is probably valid, or even prove that it is invalid. But even Newton's
>>>laws cannot be proved by the classical definition.
>>
>>They are proved by the classical definition goof.
>
>I don't even know what this means. Is this English?
More wordgames?
>>>You've simply made up your own definition to suit your reality. And by your
>>>definition, SR cannot be proved. So you are doing nothing but spoofing
>>>people for your own self-indulgence.
>>
>>Do you realize that this is your rationale:
>>Redefine "proof" -> logical derivation from postulates agreed upon
>>Redefine "science" -> nothing can be proven in it from experiment
>>Irrational conclusion -> SR is proven.
>
>No one claims that SR is proven.
If you believe in it in a sci.* group, you believe it's proven or the
most credible of positions. Otherwise, go away to a philosophy group.
> Only that much, if not all, of it has been
>demonstrated to be valid, and nothing has ever demonstrated that it is
>invalid.
Sigh.
There is nothing valid about it AllYou, there are only endless paradoxes with
it. But there are so many, and indeed the second postulate is one of them,
that after accepting ""learning"" it, you have suspended your sense of
logic altogether, and "anything goes", as long as it is "within the common
grounds of the scientific community, and i don't stand out as the nutcase
that i am".
> But communicating this to you is useless because you insist on
>using your own personal definitions of words like *proof*. You've seen to
>it that we cannot communicate and then claim that no one has shown you
>anything that you can accept. How can that ever happen when you refuse to
>communicate?
Then suggest me a word to use with you that means "make credible beyond
a shadow of a doubt", or "solid evidence".
You are playing wordtricks, i don't like it.
You want to claim that science doesn't need conclusive proof and
solid evidence for what it claims.
What are you doing here, why are you hanging out in the sci.* hierarchy ?
Do you think it is science to just assume whatever nonsense if there is
no proof against it? That is a total 180 on science, hope you realize that.
Also hope that you realize that if that's needed to validate SR, that is
all we need to know.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Explain to me why the phycisists accepted stark physical claim without
> solid physical evidence (1905). You can't.
They didn't. Many physicists did not accept Einstein's theories and
remained aetherists to the end. The younger generation found Einstein's
approach quicker, slicker and nicer. It did everything that aether does
and without the troublesome questions that aether raises.
For example, Michaelson never accepted Einstein's theories even unto his
death in the 1930's (did I get the date right?).
World class physicists such as Robert A. Millikan had reservations about
Einstein's theories, particularly his theory of photons. The which, he
attempted to disprove, but ended up supporting by experiment.
Einstein was published because
1. His theories accounted for known facts and were consistent with
accepted theory (electrodynamics). The mathematical formallism that
fellout of electrodynamics of moving bodies matched Lorentz' aether
based theory. See H.A. Lorentz's 1904 paper.
2. His approach was mathematically coherent and acheived a unification
of mechanics and electrodynamics.
Even if physicists did not wholeheartedly agree with Einstein, they
respected the fact that his theory held up under analysis.
BTW if you think Einstein's theory of electrodynamics is incoherent, you
must think the same of Lorentz's electron theory and you must have grave
reservations of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, which was the role
model for Einstein's electrodynamics of moving bodies.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
AllYou! wrote:
> No, it's definative. The definition of the word proof and the definition of
> the word science are mutually exclusive. Those are definitions.
No quite. We use mathematical proofs on the mathematical internals of a
(scientific) theory to produce predictions which can be tested
experimentally. As long as our physical theories are mathmatical, proofs
will be done.
Bob Kolker
Tris
'God' isn't a scientific theory. It doesn't make testable predictions.
<snip>
Spaceman
>A one-way measuring aparratus? As far as i know there is no such
>things.
try a ruler.
>I immediately see a problem. There is no such thing as a "one way
>measuring device", in order to measure something you have to know when
>the other end of your "ruler" has reached what you are measuring.
The "one way ruler"
<LOL>
You just wish to remain clueless huh?
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>Special relativity is pretty simple, mathematically, so indeed you don't
>need to know all that much math to follow it. But realize that to follow
>what you've just said, someone has to know what a Lorentz transformation
>is, and by "the laws of physics" you're implicitly talking about the
>mathematical forms of equations. To really make sense out of your
>hypothesis requires some math.
<ROFLOL>
completely lost in math!
<LOL>
basic math states
186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps
relativity states the above is wrong.
Guess what?
It's not.
relativity is.
Spaceman
>SR (nor any other theory) has not been proven true. SR and other
>accepted theories are to this day unfalsified by experiment.
and your head is still stuck in the sands of time refusing to see
the hourglass prove SR,GR and QM wrong.
research is what YOU are missing Bob.
Spaceman
>Taking m to be the rest mass of a body, Newton's formula is falsified
>everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running. If a constant
>force of 1 g is exerted against a 1 gram body one would infer that the
>body would be going in excess of c in a fairly short time.
Wrong.
and
Wrong.
Newtons stuff could work easily is morons were not so lazy
to not find "all the newton math"
instead they allow Heisenburg and that is like automatically
rejecting Newton without even trying better.
>If Newton's theory were true at all velocities, the Stanford Linear
>Accelerator which is several kilometers long could be replaced by a
>tunnel a few meters in length and run with a fraction of the power.
Like a TV screen!
<LOL>
>Wake up.
No you wake up,
tis you that is lost in SciFi dreams..
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Then you believe God is a scientific theory. It cannot be refuted by
>> experiment at this time, neither can SR.
>
>Nonsense. God is refuted by the principle of noncontradiction. God is
>omnipotent therefore He can make a stone so large that He cannot lift
>it. The Deity goes down in flames!
He could increase his power infinitely after making the stone.
Bye Kolker.
After saying "ever and ever i cannot lift this stone", in the next
moment you can break that by saying "but now is now, and i break what
i did before because i can do anything".
>Either tha or God is not Ominipotent, so why should we bother with Him.
>What has He done for Us lately?
So, God and SR cannot be experimentally falsified.
What does that mean?
SR=a persuasion, not proper science (true science).
--
jos
Tris
> AllYou wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:al4k1r$6qr$5...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >> >Definition of proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an
> >> >argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles.
> >>
> >> There's no such thing as a premise in true science.
> >
> >Which is why
>
> ah, you agree true science doesn't need premises/axioms/postulates.
>
> > there's no such thing as proof in pure science.
>
> There is: experimental data/verification, etc.
Experimental data and verification is not proof - it's evidence.
> Just make sure your data and your claim line up.
> To say light=observer-dependant, and show a particle in an accelerator
> which you can't infinitely accelerate, that's a mismatch (topical
mismatch).
Straw man.
> > Now you're
> >getting it.
> >
> >> >
In
> >> >mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical
arguments
> >> >from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being
called a
> >> >proof.
> >>
> >> That's why mathematics is wrong there. Arrogant too.
> >>
> >> >As this definition implies, theories cannot be proved.
> >>
> >> How convenient.
> >
> >No, it's definative. The definition of the word proof and the definition
of
> >the word science are mutually exclusive.
>
> oh my. Strong arguments!
> And you dare to accuse *me* of wordgames eh? Don't you see that what you
> do is a wordgame?
> Redefine "science", redefine "proof", us as to make sure nobody notices
> that SR is not scientific in the common sense of the word scientific.
No, use the words as they should be used. This is what we are doing, and
this is what you are not doing.
> > Those are definitions. Why do
> >insist on using the same words as most of the scientific community, but
> >assigning your own definition to them?
>
> I use the common definition, the one used in society at large. That's
where
> language gets generated and assigned meaning. It's commonly understood
that
> for a claim to be scientific, there must be evidence suporting it.
Your so-called common definition, if true, clearly isn't good enough for the
scientific community - which accepts that 'theory' and 'proof' are different
things.
> > Is it because, with all the
> >fuzziness which loose and changing definitions gives you, your arguments
> >could not even be made?
>
> My definitions are very simple.
Your definitions are incorrect and unacceptable.
>>> Certainly not
> >>>through experimentation.
> >>
> >>I beg you pardon??
> >>Kick a ball, it proves F=m*a.
> >
> >Absolutely not.
>
> Try it.
Does your experiment prove F=ma for all circumstances under all conditions?
> > First, your definition of the word *proof* is
inconsistent
> >with what the rest of the scientific community (not just phyiscists)
uses.
>
> I do not care for the scientific communities redefenition of common words
> to suit their mindtricks.
The only person redefiing words here is you. Look up the words in any
dictionary and you will see 'proof' and 'theory' are not synonymous. Is
that common enough for you?
> >Second, just as with your string and nails experiment, your soccer ball
> >experiment is only valid to roughly approximate a principle.
>
> Then i suggest you apply the correct error-margins to the experiments.
> All perfectly classical.
>
> > There are
too
> >many other factors such as gravity and friction to prove anything.
>
> Did you try it already ?
>
> >
Besides,
> >as you've been told over and over again, there's a difference between
proof
> >and evidence. Your experiments, any experiments, are evidence, they are
not
> >proof. Not by the definition that is used by virtually everyone except
you.
>
> Evidence/proof, basically theyre the same thing. "To make credible beyond
> a shadow of a doubt".
>
> Cut the wordgames.
>
> By your definitions, God is a proven fact. Or, God is a disproven fact,
> whichever is the common opinion. Then, nobody can change that opinion
because
> both proof/eviednce and disproof/counterevidence of God doesn't exist.
There is nothing scientific about God. Straw man.
> >>> Experiments can demonstrate a theory, or show
that
> >>>it is probably valid, or even prove that it is invalid. But even
Newton's
> >>>laws cannot be proved by the classical definition.
> >>
> >>They are proved by the classical definition goof.
> >
> >I don't even know what this means. Is this English?
>
> More wordgames?
>
> >>>You've simply made up your own definition to suit your reality. And by
your
> >>>definition, SR cannot be proved. So you are doing nothing but spoofing
> >>>people for your own self-indulgence.
> >>
> >>Do you realize that this is your rationale:
> >>Redefine "proof" -> logical derivation from postulates agreed upon
> >>Redefine "science" -> nothing can be proven in it from experiment
> >>Irrational conclusion -> SR is proven.
> >
> >No one claims that SR is proven.
>
> If you believe in it in a sci.* group, you believe it's proven or the
> most credible of positions. Otherwise, go away to a philosophy group.
This is what makes me laugh about you cranks. You think your opponents are
all claiming SR has been proved. None of the scientists here have claimed
SR is proved. At best, it has not yet been falsified within its domain of
applicability. This is widely accepted as being true.
> > Only that much, if not all, of it has
been
> >demonstrated to be valid, and nothing has ever demonstrated that it is
> >invalid.
>
> Sigh.
> There is nothing valid about it AllYou, there are only endless paradoxes
with
> it. But there are so many, and indeed the second postulate is one of them,
> that after accepting ""learning"" it, you have suspended your sense of
> logic altogether, and "anything goes", as long as it is "within the common
> grounds of the scientific community, and i don't stand out as the nutcase
> that i am".
Oh the old conspiracy argument. Let me guess, will we all suffer when the
truth is out?
> > But communicating this to you is useless because you insist on
> >using your own personal definitions of words like *proof*. You've seen
to
> >it that we cannot communicate and then claim that no one has shown you
> >anything that you can accept. How can that ever happen when you refuse
to
> >communicate?
>
> Then suggest me a word to use with you that means "make credible beyond
> a shadow of a doubt", or "solid evidence".
Fnord.
> You are playing wordtricks, i don't like it.
He is using the correct definitions of the words 'theory' and 'proof'.
Accepting defintions is the only way to successfully communicate.
> You want to claim that science doesn't need conclusive proof and
> solid evidence for what it claims.
>
> What are you doing here, why are you hanging out in the sci.* hierarchy ?
I think most people here could ask you the same questions. I doubt your
intention is to provide us with free entertainment.
> Do you think it is science to just assume whatever nonsense if there is
> no proof against it? That is a total 180 on science, hope you realize
that.
> Also hope that you realize that if that's needed to validate SR, that is
> all we need to know.
The Theory of Defenestration makes testable predictions about the damage
caused to humans from being thrown out of windows at various heights above
the ground. It tells us to expect particular levels of damage being caused
to an unprotected human after being thrown out of a window.
A hundred years pass, and no-one has falsified it within its domain of
applicability. Hundreds of experiments have been attempted, and hundreds of
humans have been damaged exactly as Defenestration predicts. The Theory of
Defenestration is successful.
sci.physics.defenestration is created to explore and discuss this theory and
its applications. Cranks inevitably arrive, saying "Defenestration is
WRONG!!" and "Defenestration has not been proved true!"
Of course it hasn't been proved true. We would have to throw all humans out
of all windows at every height - an impossiblity. But we can accept for
the moment that it works, and expect certain things to happen as it
predicts. The instant Defenestration is falsified is the instant it dies.
Until then we can do useful things with it.
Spaceman
>Which is why there's no such thing as proof in pure science. Now you're
>getting it.
Now I know what is wrong with you.
You have no clue about "absolutes of science"
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!
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Explain to me why the phycisists accepted stark physical claim without
>> solid physical evidence (1905). You can't.
>
>They didn't. Many physicists did not accept Einstein's theories and
>remained aetherists to the end. The younger generation found Einstein's
>approach quicker, slicker and nicer. It did everything that aether does
>and without the troublesome questions that aether raises.
And they didn't bother with the endless paradoxes, because they accepted
the fuzzbabble-approach.
>For example, Michaelson never accepted Einstein's theories even unto his
>death in the 1930's (did I get the date right?).
Smart dude.
>World class physicists such as Robert A. Millikan had reservations about
>Einstein's theories, particularly his theory of photons. The which, he
>attempted to disprove, but ended up supporting by experiment.
>
>Einstein was published because
>
>1. His theories accounted for known facts and were consistent with
>accepted theory (electrodynamics). The mathematical formallism that
>fellout of electrodynamics of moving bodies matched Lorentz' aether
>based theory. See H.A. Lorentz's 1904 paper.
You mean "they didn't bother to get electrodynamics straightened out,
because now they had a theory that depended on it's errors". The error
being, the formula's weren't yet written so as to transform speed and
doppler shift both under Galileian transformations.
>2. His approach was mathematically coherent and acheived a unification
>of mechanics and electrodynamics.
>
>Even if physicists did not wholeheartedly agree with Einstein, they
>respected the fact that his theory held up under analysis.
So does God.
>BTW if you think Einstein's theory of electrodynamics is incoherent,
I know it is.
> you
>must think the same of Lorentz's electron theory and you must have grave
>reservations of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, which was the role
>model for Einstein's electrodynamics of moving bodies.
Everything that deals in "observer-dependancy of movement, even if that
is outside of the own body of the observer" is a failure.
--
jos
josX
'SR' isn't a scientific teory either. It doesn't make a currently testable
prediction.
This is actually true, but they have grown the cancer-tumor of SR so
large, that now it overlappes with particle-accelerators, and they
have squeezed out some evidence: muons and the fact that it's hard
to accelerate particles to infinite speeds.
SR is technically only this: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-
-in-a-vacuum, the rest is "logical" derivations (using some unfinished
parts of physics too (electromagnetics), and killing off well tested and
working parts (Newton/Galileian-transformation/absolute-time/straight-space).
--
jos
Spaceman
>So
>tell me Scottie, why aren't aren't our wee engines going at least warp
>factor one?
Friction ya dang fool!
Friction!
Spaceman
>Experimental data and verification is not proof - it's evidence.
correct,
so why do you ignore "evidence of clocks having faults"
and guess what is REAL funny.
All of Relativity IS that evidence.
<LOL>
It kills itself every "time" you use it.
Tris
> Tris wrote:
<snip>
> >'God' isn't a scientific theory. It doesn't make testable predictions.
> ><snip>
>
> 'SR' isn't a scientific teory either. It doesn't make a currently testable
> prediction.
>
> This is actually true, but they have grown the cancer-tumor of SR so
> large, that now it overlappes with particle-accelerators, and they
> have squeezed out some evidence: muons and the fact that it's hard
> to accelerate particles to infinite speeds.
>
> SR is technically only this:
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-
> -in-a-vacuum, the rest is "logical" derivations (using some unfinished
> parts of physics too (electromagnetics), and killing off well tested and
> working parts
(Newton/Galileian-transformation/absolute-time/straight-space).
Troll.
Are you disputing every experiment and result on the page below?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Are you saying each of the people listed are liars?
AllYou!
> > Those are definitions. Why do
> >insist on using the same words as most of the scientific community, but
> >assigning your own definition to them?
>
> I use the common definition, the one used in society at large. That's
where
> language gets generated and assigned meaning. It's commonly understood
that
> for a claim to be scientific, there must be evidence suporting it.
Science, by definition, must be precise. To accomplish this, its terms must
be precise. You don't want to be precise because then your arguments would
fail.
> > Is it because, with all the
> >fuzziness which loose and changing definitions gives you, your arguments
> >could not even be made?
>
> My definitions are very simple.
No, you are very simple. Your definitions are in a constant state of flux.
That's the only way you can hope to survive.
> >>I beg you pardon??
> >>Kick a ball, it proves F=m*a.
> >
> >Absolutely not.
>
> Try it.
I did, it doesn't
> > First, your definition of the word *proof* is
inconsistent
> >with what the rest of the scientific community (not just phyiscists)
uses.
>
> I do not care for the scientific communities redefenition of common words
> to suit their mindtricks.
Right fact, wrong reason. You don't use precise definitions because it
would destroy your ability to make an argument. Your reasoning depends upon
shifting definitions and lack of ability to communicate.
> > There are
too
> >many other factors such as gravity and friction to prove anything.
>
> Did you try it already ?
Yes, and it proves nothing.
> >
Besides,
> >as you've been told over and over again, there's a difference between
proof
> >and evidence. Your experiments, any experiments, are evidence, they are
not
> >proof. Not by the definition that is used by virtually everyone except
you.
>
> Evidence/proof, basically theyre the same thing. "To make credible beyond
> a shadow of a doubt".
This is about the dumbest thing you've yet said. Proof and evidence are the
same thing? One may lead to the other. That's all.
> By your definitions, God is a proven fact. Or, God is a disproven fact,
> whichever is the common opinion. Then, nobody can change that opinion
because
> both proof/eviednce and disproof/counterevidence of God doesn't exist.
Silliness and inconsistent with anything that I've said.
> >>They are proved by the classical definition goof.
> >
> >I don't even know what this means. Is this English?
>
> More wordgames?
Yes, your statement was more wordgames. It had to be. It was completely
incoherent.
> >No one claims that SR is proven.
>
> If you believe in it in a sci.* group, you believe it's proven or the
> most credible of positions. Otherwise, go away to a philosophy group.
See, more redefinitions by you. I believe that SR accurately predicts
certain physical outcomes. I don't believe that it can ever be proven as
the word prove is defined.
> > But communicating this to you is useless because you insist on
> >using your own personal definitions of words like *proof*. You've seen
to
> >it that we cannot communicate and then claim that no one has shown you
> >anything that you can accept. How can that ever happen when you refuse
to
> >communicate?
>
> Then suggest me a word to use with you that means "make credible beyond
> a shadow of a doubt", or "solid evidence".
The term "make credible beyond a shadow of a doubt" contains too many
subjective terms to try to find a word which suits it. But its major flaw
is that it's an oxymoron. "Credible" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
(whatever shadow means in this context) are incompatable.
> You are playing wordtricks, i don't like it.
Too bad, even if it were true.
> You want to claim that science doesn't need conclusive proof and
> solid evidence for what it claims.
True and False.
> What are you doing here, why are you hanging out in the sci.* hierarchy ?
For one thing, you make me laugh. You're a source of entertainment. I have
other reasons as well, but you've made it impossible for me to communicate
them to you. We have not the common language to make that possible.
> Do you think it is science to just assume whatever nonsense if there is
> no proof against it?
That question makes no sense. Again, a total lack of a common language.
josX
If they are accepting SR which is build on postulate-2 which is unproven,
and at the same time they claim to be critical scientists who need
evidence for what they believe, then they already have lied once haven't
they.
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
[Physics FAQ] - [Copyright]
By Tom Roberts, June 2000.
Original by Siegmar Schleif and others, January 1998.
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
Index
>1. Introduction
>Domain of Applicability Test Theories of SR
>2. Early experiments (Pre-1905)
>Roentgen, Eichenwald, Wilson, Rayleigh, Arago, Fizeau, Hoek, Bradley,
>Airy.
>3. Tests of Einstein's Two Postulates
>3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light Speed Isotropy
>Michelson and Morley, Kennedy and Thorndike, Modern Laser/Maser
>Tests, Other.
>3,2 One-Way Tests of Light Speed Isotropy
>Cialdea, Krisher, Champeny, Turner & Hill.
>3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources
>Cosmological Sources: DeSitter, Brecher; Terrestrial Sources:
>Alvaeger, Sadeh, ....
>3.4 Measurements of the Speed of Light, and Other Limits on it
>NBS Measurements, 1983 Redefinition of the Meter, Limits on Variations
>with Frequency, Limits on Photon Mass.
>3.5 Tests of the Principle of Relativity and Lorentz Invariance
>Trouton Noble, Other.
>3.6 Tests of the Isotropy of Space
>Hughes - Drever, Prestage, Lamoreaux, Chupp, Phillips, Brillet and
>Hall.
>4. Tests of Time Dilation and Transverse Doppler Effect
>Ives and Stilwell; Particle Lifetimes, Doppler Shift Measurements.
>5. Tests of the Twin Paradox
>Haefle and Keating, Vessot et al, Alley, Bailey et al., The Clock
>Hypothesis.
>6. Tests of Relativistic Kinematics
>Elastic Scattering, Limiting Velocity c, Relativistic Mass Variations,
>Calorimetric Test of SR.
>7. Other Experiments
>Fizeau, Sagnac, Michelson and Gale, g-2 Tests of SR, The Global
>Positioning System (GPS), Lunar Laser Ranging, Cosmic Background
>Radiation (CMBR), Constancy of Physical Constants, Other.
>8. Experiments Which Apparently are NOT Consistent with SR/GR
>Experimenter's Bias Publication Bias
>9. Acknowledgments
>
>1. Introduction
>
>Physics is an experimental science
Noticed. Science is claimed to be about experiments, and evidence.
> and as such the experimental basis
Noticed. "experimental basys"...
> and as such the experimental basis for
>any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
... "is extremely important".
I notice also, that SR is build upon two postulates, of which 1 is completely
without "experimental basis". So, they already have proved themselves liar.
I was going to go through the whole site, but why should i after this.
Explain to me why "the experimental basis of any theory is extremely
important" (exactly what i always say), but Postulate-2 is without any
experimental basis. You know SR is build upon postulates 1 and 2 ?
(1 is just the rest of physics, minus some well tested and working parts
relating to mechanics and geometry, perhaps Einstein didn't like those
classes in school or whatever).
--
jos
Tris
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:20020904103117...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >From: "Tris" nu...@127.0.0.1
>
> >Experimental data and verification is not proof - it's evidence.
>
> correct,
>
> so why do you ignore "evidence of clocks having faults"
>
> and guess what is REAL funny.
> All of Relativity IS that evidence.
> <LOL>
> It kills itself every "time" you use it.
I predict Driscoll won't provide references/citations for any evidence that
supports his assertions. I predict that Driscoll will only post his
opinion. I predict Driscoll won't be able to give references falsifying
_any_ experiment that supports relativity that is listed on
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html.
I predict I will find his lack of response moderately amusing.
Tris
Unproven according to the English language definition of the word, 'proof'.
The second postulate has been _tested_, however.
Both have been tested.
> So, they already have proved themselves liar.
>
> I was going to go through the whole site, but why should i after this.
You're right. After all, you aren't here to learn, are you?
> Explain to me why "the experimental basis of any theory is extremely
> important" (exactly what i always say), but Postulate-2 is without any
> experimental basis. You know SR is build upon postulates 1 and 2 ?
> (1 is just the rest of physics, minus some well tested and working parts
> relating to mechanics and geometry, perhaps Einstein didn't like those
> classes in school or whatever).
Tests of Einstein's two postulates, on the same page:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#3.%20Te
sts%20of%20Einstein's%20two%20postulates
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:al4vau$ple$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>> Those are definitions. Why do
>>>insist on using the same words as most of the scientific community, but
>>>assigning your own definition to them?
>>
>>I use the common definition, the one used in society at large. That's where
>>language gets generated and assigned meaning. It's commonly understood that
>>for a claim to be scientific, there must be evidence suporting it.
>
>Science, by definition, must be precise. To accomplish this, its terms must
>be precise. You don't want to be precise because then your arguments would
>fail.
? What is imprecise about "science must have evidence for all it's claims" ?
Why does this phraze bother you.
>>> Is it because, with all the
>>>fuzziness which loose and changing definitions gives you, your arguments
>>>could not even be made?
>>
>>My definitions are very simple.
>
>No, you are very simple. Your definitions are in a constant state of flux.
>That's the only way you can hope to survive.
When did i not ask for evidence from science.
>>>>I beg you pardon??
>>>>Kick a ball, it proves F=m*a.
>>>
>>>Absolutely not.
>>
>>Try it.
>
>I did, it doesn't
Curious.
You weren't doing drugs at the time?
When you kicked the ball, it didn't fly, and when you kicked it harder,
it didn't go faster ?
Maybe you should call network tv.
>>> First, your definition of the word *proof* is inconsistent
>>>with what the rest of the scientific community (not just phyiscists) uses.
>>
>>I do not care for the scientific communities redefenition of common words
>>to suit their mindtricks.
>
>Right fact, wrong reason. You don't use precise definitions because it
>would destroy your ability to make an argument. Your reasoning depends upon
>shifting definitions and lack of ability to communicate.
Which definition did i shift.
>>> There are too
>>>many other factors such as gravity and friction to prove anything.
>>
>>Did you try it already ?
>
>Yes, and it proves nothing.
>
>>> Besides, as you've been told over and over again, there's a difference
>>> between proof and evidence. Your experiments, any experiments, are
>>> evidence, they are not proof. Not by the definition that is used by
>>> virtually everyone except you.
>>
>> Evidence/proof, basically theyre the same thing. "To make credible beyond
>> a shadow of a doubt".
>
>This is about the dumbest thing you've yet said. Proof and evidence are the
>same thing? One may lead to the other. That's all.
Proof/evidence, they make a claim credible. English is not my first language,
i see no real difference between the terms. Proof could be "bewijs" in
Dutch, "evidence" perhaps "bewijsmateriaal", really, are these wordgames
relevant ? I don't see how.
Look ppl, that happens if you buy into SR.
--
jos
Spaceman
>I predict Driscoll won't provide references/citations for any evidence that
>supports his assertions. I predict that Driscoll will only post his
>opinion. I predict Driscoll won't be able to give references falsifying
>_any_ experiment that supports relativity that is listed on
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.htm
silly fool!
you give the link that also backs me up.
The link both backs me up and shows
some idiots have no clue about clocks "faults"
so,
you predict wrong dingbat.
and.
guess what.
http://www.realspaceman.com/time/htm
has more reality about time than your silly thoeries do.
josX
My goodness what lame.
>>Noticed. "experimental basis"...
>>
>>> and as such the experimental basis for
>> >any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
>>
>> ... "is extremely important".
>>
>> I notice also, that SR is build upon two postulates, of which 1 is completely
>> without "experimental basis".
>
>Both have been tested.
oh they have been "tested".
>> So, they already have proved themselves liar.
>>
>> I was going to go through the whole site, but why should i after this.
>
>You're right. After all, you aren't here to learn, are you?
I am here to de-brainwash.
>> Explain to me why "the experimental basis of any theory is extremely
>> important" (exactly what i always say), but Postulate-2 is without any
>> experimental basis. You know SR is build upon postulates 1 and 2 ?
>> (1 is just the rest of physics, minus some well tested and working parts
>> relating to mechanics and geometry, perhaps Einstein didn't like those
>> classes in school or whatever).
>
>Tests of Einstein's two postulates, on the same page:
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#3.%20Te
>sts%20of%20Einstein's%20two%20postulates
common man: "you have proof of SR ?, i mean evidence?"
liar-scientists: "oh sure, we tested it's predictions and it came out fine!"
We "tested" it.
I got no words for this.
--
jos
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Proof/evidence, they make a claim credible. English is not my first language,
> i see no real difference between the terms. Proof could be "bewijs" in
> Dutch, "evidence" perhaps "bewijsmateriaal", really, are these wordgames
> relevant ? I don't see how.
Proofs generally are of two types
1) logical, such as in math proofs,
2) convincing on the basis of presented
evidences which pass a pre-required
level of strength of argument, such as
used in courts for "preponderance of
the evidence" or "beyond reasonable
doubt."
And evidence is that which is believed to
strengthen the argument that a sufficient
level of credibility has been achieved for
or against a certain claim, usually of the
truthfulness of a certain proposition.
In any case, a proof is only as good as
the people who are in charge of evaluating
it do so. In science, it is usually up to experts
in a given field to "prove" a theory, but this
never implies a fiat pronouncement. It is always
retractable if future tests reveal doubt. So, in
science we tend to say "validate" a theory
rather than "prove" a theory. Technically,
there's nothing wrong with using the term
"prove" applied to theories as it is stipulated
above; however, there is such a strong
tendency of people to think of "proof" as
always an absolute and final pronouncement
that it is not usually used these days to avoid
this wrong connotation.
Patrick
Tris
> Tris wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:al57u3$ab8$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >>Tris wrote:
> >>>>SR is technically only this:
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-
> >>>>-in-a-vacuum, the rest is "logical" derivations (using some unfinished
> >>>>parts of physics too (electromagnetics), and killing off well tested
and
> >>>>working parts
(Newton/Galileian-transformation/absolute-time/straight-space).
> >>>
> >>>Troll.
> >>>
> >>>Are you disputing every experiment and result on the page below?
> >>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> >>>
> >>>Are you saying each of the people listed are liars?
> >>
> >>If they are accepting SR which is build on postulate-2 which is
unproven,
> >
> >Unproven according to the English language definition of the word,
'proof'.
> >The second postulate has been _tested_, however.
>
> My goodness what lame.
Now you have a problem with experiments?!
<snip>
> >> I notice also, that SR is build upon two postulates, of which 1 is
completely
> >> without "experimental basis".
> >
> >Both have been tested.
>
> oh they have been "tested".
>
> >> So, they already have proved themselves liar.
> >>
> >> I was going to go through the whole site, but why should i after this.
> >
> >You're right. After all, you aren't here to learn, are you?
>
> I am here to de-brainwash.
It seems like you're here to make a fool of yourself.
> >> Explain to me why "the experimental basis of any theory is extremely
> >> important" (exactly what i always say), but Postulate-2 is without any
> >> experimental basis. You know SR is build upon postulates 1 and 2 ?
> >> (1 is just the rest of physics, minus some well tested and working
parts
> >> relating to mechanics and geometry, perhaps Einstein didn't like those
> >> classes in school or whatever).
> >
> >Tests of Einstein's two postulates, on the same page:
>
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#3.%20T
e
> >sts%20of%20Einstein's%20two%20postulates
>
> common man: "you have proof of SR ?, i mean evidence?"
> liar-scientists: "oh sure, we tested it's predictions and it came out
fine!"
>
> We "tested" it.
>
> I got no words for this.
You said, "Postulate-2 is without any experimental basis". Well, the link I
gave you gives you some experiments. How 'lame' are you?
Tris
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
Tris gets a prize. All predictions confirmed.
AllYou!
> >Science, by definition, must be precise. To accomplish this, its terms
must
> >be precise. You don't want to be precise because then your arguments
would
> >fail.
>
> ? What is imprecise about "science must have evidence for all it's claims"
?
> Why does this phraze bother you.
1) It misses the point. We're talking about definitions, not assertions.
2) your definition of evidence is in flux
3) you use proof and evidence interchangeably
4) your definition of the word science is in constant flux
How's that?
> >>>>I beg you pardon??
> >>>>Kick a ball, it proves F=m*a.
> >>>
> >>>Absolutely not.
> >>
> >>Try it.
> >
> >I did, it doesn't
>
> Curious.
> You weren't doing drugs at the time?
> When you kicked the ball, it didn't fly, and when you kicked it harder,
> it didn't go faster ?
What has that got to do with proof?
> >Right fact, wrong reason. You don't use precise definitions because it
> >would destroy your ability to make an argument. Your reasoning depends
upon
> >shifting definitions and lack of ability to communicate.
>
> Which definition did i shift.
Proof
Science
Evidence
SR itself
Experiment
And too many others to list.
> >> Evidence/proof, basically theyre the same thing. "To make credible
beyond
> >> a shadow of a doubt".
> >
> >This is about the dumbest thing you've yet said. Proof and evidence are
the
> >same thing? One may lead to the other. That's all.
>
> Proof/evidence, they make a claim credible.
Maybe, but their not the same. Both a gun and a knife can make you dead,
but that doesn't make them the same. See your foolishness?
> English is not my first language,
It shouldn't be anywhere on your list!
> i see no real difference between the terms. Proof could be "bewijs" in
> Dutch, "evidence" perhaps "bewijsmateriaal", really, are these wordgames
> relevant ? I don't see how.
I don't understand a word of Dutch, yet you may as well be speaking it to me
for all the value your English has. Your words carry no consistent meaning,
therefore, our ability to communicate is almost non-existant.
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> So, God and SR cannot be experimentally falsified.
> What does that mean?
> SR=a persuasion, not proper science (true science).
God as defined or better, describe in Christian theology is self
contradictory, se cannot exist. On the other hand it is just possible
that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jakob was an extraterrestrial who was
only thought to be a God by the primitive Hebrews.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>Tris gets a prize. All predictions confirmed.
>
Tris licks her own ass and calls it a prize!
<LOL>
James predicts tris still has no clue about clocks faults.
OR is a total troll without a life.
and
maybe even both.
Tris gets a prize of crap from her own butt.
Lick all you want Tris.
It's your bad taste.
Not mine.
Spaceman
>How's that?
It's all your flux without the "welding rod"
It's worth crap!
Tris
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> >From: "Tris" nu...@127.0.0.1
>
> >Tris gets a prize. All predictions confirmed.
> >
>
> Tris licks her own ass and calls it a prize!
> <LOL>
>
> James predicts tris still has no clue about clocks faults.
> OR is a total troll without a life.
> and
> maybe even both.
>
> Tris gets a prize of crap from her own butt.
> Lick all you want Tris.
> It's your bad taste.
> Not mine.
Not this again. Come on Driscoll, provide references. If it's so easy to
falsify relativity, someone credible somewhere must have done it.
Spaceman
>Not this again. Come on Driscoll, provide references. If it's so easy to
>falsify relativity, someone credible somewhere must have done it.
HEY DIPWAD!
no reference needed.
Can be typed in one line.
The clock malfunctioned.
want references
find them yourself fool.
"clock"
should be enough for anyone with a brain.
Got references that prove the clocks "did not malfunction"
NO?
HA HA!
josX
>Proof vs Evidence
>josX wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Proof/evidence, they make a claim credible. English is not my first language,
>> i see no real difference between the terms. Proof could be "bewijs" in
>> Dutch, "evidence" perhaps "bewijsmateriaal", really, are these wordgames
>> relevant ? I don't see how.
>
>Proofs generally are of two types
>1) logical, such as in math proofs,
No, they are experimental. Math=physics.
>2) convincing on the basis of presented
> evidences which pass a pre-required
> level of strength of argument, such as
> used in courts for "preponderance of
> the evidence" or "beyond reasonable
> doubt."
3) just show the pheonemon
>And evidence is that which is believed to
>strengthen the argument that a sufficient
>level of credibility has been achieved for
>or against a certain claim, usually of the
>truthfulness of a certain proposition.
yes
>In any case, a proof is only as good as
>the people who are in charge of evaluating
>it do so. In science, it is usually up to experts
>in a given field to "prove" a theory, but this
>never implies a fiat pronouncement.
Can we trust phycisists to police their own bisnis?
Science is the only field that is merely left to it's own
devices. The fact that such works nowhere, not even in sports,
suggests this is not generally how things work smoothly.
> It is always
>retractable if future tests reveal doubt. So, in
>science we
Correction, you are not science, we are: those who demand evidence
are science, those who believe on faith are religious.
> tend to say "validate" a theory
>rather than "prove" a theory. Technically,
>there's nothing wrong with using the term
>"prove" applied to theories as it is stipulated
>above; however, there is such a strong
>tendency of people to think of "proof" as
>always an absolute and final pronouncement
>that it is not usually used these days to avoid
>this wrong connotation.
The people are right, the scientists are wrong. Proof is absolute
if there is physical evidence, and all "proofs" get back at physical
evidence, to "look there <point finger>".
--
jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:al59ou$dfj$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>Tris wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:al57u3$ab8$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>>Tris wrote:
><snip>
>>>> important" (exactly what i always say), but Postulate-2 is without any
>>>> experimental basis. You know SR is build upon postulates 1 and 2 ?
>>>> (1 is just the rest of physics, minus some well tested and working parts
>>>> relating to mechanics and geometry, perhaps Einstein didn't like those
>>>> classes in school or whatever).
>>>
>>>Tests of Einstein's two postulates, on the same page:
>>
>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#3.%20T
>e
>> >sts%20of%20Einstein's%20two%20postulates
>>
>> common man: "you have proof of SR ?, i mean evidence?"
>> liar-scientists: "oh sure, we tested it's predictions and it came out fine!"
>>
>> We "tested" it.
>>
>> I got no words for this.
>
>You said, "Postulate-2 is without any experimental basis". Well, the link I
>gave you gives you some experiments. How 'lame' are you?
But there was no proof of postulate-2 on the page, when/where did you measure
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum ?
--
jos
Tris
Straw man. Quote the postulate as written, and don't claim scientists say
there is proof unless you have references.
There is a section on One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy on the page I
linked to:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way
%20tests
You may also be interested in prior experiments:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.%20ea
rly%20experiments
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:al5g6g$o5k$4...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>Tris wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:al59ou$dfj$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>>Tris wrote:
>>>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:al57u3$ab8$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>>Tris wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>>> Explain to me why "the experimental basis of any theory is extremely
>>>>>> important" (exactly what i always say), but Postulate-2 is without any
>>>>>> experimental basis. You know SR is build upon postulates 1 and 2 ?
>>>>>> (1 is just the rest of physics, minus some well tested and working parts
>>>>>> relating to mechanics and geometry, perhaps Einstein didn't like those
>>>>>> classes in school or whatever).
>>>>>
>>>>>Tests of Einstein's two postulates, on the same page:
>>>>
>>
>>>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#3.%20
>>>> >sts%20of%20Einstein's%20two%20postulates
>>>>
>>>> common man: "you have proof of SR ?, i mean evidence?"
>>>> liar-scientists: "oh sure, we tested it's predictions and it came out fine!"
>>>>
>>>> We "tested" it.
>>>>
>>>> I got no words for this.
>>>
>>>You said, "Postulate-2 is without any experimental basis". Well, the link I
>>>gave you gives you some experiments. How 'lame' are you?
>>
>>But there was no proof of postulate-2 on the page, when/where did you measure
>>1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum ?
>
Straw man?
The claim claims 'A', then the proof needs be evidence of 'A', not of 'b'.
*especially* if 'A' is the basis of the rest of modern physics bullshit.
> Quote the postulate as written, and don't claim scientists say
>there is proof unless you have references.
>
>There is a section on One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy on the page I
>linked to:
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way
>%20tests
>
>You may also be interested in prior experiments:
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.%20ea
>rly%20experiments
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum ?
--
jos
Eric Gisse
>>A one-way measuring aparratus? As far as i know there is no such
>>things.
>
>There is'nt.
>
>>I immediately see a problem. There is no such thing as a "one way
>>measuring device", in order to measure something you have to know when
>>the other end of your "ruler" has reached what you are measuring.
>
>yup...
So you base your rantings of SR being false because of an experiment
that cannot be done? Interesting...
>>You cannot know the length of a line segment without knowing the
>>position of the beginning and the end. Could you explain how you would
>>work around that little problem, at least in theory, since the
>>engineering aspect is not there yet?
>
>Measure it up, if it's difficult, ask some construction people. They
>will build the thing anyway, so, it's only natural to ask them.
I would like to take this time to point out that if you do not know
where a line segment ends, you cannot determine its length either in
theory or fact.
>>>>If this means so much to you, why dont you do the experiment yourself?
>>>
>>>Technology can't do it right now.
>>
>>Yet you claim SR is false based on the experiment that cannot be done
>>with current technology.
>
>I claim it false because of unsolved paradox, i claim in unscience because
>of nonexistant evidence for it's base premise: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
>-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
You cannot measure a line segment with only the beginning point. Bzzt.
>>>>I surmise that if anyone else did it, you would bitch about them doing
>>>>it wrong and/or being biased against you and for SR.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you surmize wrong. OTOH, it cannot exist what SR claims, so
>>>i'd like to see it done myself i guess. But at least there would be
>>>a fake claim at evidence, and that would be mere scamming. Currently
>>>the situation is much worse: you accept science on faith alone, while
>>>being told to your face "we have no evidnce". THAT is the bigger problem
>>>here: your gullability.
>>
>>Im going to forget what i learned from the last time i had a debate
>>with you.
>>
>>The line "it cannot exist what SR claims" does not mean anything to
>>me. I know english is a second language to you, so ill be patient with
>>that. Do you mean "it cannot do what SR claims" or something to that
>>effect?
>>
>>I suppose you are right about the faith part - to an extent. Most
>>people do not have the time, energy (electron or mental), or the
>>knowledge to do many of the experiments that add credence to theorys.
>>
>>But assuming science is a religion that is to be followed without
>>question is a fallacy of epic porportions. You must not have followed
>>the development of physics in the last 300 years.
>
>I agree, it's not what science should be, and indeed isn't, except
>for modern physics. Modern physics is corrupt, but not everything is
>corrupt.
Explain exactly why physicists would choose to use a theory that is
this simple? If i were Einstein on his quest to create a theory of
confusion, i would move towards requiring a lot more calculus, a lot
more. Guess he wasnt that smart, making a theory that can be
simplified down to a very small and easy pile of equations.
>>>>You obviously care about this a lot, because you wont shut the fuck up
>>>>about it.
>>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>>> Why dont you go to a University and ask nicely without
>>>>talking about "conspiracy" and "the man" holding you down?
>>>
>>>To the people who teach this stuff year in year out to students.
>>>You think that will make an ounce of differnce?
>>>Maybe you do, i don't.
>>
>>If you present yourself well, im willing to expect that you would at
>>least get the appearance of people paying attention to you.
>
>What good is that?
Nobody pays attention to raving lunatics. You obviously have no
experience in things like job interviews or asking a favor from
someone.
>>>>When you finish the experiment, do tell us what the results are.
>>>
>>>I certainly will. In the meantime, shall we suspend this theory which
>>>depends upon undone experimental facts ?
>>
>>The problem with your posts is that you ignore experiments that depend
>>on the validity of SR.
>
>Such as?
For starters, GPS, nuclear reactors, particle accellerators, large
CRTs, orbital calculations, long distance space travel...
<snip>
>>Look, you obviously think something is wrong with SR. Thats fine, many
>>people have thought that.
>
>But then they concluded "must trust", and got brainwashed into the silly
>thing.
Only at undergraduate levels, when you do not have the math background
or experience to challenge a well-established theory.
>> You think you can prove it wrong, (im not
>>sure if the experiment is in SR's domain of applicability or not), So
>>why dont you?
>
>I do it all the time. Currently, the focus is on it's lack of evidence,
>proving it's not science.
You "think" you do it all the time. Another crucial distinction you
need to realise. Just because you think so does not mean its true.
Currently you have 2 supporters to fight the good fight with, but with
every post dozens of people who deal with SR in their daily lives can
explain SR to you any which way you prefer, wheras you have only one
or two examples that are flawed, to argue with.
>> Look at the glorious sucess Uncle Al has had with his
>>evotos experiment, he not only posts it in HERE, but he actually sends
>>proposals to universities.
>>
>>Why are you bothering with us, really?
>
>Because SR is a mindgame, and you are it's prey.
>To kill SR, is to end the worship to it and the worship to Einstein.
Jos, SR is not a mindfuck, its really simple. I fail to see your
problem with it, other than it being counter-intuitive.
>> You ignore the evidence
>
>I do not ignore the evidence. I just don't buy on "trust" the way
>the scientists interpreted it for their flock.
If you do not trust experiments, why should we trust yours if you ever
manage to make that 1way ruler?
>> your
>>arguments are unable to stand up to critical thought
>
>Where. Show me an error in my reasoning.
I try, oh do i try.
>
>> and you lack the
>>education required to knock SR off its well-earned high horse. You
>>also argue against evidence that is widely known to be true. Why?
>
>Because it's not true. Because it's either faked, or interpreted falsely
>(see muon), or it's not researched to the bottom yet.
Oh? Please explaim how muon decay is being incorrectly interpeted. Do
tell.
>>Oh yes, you never did explain how science has a vested interest in
>>keeping SR around.
>
>People have argued here against my success saying that they were afraid
>the technology stocks would fall, and science-support in general would
>crumble.
How would tech stocks fail? Why dont you grab a lot of intel and
announce your disproof worldwide in a medium other than usenet and
make a shitload of money? The SEC might even be amused.
Science support cannot crumble anymore. My brother made an interesting
comment to me, something along the lines of "you should have aspired
to be a baseball player instead of a physicist", when we were talking
about the baseball strikes. Says it all, really.
>> If i had a choice i would pick newtonian mechanics
>>over realativistic mechanics for the sheer ease of use alone, but i
>>dont have that choice because one is only an approximatation.
>
>Because you "..must trust..", i see. I know what you're thinking.
>"This cannot be true, he must be a nut, even when i can't find a single
>flaw in his reasoning, and he totally wipes the floor with axioms, he
>is a nut... ".
I only trust these people because i know they have more practical
experience with SR than i do. Until i have the experience to know for
myself, i defer to their judgement. You seem to feel you dont have to
trust anyone else's judgement.
>
>Use your head, ask for evidence before you believe on faith. Do you think
>how SR is build up ?
Faith is faith, an unquestionable belief. I question my beliefs all
the time. Why dont you?
If i was so inclined i could do some of the more advanced calculations
myself. Since you must know SR inside out in order to prove it wrong,
>
>>Note to Uncle Al: When i make it through my first 4 years of being an
>>undergrad, and nobody has done your experiment, i will, assuming i
>>have the knowledge base TO do it.
>
>First try to build a cart that can move at a significant fraction of
>lightspeed. Light is pretty fast (in a vacuum, the issue in SR).
I can. Hows about a soda can? Finding the propulsion system to do the
pushing, is a nifty engineering challenge, however.
I still dont see why you find somewhat a kindred spirit in uncle al,
he is proposing an experiment that could crush relativity yet you
ignore it. Why? Must be because he acknowledges that relativity is
pretty damn accurate.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>>From: Eric Gisse jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org
>
>>A one-way measuring aparratus? As far as i know there is no such
>>things.
>
>try a ruler.
>>I immediately see a problem. There is no such thing as a "one way
>>measuring device", in order to measure something you have to know when
>>the other end of your "ruler" has reached what you are measuring.
>
>The "one way ruler"
><LOL>
>You just wish to remain clueless huh?
>
>James M Driscoll Jr
>Spaceman
>http://www.realspaceman.com
Cmon driscoll, even a tire man should grep this.
How do you measure a line if you only know the first point?
Spaceman
>Cmon driscoll, even a tire man should grep this.
>
>How do you measure a line if you only know the first point?
Nobody ever asked for such Eric.
Why do you twist so badly?
nobody asked about a line with only one point.
Your twist is null.
A ruler measures one way motion if desired.
You are a fool!
josX
><snip backhistory>
>
>>>A one-way measuring aparratus? As far as i know there is no such
>>>things.
>>
>>There is'nt.
>>
>>>I immediately see a problem. There is no such thing as a "one way
>>>measuring device", in order to measure something you have to know when
>>>the other end of your "ruler" has reached what you are measuring.
>>
>>yup...
>
>So you base your rantings of SR being false because of an experiment
>that cannot be done? Interesting...
Yes, think about it.
>>>You cannot know the length of a line segment without knowing the
>>>position of the beginning and the end. Could you explain how you would
>>>work around that little problem, at least in theory, since the
>>>engineering aspect is not there yet?
>>
>>Measure it up, if it's difficult, ask some construction people. They
>>will build the thing anyway, so, it's only natural to ask them.
>
>I would like to take this time to point out that if you do not know
>where a line segment ends, you cannot determine its length either in
>theory or fact.
Still with us?
Ofcourse i can determine the length of some track. Can you know the
distance between Chicago and New York ? No?
>>>>>If this means so much to you, why dont you do the experiment yourself?
>>>>
>>>>Technology can't do it right now.
>>>
>>>Yet you claim SR is false based on the experiment that cannot be done
>>>with current technology.
>>
>>I claim it false because of unsolved paradox, i claim in unscience because
>>of nonexistant evidence for it's base premise: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-
>>-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
>
>You cannot measure a line segment with only the beginning point. Bzzt.
No, but we have both point. What is YOUR point with this. Being a pain
in the ass?
I think you totally lost any substance here. What is the problem with
one-way measuring, what is this nonsenes about "only know one point".
SR is hardly simple. In fact, it is extremely complicated because of
all the obfuscation necesary to delude.
> If i were Einstein on his quest to create a theory of
>confusion, i would move towards requiring a lot more calculus, a lot
>more. Guess he wasnt that smart, making a theory that can be
>simplified down to a very small and easy pile of equations.
He was much smarter in this than you think. What did he do? He makes
you accept paradox before you know it, and thus he suspends all logic.
Where? Can you find the first paradox in SR?
>>>>>You obviously care about this a lot, because you wont shut the fuck up
>>>>>about it.
>>>>
>>>>:)
>>>>
>>>>> Why dont you go to a University and ask nicely without
>>>>>talking about "conspiracy" and "the man" holding you down?
>>>>
>>>>To the people who teach this stuff year in year out to students.
>>>>You think that will make an ounce of differnce?
>>>>Maybe you do, i don't.
>>>
>>>If you present yourself well, im willing to expect that you would at
>>>least get the appearance of people paying attention to you.
>>
>>What good is that?
>
>Nobody pays attention to raving lunatics. You obviously have no
>experience in things like job interviews or asking a favor from
>someone.
>
>>>>>When you finish the experiment, do tell us what the results are.
>>>>
>>>>I certainly will. In the meantime, shall we suspend this theory which
>>>>depends upon undone experimental facts ?
>>>
>>>The problem with your posts is that you ignore experiments that depend
>>>on the validity of SR.
>>
>>Such as?
>
>For starters, GPS, nuclear reactors, particle accellerators, large
>CRTs, orbital calculations, long distance space travel...
bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!, bullshit, bullshit.
><snip>
>>>Look, you obviously think something is wrong with SR. Thats fine, many
>>>people have thought that.
>>
>>But then they concluded "must trust", and got brainwashed into the silly
>>thing.
>
>Only at undergraduate levels, when you do not have the math background
>or experience to challenge a well-established theory.
How smart to push relativity on these young and defenseless minds.
Smart thinking. When they are older, they think twice about destroying
the field they have invested into.
>>> You think you can prove it wrong, (im not
>>>sure if the experiment is in SR's domain of applicability or not), So
>>>why dont you?
>>
>>I do it all the time. Currently, the focus is on it's lack of evidence,
>>proving it's not science.
>
>You "think" you do it all the time. Another crucial distinction you
>need to realise. Just because you think so does not mean its true.
>Currently you have 2 supporters to fight the good fight with, but with
>every post dozens of people who deal with SR in their daily lives can
>explain SR to you any which way you prefer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's called "brainwashing".
> wheras you have only one
>or two examples that are flawed, to argue with.
No, i have many examples, and to top it all off, you have no evidence
for the postulate from which it all hangs, and to make it worse, there
was zero evidence for all of this when SR got accepted as a theory.
>>> Look at the glorious sucess Uncle Al has had with his
>>>evotos experiment, he not only posts it in HERE, but he actually sends
>>>proposals to universities.
>>>
>>>Why are you bothering with us, really?
>>
>>Because SR is a mindgame, and you are it's prey.
>>To kill SR, is to end the worship to it and the worship to Einstein.
>
>Jos, SR is not a mindfuck, its really simple. I fail to see your
>problem with it, other than it being counter-intuitive.
It's counter-science, for instance.
All things get to be intuitive given experience with it. WHy is SR
counter-intuitive? Because there is no /experience/ condensed into it
(that means: base-experiments, it's not based upon experimental results,
it's based upon arbitrary postulates (fantasies)). The lightpostulate
is wrong, because the relative-speed of an object relative to you changes
when you change your speed, this is a function of your speed-change, and
has nothing to do with the object. You understand what i'm saying ?
>>> You ignore the evidence
>>
>>I do not ignore the evidence. I just don't buy on "trust" the way
>>the scientists interpreted it for their flock.
>
>If you do not trust experiments
I do. Problem is, you have none to base SR on. See? You are mindfucking
with the readers right now. I say "i don't trust the interpretation",
and you respond with "if you don't trust experiments".
> why should we trust yours if you ever
>manage to make that 1way ruler?
You don't have to, you can do it yourself if we ever get the technology.
>>> your
>>>arguments are unable to stand up to critical thought
>>
>>Where. Show me an error in my reasoning.
>
>I try, oh do i try.
Try harder.
>>> and you lack the
>>>education required to knock SR off its well-earned high horse. You
>>>also argue against evidence that is widely known to be true. Why?
>>
>>Because it's not true. Because it's either faked, or interpreted falsely
>>(see muon), or it's not researched to the bottom yet.
>
>Oh? Please explaim how muon decay is being incorrectly interpeted. Do
>tell.
Muons race through the atmosphere, they are not inertial observers who
are in a state of rest. They get bombarded because they move.
>>>Oh yes, you never did explain how science has a vested interest in
>>>keeping SR around.
>>
>>People have argued here against my success saying that they were afraid
>>the technology stocks would fall, and science-support in general would
>>crumble.
>
>How would tech stocks fail? Why dont you grab a lot of intel and
>announce your disproof worldwide in a medium other than usenet and
>make a shitload of money? The SEC might even be amused.
Why would i buy now at high price and sell at low price?
Which medium would that be, there is no freedom outside usenet, i already
wrote to newspaper and SciAm.
>Science support cannot crumble anymore. My brother made an interesting
>comment to me, something along the lines of "you should have aspired
>to be a baseball player instead of a physicist", when we were talking
>about the baseball strikes. Says it all, really.
It was not me who claimed the stocks would fall.
>>> If i had a choice i would pick newtonian mechanics
>>>over realativistic mechanics for the sheer ease of use alone, but i
>>>dont have that choice because one is only an approximatation.
>>
>>Because you "..must trust..", i see. I know what you're thinking.
>>"This cannot be true, he must be a nut, even when i can't find a single
>>flaw in his reasoning, and he totally wipes the floor with axioms, he
>>is a nut... ".
>
>I only trust these people because i know they have more practical
>experience with SR than i do. Until i have the experience to know for
>myself, i defer to their judgement. You seem to feel you dont have to
>trust anyone else's judgement.
True. Hard to brainwash. You just said you are a sheep, asking for the
culling. Why. Why don't you think. Does this make like easy, is there
satisfaction into believing in a group-thing, does it make you the same
as your peers...
>>
>>Use your head, ask for evidence before you believe on faith. Do you think
>>how SR is build up ?
>
>Faith is faith, an unquestionable belief. I question my beliefs all
>the time. Why dont you?
? You just say you defer judgement to your superiors.
>If i was so inclined i could do some of the more advanced calculations
>myself. Since you must know SR inside out in order to prove it wrong,
No you don't. In fact, on hearing the second postulate you should know
it's wrong, and you can proof it wrong if you have some brains.
>>>Note to Uncle Al: When i make it through my first 4 years of being an
>>>undergrad, and nobody has done your experiment, i will, assuming i
>>>have the knowledge base TO do it.
>>
>>First try to build a cart that can move at a significant fraction of
>>lightspeed. Light is pretty fast (in a vacuum, the issue in SR).
>
>I can. Hows about a soda can? Finding the propulsion system to do the
>pushing, is a nifty engineering challenge, however.
>
>I still dont see why you find somewhat a kindred spirit in uncle al,
I don't.
>he is proposing an experiment that could crush relativity yet you
>ignore it. Why? Must be because he acknowledges that relativity is
>pretty damn accurate.
I don't read what Uncle Al says except when he talks to me. What experiment
does he propose. Why does he need one to disproof an already falsified
hypotheses, sounds like he's just in for expanding the nonsense-base of SR.
--
jos
Aardvark
>
> SR is hardly simple. In fact, it is extremely complicated because of
> all the obfuscation necesary to delude.
No, SR is extremely simple, everything follows from 2 initial
postulates by way of some trivially simple algebra. That you find it
difficult is a reflection of your inadequacies.
One of the problems that you have to address (but of course you won't)
is that the entire edifice of relativity has been tested exhaustively,
and no exception to its predictions has ever been found. You cannot
just tinker with the Second Postulate in isolation, as it changes
everything that follows. So it is incumbent upon you to show how you
can rewrite the Second Postulate to your satisfaction, but still
ensure that the consequences and predictions of your new theory match
all the results that are known to be correct.
Good luck! A Nobel Prize awaits you.
josX
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<al7403$fcq$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>>
>> SR is hardly simple. In fact, it is extremely complicated because of
>> all the obfuscation necesary to delude.
>
>No, SR is extremely simple, everything follows from 2 initial
>postulates by way of some trivially simple algebra. That you find it
>difficult is a reflection of your inadequacies.
SR is both extremely simple and very complex. I know it's simple really,
but if you know it as simple, then you already it's wrong.
>One of the problems that you have to address (but of course you won't)
But ofcourse i do.
>is that the entire edifice of relativity has been tested exhaustively,
No, it's not.
>and no exception to its predictions has ever been found.
Tested by the faithfull i trust. Who accepted it on faith already, and
now in order to keep *that* quiet, they gotto play.
> You cannot
>just tinker with the Second Postulate in isolation, as it changes
>everything that follows.
I tinker with whatever i want.
> So it is incumbent upon you to show how you
>can rewrite the Second Postulate to your satisfaction,
Fine: c'=/=c, done. Now go on derive rational physics, because that's
what follows from my counter postulate.
Nothing behaves like the second postulate, and light doesn't do it either,
and SR is the proof of that.
> but still
>ensure that the consequences and predictions of your new theory match
>all the results that are known to be correct.
Math-model them. You don't know something until you see it, the "it
predicts unknown results" is a fallacy.
>Good luck! A Nobel Prize awaits you.
I don't want such an insult. Do you really think i am going to be caught
by a Nobel-prize and let me be suckered into this stupid game ?
--
jos
Spaceman
>One of the problems that you have to address (but of course you won't)
>is that the entire edifice of relativity has been tested exhaustively,
>and no exception to its predictions has ever been found.
Wrong,
a simple hourglass blows it away.
and
The Earth spin laughs at it even more.
Randy Poe
>
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>
> >> Newton's F=m*a is proven, his wording of it perhaps not *completely*, but
> >> he meant to put F=m*a into words.
> >
> >Taking m to be the rest mass of a body, Newton's formula is falsified
> >everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running.
>
> Not true:
> 1. These people are the religious faithfull.
> 2. Too much unknowns about the particles.
Are you saying F, m or a is unknown, and why?
> How many 1gram bodies do you accelerate liar?
> None, they are mere lone particles.
> And bodies feel friction, undoubtedly, the particles accelerated in
> the accelerator are encountering a lot of small stuff when zapping round.
So then they aren't gaining in KE, right? Is that your
prediction? That when a particle physicist says "I collided
two 1 GeV particles together" and "I collided two 2 GeV
particles together" you are saying that they didn't differ
in energy by all that much, but really only had 1/2 m*v^2?
Careful, you might make a statement that can be checked against
reality.
- Randy
Spaceman
>Are you saying F, m or a is unknown, and why?
What causes Muon decay?
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Newton's F=m*a is proven, his wording of it perhaps not *completely*, but
>>>> he meant to put F=m*a into words.
>>>
>>>Taking m to be the rest mass of a body, Newton's formula is falsified
>>>everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running.
>>
>>Not true:
>>1. These people are the religious faithfull.
>>2. Too much unknowns about the particles.
>
>Are you saying F, m or a is unknown, and why?
Too much unknowns about the particles.
>>How many 1gram bodies do you accelerate liar?
>>None, they are mere lone particles.
>>And bodies feel friction, undoubtedly, the particles accelerated in
>>the accelerator are encountering a lot of small stuff when zapping round.
>
>So then they aren't gaining in KE, right? Is that your
>prediction?
Could be. Particle accelerators are operated by untrusted people.
Would you trust the Pope in an experiment that is about to proof the
existance of God ?
This situation is exactly the same almost, certainly on it's key points.
> That when a particle physicist says "I collided
>two 1 GeV particles together" and "I collided two 2 GeV
>particles together" you are saying that they didn't differ
>in energy by all that much, but really only had 1/2 m*v^2?
>
>Careful, you might make a statement that can be checked against
>reality.
How the fuck should i know how particle accelerator phycisist rig their
results into complyance with the Holy Doctrine that was accepted on faith
before.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al8dj6$173$8...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> Could be. Particle accelerators are operated by untrusted people.
[snip]
> How the fuck should i know how particle accelerator phycisist rig their
> results into complyance with the Holy Doctrine that was accepted on faith
> before.
Paranoia.
You *must* be right then.
Congratulations.
Dirk Vdm
josX
<snip>
>Paranoia.
>You *must* be right then.
>Congratulations.
Gullability. Your side *must* always win, then (right, or wrong).
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al8f81$4fs$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Yes. We, the gullAble.
We have the majority.
Hehe, we love it.
We have the books.
We have the money.
We decide on the Truth.
We have it all.
You are on your own, fighting a fight you cannot possibly win.
Virtually alone.
Taste the letters: A L O N E.
Or am I mistaken?
Should we not count Spacegoof The Smart One as
The One On Your Side?
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >>>josX wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Newton's F=m*a is proven, his wording of it perhaps not *completely*, but
> >>>> he meant to put F=m*a into words.
> >>>
> >>>Taking m to be the rest mass of a body, Newton's formula is falsified
> >>>everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running.
> >>
> >>Not true:
> >>1. These people are the religious faithfull.
> >>2. Too much unknowns about the particles.
> >
> >Are you saying F, m or a is unknown, and why?
>
> Too much unknowns about the particles.
Once again, we are claiming that F=m*a can be tested for
particles. Measure F, measure m, measure a, compare.
You say not.
Which part is unknown?
> >>How many 1gram bodies do you accelerate liar?
> >>None, they are mere lone particles.
> >>And bodies feel friction, undoubtedly, the particles accelerated in
> >>the accelerator are encountering a lot of small stuff when zapping round.
> >
> >So then they aren't gaining in KE, right? Is that your
> >prediction?
>
> Could be.
When asked to follow one of your claims to the next step,
you refuse to be pinned down on a prediction.
OK, you just said the bodies feel friction, and that's why
they don't get any faster than c. They've reached a steady
state. No acceleration because of opposing force. No increase
in energy. Take a stand. Do you believe this or not?
> Particle accelerators are operated by untrusted people.
Fine. I'm asking for you to trust the particles themselves,
and say what you think is happening as we get close to c.
If the physicists weren't part of the big lie, what would
they observe about the energy?
> Would you trust the Pope in an experiment that is about to proof the
> existance of God ?
>
> This situation is exactly the same almost, certainly on it's key points.
You mean like the key point about what the instruments will
observe? Tell me the instrument which you could hold next
to the Pope to verify or invalidate his observation.
> > That when a particle physicist says "I collided
> >two 1 GeV particles together" and "I collided two 2 GeV
> >particles together" you are saying that they didn't differ
> >in energy by all that much, but really only had 1/2 m*v^2?
> >
> >Careful, you might make a statement that can be checked against
> >reality.
>
> How the fuck should i know how particle accelerator phycisist rig
Bzzzzt. I didn't ask about the Big Lie. I asked what
the particle is doing. Consider two particles, one moving
at 99.9% of the speed of light and the other at 99.95% of
the speed of light. You are saying that we had to work really
hard to get the speed from .999c to .9995c because most of
the additional energy went into friction. You are saying the
particle doesn't have much additional KE.
The Big Liars are saying there is a great deal more KE.
Which one do you agree with? Do you believe your own
nonsense or not? When you say "energy is lost to friction"
do you believe "energy is lost to friction" or do you
believe, when pressed, "I was just kidding, the energy
isn't lost to friction and you'll find out that the
particle has it after all."
- Randy
TB
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
> >Are you saying F, m or a is unknown, and why?
>
> What causes Muon decay?
The pressure of uncharged, undetectable free electrons in outer space.
-- TB
Spaceman
>The pressure of uncharged, undetectable free electrons in outer space.
(undetectable with todays tech)
yes.
It's works much better than your "nothingess"
and works in all your "proven" experiments of relativity and others.
You got nothing.
I got a Universe.
and ..
I have one that "has cause for motion"
You have magical nothingess causing things.
<LOL>
YOU ARE A DANG FOOL!
worship the clock fault all you want.
I always need a good laugh.
<LOL>
Robert J. Kolker
TB wrote:
>> The pressure of uncharged, undetectable free electrons in outer space.
An electron has a charge. Anytime, anywhere.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>An electron has a charge. Anytime, anywhere.
Explain "electron charge"
You have no clue what "charge" is .
nevermind how electrons can have it.
(or not)
again,
you ignore.
the main fact.
2 uncharged masses DO NOT ATTRACT NOR REPEL!
you lose as usual.
If you had "basically no motion" how would you detect an electrons charge?
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:al8f81$4fs$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >Paranoia.
>> >You *must* be right then.
>> >Congratulations.
>>
>> Gullability. Your side *must* always win, then (right, or wrong).
>
>Yes. We, the gullAble.
>We have the majority.
>Hehe, we love it.
>We have the books.
>We have the money.
>We decide on the Truth.
>We have it all.
Except for the truth.
>You are on your own, fighting a fight you cannot possibly win.
Watch me win it every day.
My worst enemy is RSI. Good thing i type on a dvorak keyboard (happy
hacking keyboard).
>Virtually alone.
>Taste the letters: A L O N E.
>Or am I mistaken?
>Should we not count Spacegoof The Smart One as
>The One On Your Side?
Ofcourse, and he is not the only one against SR.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Randy Poe wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>>>josX wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Newton's F=m*a is proven, his wording of it perhaps not *completely*, but
>>>>>> he meant to put F=m*a into words.
>>>>>
>>>>>Taking m to be the rest mass of a body, Newton's formula is falsified
>>>>>everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running.
>>>>
>>>>Not true:
>>>>1. These people are the religious faithfull.
>>>>2. Too much unknowns about the particles.
>>>
>>>Are you saying F, m or a is unknown, and why?
>>
>>Too much unknowns about the particles.
>
>Once again, we are claiming that F=m*a can be tested for
>particles. Measure F, measure m, measure a, compare.
>
>You say not.
>
>Which part is unknown?
Too much, and the people running it are not trustable, because they are
the faithfull, the biased.
>>>>How many 1gram bodies do you accelerate liar?
>>>>None, they are mere lone particles.
>>>>And bodies feel friction, undoubtedly, the particles accelerated in
>>>>the accelerator are encountering a lot of small stuff when zapping round.
>>>
>>>So then they aren't gaining in KE, right? Is that your
>>>prediction?
>>
>>Could be.
>
>When asked to follow one of your claims to the next step,
>you refuse to be pinned down on a prediction.
>
>OK, you just said the bodies feel friction, and that's why
>they don't get any faster than c. They've reached a steady
>state. No acceleration because of opposing force. No increase
>in energy. Take a stand. Do you believe this or not?
It's likely. If we had more power in the accelerators we might break
c, then again, we already might have.
>> Particle accelerators are operated by untrusted people.
>
>Fine. I'm asking for you to trust the particles themselves,
>and say what you think is happening as we get close to c.
Do i talk to thes particles, can i meet them in a bar ?
>If the physicists weren't part of the big lie, what would
>they observe about the energy?
But they are aren't they.
And, particle-accelerators work for me, hardly for you: objects
going at confirmed near 2c velocities, falsifying SR because it
says that cannot happen in reality.
>> Would you trust the Pope in an experiment that is about to proof the
>> existance of God ?
>>
>> This situation is exactly the same almost, certainly on it's key points.
>
>You mean like the key point about what the instruments will
>observe? Tell me the instrument which you could hold next
>to the Pope to verify or invalidate his observation.
I am not using the popes words as proof, but "things exist", and "miracles
happen". Just ask the church.
>>> That when a particle physicist says "I collided
>>>two 1 GeV particles together" and "I collided two 2 GeV
>>>particles together" you are saying that they didn't differ
>>>in energy by all that much, but really only had 1/2 m*v^2?
>>>
>>>Careful, you might make a statement that can be checked against
>>>reality.
>>
>>How the fuck should i know how particle accelerator phycisist rig
>
>Bzzzzt. I didn't ask about the Big Lie. I asked what
>the particle is doing.
You ARE dense aren't you.
> Consider two particles, one moving
>at 99.9% of the speed of light and the other at 99.95% of
>the speed of light. You are saying that we had to work really
>hard to get the speed from .999c to .9995c because most of
>the additional energy went into friction. You are saying the
>particle doesn't have much additional KE.
No, i just say there will be some friction, currently we might be
at a speed limit well below c, or well above, it's not likely
that we actually have c as the speed limit.
>The Big Liars are saying there is a great deal more KE.
Ofcourse.
>Which one do you agree with? Do you believe your own
>nonsense or not? When you say "energy is lost to friction"
>do you believe "energy is lost to friction" or do you
>believe, when pressed, "I was just kidding, the energy
>isn't lost to friction and you'll find out that the
>particle has it after all."
How are particles going to get more energy when they move?
Here: when you keep pushing them around, you will pick up
other particles in your stream, making your stream bigger,
that's where your "mass increase" is coming from (probably).
--
jos
Tris
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> >From: "TB" tbrow...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com
>
> >The pressure of uncharged, undetectable free electrons in outer space.
>
> (undetectable with todays tech)
> yes.
Ah, so you require evidence for some claims but not for others?
And coincidentally the claims you require evidence for are those of your
opponents?
Interesting...
<snip>
Tris
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:ZwPd9.104831$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Don't forget, 'We' will all suffer when the Truth is out. Let's enjoy
relativity while it lasts!
AllYou!
> >So then they aren't gaining in KE, right? Is that your
> >prediction?
>
> Could be. Particle accelerators are operated by untrusted people.
> Would you trust the Pope in an experiment that is about to proof the
> existance of God ?
So only people who know nothing of physics can be trusted to operate and
interpret the results of a particle accelerator?
And why is it that everyone to date who has ever operated a particle
accelerator, from countries all over the world, and some of them who would
love to prove that a Jew is wrong, have yet to come forward and say that
they have obrained results that are contract to SR?
What's your theory there?
AllYou!
> >Which part is unknown?
>
> Too much, and the people running it are not trustable, because they are
> the faithfull, the biased.
How do you know that? Do you have any evidence at all for this theory? If
not, it is an invalid theory.
Spaceman
>Ah, so you require evidence for some claims but not for others?
???
twisting again huh?
I do np such thing Trister.
>And coincidentally the claims you require evidence for are those of your
>opponents?
REAL experiments that back up relativity also
back up my "free electrons fill space"
It is up to you to prove that wrong.
BTW:
to prove that wrong means you would need to also prove relativity wrong
for my statement fits all "Real" experiments to date.
you just refuse to accept the facts I state.
such as
The clock malfunctioned.
Do you really thing an atomic clock "owns and runs time"
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:al8dj6$173$8...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>So then they aren't gaining in KE, right? Is that your
>>>prediction?
>>
>>Could be. Particle accelerators are operated by untrusted people.
>>Would you trust the Pope in an experiment that is about to proof the
>>existance of God ?
>
>So only people who know nothing of physics can be trusted to operate and
>interpret the results of a particle accelerator?
Strawman. Simple unbiased people will do: people who only take truth from
experiments, not from someones imagination. People who will reject paradox,
and not try to cover it up.
>And why is it that everyone to date who has ever operated a particle
>accelerator, from countries all over the world, and some of them who would
>love to prove that a Jew is wrong, have yet to come forward and say that
>they have obrained results that are contract to SR?
>
>What's your theory there?
They would cut into their own pie/future.
--
jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:3d785d76$0$11977$e4fe...@dreader1.news.xs4all.nl...
>>>Which part is unknown?
>>
>> Too much, and the people running it are not trustable, because they are
>> the faithfull, the biased.
>
>How do you know that?
They accepted SR, while it had no evidence in 1905, they accepted it even
though it was paradoxical.
> Do you have any evidence at all for this theory? If
>not, it is an invalid theory.
I have: no particle-accelerators in 1905, no cesium clocks in 1905, no
muons in 1905, no 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
equipment in 1905 (and not now either).
--
jos
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>
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!
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>Randy Poe wrote:
> >>>josX wrote:
> >>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >>>>>josX wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Newton's F=m*a is proven, his wording of it perhaps not *completely*, but
> >>>>>> he meant to put F=m*a into words.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Taking m to be the rest mass of a body, Newton's formula is falsified
> >>>>>everytime a high energy accerlator is set to running.
> >>>>
> >>>>Not true:
> >>>>1. These people are the religious faithfull.
> >>>>2. Too much unknowns about the particles.
> >>>
> >>>Are you saying F, m or a is unknown, and why?
> >>
> >>Too much unknowns about the particles.
> >
> >Once again, we are claiming that F=m*a can be tested for
> >particles. Measure F, measure m, measure a, compare.
> >
> >You say not.
> >
> >Which part is unknown?
>
> Too much,
So noted. There are three numbers in question, josX claims
we are missing some knowledge about these three numbers but
refuses to be pinned down as to whether any of them is
in error.
> >OK, you just said the bodies feel friction, and that's why
> >they don't get any faster than c. They've reached a steady
> >state. No acceleration because of opposing force. No increase
> >in energy. Take a stand. Do you believe this or not?
>
> >If the physicists weren't part of the big lie, what would
> >they observe about the energy?
So noted that when pressed, josX refuses to predict whether
the particles will have a lot more energy or just a little.
He does not have the strength of his convictions and is
afraid of quantitative prediction.
The rest of this post made no prediction about the relationship
of particle energy to velocity, despite several leading
questions.
- Randy
Tris
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> >From: "Tris" nu...@127.0.0.1
>
> >Ah, so you require evidence for some claims but not for others?
>
> ???
> twisting again huh?
> I do np such thing Trister.
Ha ha.
No evidence for electrons filling up space.
No evidence for universes being inside each electron.
And yet the theory that doesn't require the electrons is wrong.
> >And coincidentally the claims you require evidence for are those of your
> >opponents?
>
> REAL experiments that back up relativity also
> back up my "free electrons fill space"
Ah, so you do know of some REAL experiments. Come on, give us references.
> It is up to you to prove that wrong.
> BTW:
> to prove that wrong means you would need to also prove relativity wrong
> for my statement fits all "Real" experiments to date.
>
> you just refuse to accept the facts I state.
> such as
> The clock malfunctioned.
>
> Do you really thing an atomic clock "owns and runs time"
Straw man, I never made such a claim.
Spaceman
>Ha ha.
>
>No evidence for electrons filling up space.
No,
actually plenty.
you see the Sun don't you?
the waves are filling the space in between.
Or you would not see it at all.
and
light will not be seen without electrons making such.
>No evidence for universes being inside each electron.
No evidence against it either!
<LOL>
sorry .
you still lose.
>And yet the theory that doesn't require the electrons is wrong.
Yes VERY WRONG
free electrons can not be "just ignored"
>Straw man, I never made such a claim.
Bullshit,
Each and everytime you say relatvity is 100% correct
and self consitant you are stating that atomic clocks "regulate" time.
I guess it's just too simple for you to understand "why" you are wrong
poor Tris.
lost in "spacetime"
AllYou!
> >> Too much, and the people running it are not trustable, because they are
> >> the faithfull, the biased.
> >
> >How do you know that?
>
> They accepted SR, while it had no evidence in 1905, they accepted it even
> though it was paradoxical.
First, if you understood the definition of a paradox, you'd realise that
this statement is not evidence of what you claim. josX fuxxbabbles again by
making up his own definitions. Want to try again? How do you know that?
Second, SR was accepted only after evidence was obtained that demonstrated
that it might be vailid. That's been explained to you before yet you repeat
the opposite. Therefore, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that
you lie. You cannot be believed. You have zero credability and once again
lose the argument.
> > Do you have any evidence at all for this theory?
If
> >not, it is an invalid theory.
>
> I have: no particle-accelerators in 1905, no cesium clocks in 1905, no
> muons in 1905, no
1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
> equipment in 1905 (and not now either).
Again, fuzzbabble. I asked if you have evidence of your theory that the
people who currently run the particle accelerators are untrustworthy. you
proceed to babble about 1905. Once again, random babblings and lies. You
have no credibility and are a loser. You cannot support your own theories
by even your own standards much less proper ones.
AllYou!
> >>Could be. Particle accelerators are operated by untrusted people.
> >>Would you trust the Pope in an experiment that is about to proof the
> >>existance of God ?
> >
> >So only people who know nothing of physics can be trusted to operate and
> >interpret the results of a particle accelerator?
>
> Strawman. Simple unbiased people will do: people who only take truth from
> experiments, not from someones imagination. People who will reject
paradox,
> and not try to cover it up.
Fuzzbabble again. You fail to address the point by posting fuzzbabble. I
asked a simple question to which you failed to respond because you know it
leads to your demise. You once again proof that you have no credability and
that you engage in fuzzbabble. Want to proof otherwise? Answer the
question.
> >And why is it that everyone to date who has ever operated a particle
> >accelerator, from countries all over the world, and some of them who
would
> >love to prove that a Jew is wrong, have yet to come forward and say that
> >they have obtained results that are contrary to SR?
> >
> >What's your theory there?
>
> They would cut into their own pie/future.
More obfuscation and fuzzbabble. Answer the question. It's very simple.
You've accused all of these people. all over the world of lying. Why would
they do so. Some of them have a great incentive to proof Einstein wrong.
Why would THEY lie?
What's the matter? Can't answer? Cat got your tongue? What's your theory?
josX
Because too much is unknown.
>>>OK, you just said the bodies feel friction, and that's why
>>>they don't get any faster than c. They've reached a steady
>>>state. No acceleration because of opposing force. No increase
>>>in energy. Take a stand. Do you believe this or not?
>>
>>>If the physicists weren't part of the big lie, what would
>>>they observe about the energy?
>
>So noted that when pressed, josX refuses to predict whether
>the particles will have a lot more energy or just a little.
Only experiment can tell, only unbiased sources will be trustworthy,
not the words of priests who researched a given miracle, not the words
of phycisists researching SR which they already adopted on faith alone,
without bother to it's ever present pradoxes.
>He does not have the strength of his convictions and is
>afraid of quantitative prediction.
Just cautious, should i be like Einstein and repeat his mistakes ?
>The rest of this post made no prediction about the relationship
>of particle energy to velocity, despite several leading
>questions.
I said that the increase in mass when you keep pushing the particles
around could very well be that more particles end up in the stream
you push around, the same particles which produce the drag in fact,
making very high velocity harder.
--
jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alacki$8ng$6...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>> Too much, and the people running it are not trustable, because they are
>>>> the faithfull, the biased.
>>>
>>>How do you know that?
>>
>>They accepted SR, while it had no evidence in 1905, they accepted it even
>>though it was paradoxical.
>
>First, if you understood the definition of a paradox, you'd realise that
>this statement is not evidence of what you claim. josX fuxxbabbles again by
>making up his own definitions. Want to try again? How do you know that?
Paradox: stark and blatand contradiction, despite fuzzbabbles to confuse
and superficially explain it.
Do you notice what you need to make SR a science:
(this is funny:)
- redefine 'science' as if it only needs "no falsification"
- redefine 'paradox' as if it means "not real contradiction"
Funny costumers the SRians, speak their own slang so as not to be noticed.
>Second, SR was accepted only after evidence was obtained that demonstrated
>that it might be vailid.
Untrue. No evidence of postulate-2 was ever found, and will never be found
either, i will predict that right here, call be 'a god' later. Then again,
please don't, we have enough of that shit.
> That's been explained to you before yet you repeat
>the opposite. Therefore, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that
>you lie. You cannot be believed. You have zero credability and once again
>lose the argument.
You are cheap. Blargh.
>>> Do you have any evidence at all for this theory? If
>>>not, it is an invalid theory.
>>
>> I have: no particle-accelerators in 1905, no cesium clocks in 1905, no
>> muons in 1905, no 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum
>> equipment in 1905 (and not now either).
>
>Again, fuzzbabble. I asked if you have evidence of your theory that the
>people who currently run the particle accelerators are untrustworthy. you
>proceed to babble about 1905. Once again, random babblings and lies. You
>have no credibility and are a loser. You cannot support your own theories
>by even your own standards much less proper ones.
Don't you see the relevance of 1905 to current physics, or do you just pretend
not to. There they changed physics into a religion, they shouldn't have. Now
we must change it back, and leave the nutcases without resourses they have
abused.
--
jos