Debunking the "brilliance" of the suposed supergenius.
josX
Let's start with the worst/best ;-):
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
-Albert Einstein
I guess i could stop after this one, but let's examine a few more.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
-Albert Einstein
!
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods"
-Albert Einstein
Thinks there is no such thing as truth.
Note that Einstein does just that, disqualifying many decades of real
research, on the basis of a fantastical fantasy (two actually). Maybe
this is a kind of subconsious admission that Einstein can't decide with
fantasy on what is true, and that he feels to be a fool for trying this.
Maybe he heard us anti-relativists (objectivists) laughing at his ideas.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"
-Albert Einstein
Just dumn.
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit
with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
relativity."
-Albert Einstein
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
comprehensible."
-Albert Einstein
His from experience dislodged mind.
Ofcourse there are some nice quotes about peace, but peace is not
the bisnis of physics. If you have no physics substance, or /real/
research going, i guess you have little recourse then to try to be
a public darling.
Einstein was not a smart man, anything but that in fact. You don't do
research on the basis of fantasy postulates, and then spin these fantasy's
into convulated theories while there is every likelyhood of the original
postulates being wrong if not completely impossible. And then they even
contradict (lightspeed constancy and acceleration/gravity equivalence).
And then there are perfectly reasonable explanations for seeming lightspeed
"constancy" and gravity/acceleration producing the same results on a mass
scale).
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ank6hs$2gq$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Not everything he said is as brilliant:
> Let's start with the worst/best ;-):
This is one that you will certainly find UTTERLY STUPID:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove
me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Right?
Dirk Vdm
Tris
Obviously that means that everything else he said was wrong too. Wow! I
didn't realise it was so simple to disprove a theory!
Do you read what you post?
VVVV
josX wrote in message ...
VVVV
Tris wrote in message ...
Spaceman
>This is one that you will certainly find UTTERLY STUPID:
>
> "No amount of experimentation can ever prove
> me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
>
>Right?
Did he say that?
He must have knew how the clocks worked and was laughing
since...a single clock (other than the atoic clock) can prove him wrong
HA HA!
the same way I do it all the "time".
Right?
:)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20021004102310...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> >From: "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
>
> >This is one that you will certainly find UTTERLY STUPID:
> >
> > "No amount of experimentation can ever prove
> > me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
> >
> >Right?
>
> Did he say that?
Yes.
>
> He must have knew how the clocks worked and was laughing
> since...a single clock (other than the atoic clock) can prove him wrong
> HA HA!
> the same way I do it all the "time".
> Right?
The same way, right.
Like I said before, you and josX make a fine pair.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>The same way, right.
>Like I said before, you and josX make a fine pair.
You make us look good!
:)
Thanks!
so,
Why do these time travel dupes still think wavespeed to all can be the same
to all, even after a simple counter-proof has been posted many times over?
AllYou!
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
> -Albert Einstein
Good joke.
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
> -Albert Einstein
IOW, the ability to reason is more important than the ability to memorize.
I'll agree with AE on this one.
> "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge
is
> shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods"
> -Albert Einstein
> Thinks there is no such thing as truth.
No, he just thought that mortals were incapable of judging it. See?
Re-read his words and come back when you can understand them. It's our
ability to now this and therefore continually try to get as close as
possible to understanding what truth is that separates man from other
animals. Only truely dumb animals simply react to their observations.
> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain;
> and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"
> -Albert Einstein
> Just dumn.
No surprise that you can't understand the meaning.
> "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour.
Sit
> with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
> relativity."
> -Albert Einstein
Doubt he said it, but if he did, great sense of humor.
> "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
> comprehensible."
> -Albert Einstein
> His from experience dislodged mind.
Only dumb animals think that they can comprehend all of natural phenomena.
They probably think it lies in kicking a soccer ball.
Spaceman
>Only dumb animals think that they can comprehend all of natural phenomena.
Dear Animal that will never make it to a higher life form,
It is the opposite.
It is animals that never "try" to learn all nature.
It is the "human that can and has been and always still will
as long as we find new things.
You are the animal that never even tried and gave up already.
You sure you are not an aardvark in reality too?
<LOL>
Marko Nieuwenhuizen
news:ank6hs$2gq$2...@news1.xs4all.nl:
> Just dumn.
ah, referring to yourself now?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20021004103315...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> >From: "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
>
> >The same way, right.
> >Like I said before, you and josX make a fine pair.
>
> You make us look good!
> :)
> Thanks!
>
>
> so,
> Why do these time travel dupes still think wavespeed to all can be the same
> to all, even after a simple counter-proof has been posted many times over?
Probably because the dupes think that their real life
experiments and measurements are more powerful
and important than assertions made by geniuses like
you and josX.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>Probably because the dupes think that their real life
>experiments and measurements are more powerful
>and important than assertions made by geniuses like
>you and josX.
Thier experiments that refuse to use any other clocks
than one type only?
<LOL>
you mean thier scam you fool!
<LOL>
One experiment does it.
They just refuse to do it ever so
the king can stay clothed in his fine linen that is not even there.
Boy you are lost in "kiss-ass" land!
Uncle Al
[snip]
recursion, Cf.: recursion.
Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
carries either four cesium atomic clocks or three rubidum atomic
clocks in orbit, with full relativistic corrections being applied.
http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
This URL cures josX infections.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
VVVV
josX wrote in message ...
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:ank6hs$2gq$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>
>> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
>> -Albert Einstein
>
>Good joke.
Kindof a long-shot to make this a joke not?
I have read before that he was known to be a plagiarist.
Albert Eintein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist|http://home.attbi.com/~xtxinc/
Albert Einstein|http://www.whitesurvival.com/Articles/einstein.htm
Jewish Individuals - Albert Einstein|http://www.wcotc.com/jews/einstein.html
Amazon.com Books Search Results|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/sear
ch-handle-url/index%3Dbooks%26field-keywords%3DEinstein%2C%20Albert%2C/r
ef%3Dbr%5Fsub%5F/103-8582639-1243830
(one link, no spaces)
>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
>> -Albert Einstein
>
>IOW, the ability to reason is more important than the ability to memorize.
>I'll agree with AE on this one.
>
>> "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
>> shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods"
>> -Albert Einstein
>> Thinks there is no such thing as truth.
>
>No, he just thought that mortals were incapable of judging it. See?
>Re-read his words and come back when you can understand them. It's our
>ability to now this and therefore continually try to get as close as
>possible to understanding what truth is that separates man from other
>animals. Only truely dumb animals simply react to their observations.
You realize you are in a catch-22 here?
Because since you (or Einstein) say "this can't be done", you are yourself
putting yourself on the seat that you claim is unatainable. This is a trick,
it's a trick to remove others from a position, by claiming there can be "no
claims" and hoping nobody notices it's you who now holds the claims, the
claim to "no claims".
>> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
>> and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"
>> -Albert Einstein
>> Just dumn.
>
>No surprise that you can't understand the meaning.
I take that as a compliment.
>> "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit
>> with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
>> relativity."
>> -Albert Einstein
>
>Doubt he said it, but if he did, great sense of humor.
Yeah, and Hitler made a joke too when he said to remove jews from Europe.
>> "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
>> comprehensible."
>> -Albert Einstein
>> His from experience dislodged mind.
>
>Only dumb animals think that they can comprehend all of natural phenomena.
>They probably think it lies in kicking a soccer ball.
And you are now making a very farfetched claim about "all of natural
phenomena", and even "all of the future" by claiming no-one can comprehend
natural phenomena. You put yourself on the seat of ultimate claim, by
claiming no-one can comprehend nature. It's a trick (i see it as a trick
at least).
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> Not everything he said is as brilliant:
> Let's start with the worst/best ;-):
Let's instead use the "best" of Jos 'josX' Boersema:
"i thought i was the anti-christ"
- Jos Boersema
"the thought of killing myself even crossed my dummy mind"
- Jos Boersema
"The "escape velocity" is a non-existant entity, at the very least for
standard physics it is"
- Jos Boersema
Got any more good ones, Jos?
AllYou!
> >No, he just thought that mortals were incapable of judging it. See?
> >Re-read his words and come back when you can understand them. It's our
> >ability to now this and therefore continually try to get as close as
> >possible to understanding what truth is that separates man from other
> >animals. Only truely dumb animals simply react to their observations.
>
> You realize you are in a catch-22 here?
No.
> Because since you (or Einstein) say "this can't be done", you are yourself
> putting yourself on the seat that you claim is unatainable. This is a
trick,
> it's a trick to remove others from a position, by claiming there can be
"no
> claims" and hoping nobody notices it's you who now holds the claims, the
> claim to "no claims".
Not true. To claim that something is not possible is not to claim that only
others cannot do it.
> >> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain;
> >> and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"
> >> -Albert Einstein
> >> Just dumn.
> >
> >No surprise that you can't understand the meaning.
>
> I take that as a compliment.
No surprise there either.
> >> "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour.
Sit
> >> with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
> >> relativity."
> >> -Albert Einstein
> >
> >Doubt he said it, but if he did, great sense of humor.
>
> Yeah, and Hitler made a joke too when he said to remove jews from Europe.
No. He was serious. See your disconnect with reality here?
> >> "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
> >> comprehensible."
> >> -Albert Einstein
> >> His from experience dislodged mind.
> >
> >Only dumb animals think that they can comprehend all of natural
phenomena.
> >They probably think it lies in kicking a soccer ball.
>
> And you are now making a very farfetched claim about "all of natural
> phenomena", and even "all of the future" by claiming no-one can comprehend
> natural phenomena. You put yourself on the seat of ultimate claim, by
> claiming no-one can comprehend nature. It's a trick (i see it as a trick
> at least).
It's a postulate.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:ankf9k$fk5$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>No, he just thought that mortals were incapable of judging it. See?
>>>Re-read his words and come back when you can understand them. It's our
>>>ability to now this and therefore continually try to get as close as
>>>possible to understanding what truth is that separates man from other
>>>animals. Only truely dumb animals simply react to their observations.
>>
>> You realize you are in a catch-22 here?
>
>No.
Yeah, i figured :).
>> Because since you (or Einstein) say "this can't be done", you are yourself
>> putting yourself on the seat that you claim is unatainable. This is atrick,
>> it's a trick to remove others from a position, by claiming there can be"no
>> claims" and hoping nobody notices it's you who now holds the claims, the
>> claim to "no claims".
>
>Not true. To claim that something is not possible is not to claim that only
>others cannot do it.
>
>>>> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
>>>> and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"
>>>> -Albert Einstein
>>>> Just dumn.
>>>
>>>No surprise that you can't understand the meaning.
>>
>> I take that as a compliment.
>
>No surprise there either.
>
>>>> "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit
>>>> with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
>>>> relativity."
>>>> -Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>Doubt he said it, but if he did, great sense of humor.
>>
>> Yeah, and Hitler made a joke too when he said to remove jews from Europe.
>
>No. He was serious. See your disconnect with reality here?
There is nothing to relativity AllYou, never was. There is no proof for it,
no reason for it's existance. It is holding science back. Too bad politicians
and journalists don't catch on. The lie is too big for them.
I can only be glad to say that the relativists cannot speak freely on
usenet.
>>>> "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
>>>> comprehensible."
>>>> -Albert Einstein
>>>> His from experience dislodged mind.
>>>
>>>Only dumb animals think that they can comprehend all of natural phenomena.
>>>They probably think it lies in kicking a soccer ball.
>>
>> And you are now making a very farfetched claim about "all of natural
>> phenomena", and even "all of the future" by claiming no-one can comprehend
>> natural phenomena. You put yourself on the seat of ultimate claim, by
>> claiming no-one can comprehend nature. It's a trick (i see it as a trick
>> at least).
>
>It's a postulate.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ankkrr$ofu$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:ankf9k$fk5$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> >>>> "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit
> >>>> with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
> >>>> relativity."
> >>>> -Albert Einstein
> >>>
> >>>Doubt he said it, but if he did, great sense of humor.
> >>
> >> Yeah, and Hitler made a joke too when he said to remove jews from Europe.
> >
> >No. He was serious. See your disconnect with reality here?
>
> There is nothing to relativity AllYou, never was. There is no proof for it,
> no reason for it's existance. It is holding science back. Too bad politicians
> and journalists don't catch on. The lie is too big for them.
>
> I can only be glad to say that the relativists cannot speak freely on
> usenet.
Hmmmmm... succulent.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Freely
Title: "Sweet paranoia: Relativists cannot speak freely on usenet"
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
You have zero content to add to what I already know, namely, that you
are stupid.
Why do you even try? Nobody except spacetard takes you seriously,
nobody else really cares for you except as entertainment value and as
an object less on educational failure.
While you blather on, GPS and proton acellerators will continue to
work.
J. J. Lodder
> Not everything he said is as brilliant:
> Let's start with the worst/best ;-):
>
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
> -Albert Einstein
Source?
It is a well known false one.
More generally, never trust any quote ascribed to Einstein
without a well documented and verifiable contemporary source.
There even is a whole book entirely devoted
to debunking fake Einstein quotes.
I'll look up the title for you, sometime,
Jan
David Evens
>"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>news:ank6hs$2gq$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>
>>> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
>>> -Albert Einstein
>>
>>Good joke.
>
>Kindof a long-shot to make this a joke not?
>
>I have read before that he was known to be a plagiarist.
>
>Albert Eintein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist|http://home.attbi.com/~xtxinc/
>Albert Einstein|http://www.whitesurvival.com/Articles/einstein.htm
>Jewish Individuals - Albert Einstein|http://www.wcotc.com/jews/einstein.html
>Amazon.com Books Search Results|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/sear
> ch-handle-url/index%3Dbooks%26field-keywords%3DEinstein%2C%20Albert%2C/r
> ef%3Dbr%5Fsub%5F/103-8582639-1243830
> (one link, no spaces)
Yes, the 1st link is an add for the book thgat can be purchased at the
4th link, and the 2nd and 3rd are white-supremacist sites. This sheds
light on your politics as well as your mental illness, JosX.
>>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
>>> -Albert Einstein
>>
>>IOW, the ability to reason is more important than the ability to memorize.
>>I'll agree with AE on this one.
>>
>>> "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
>>> shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods"
>>> -Albert Einstein
>>> Thinks there is no such thing as truth.
>>
>>No, he just thought that mortals were incapable of judging it. See?
>>Re-read his words and come back when you can understand them. It's our
>>ability to now this and therefore continually try to get as close as
>>possible to understanding what truth is that separates man from other
>>animals. Only truely dumb animals simply react to their observations.
>
>You realize you are in a catch-22 here?
>Because since you (or Einstein) say "this can't be done", you are yourself
>putting yourself on the seat that you claim is unatainable. This is a trick,
>it's a trick to remove others from a position, by claiming there can be "no
>claims" and hoping nobody notices it's you who now holds the claims, the
>claim to "no claims".
You should start taking yours meds again, JosX.
>>> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
>>> and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"
>>> -Albert Einstein
>>> Just dumn.
>>
>>No surprise that you can't understand the meaning.
>
>I take that as a compliment.
Not surprising that you took a demonstration of your ignorance as a
compoliment.
>>> "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit
>>> with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
>>> relativity."
>>> -Albert Einstein
>>
>>Doubt he said it, but if he did, great sense of humor.
>
>Yeah, and Hitler made a joke too when he said to remove jews from Europe.
Your white-supremicism has already been exposed.
>>> "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
>>> comprehensible."
>>> -Albert Einstein
>>> His from experience dislodged mind.
>>
>>Only dumb animals think that they can comprehend all of natural phenomena.
>>They probably think it lies in kicking a soccer ball.
>
>And you are now making a very farfetched claim about "all of natural
>phenomena", and even "all of the future" by claiming no-one can comprehend
>natural phenomena. You put yourself on the seat of ultimate claim, by
>claiming no-one can comprehend nature. It's a trick (i see it as a trick
>at least).
You also have revealed that your REAL reason for opposing Einstein's
work is that he was Jewish.
David Evens
Lodder) wrote:
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>
>> Not everything he said is as brilliant:
>> Let's start with the worst/best ;-):
>>
>> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
>> -Albert Einstein
>
>Source?
>It is a well known false one.
>
>More generally, never trust any quote ascribed to Einstein
>without a well documented and verifiable contemporary source.
He probably got it off of one of his favourite white-supremacist
sites.
J. J. Lodder
> You also have revealed that your REAL reason for opposing Einstein's
> work is that he was Jewish.
JosX has on an earlier occasion expressed sympathy for 'Aryan Science'
(In Dutch)
===
From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
Newsgroups: nl.wetenschap
Subject: Re: Einstein was een oplichter.
Date: 16 Sep 2002 08:33:05 GMT
Message-ID: <am4501$64g$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>
[jjl, mentions the Aryan Science, a physics free from 'Jewish stains'.]
>Ze hebben zelfs geprobeerd een 'Arische' wetenschap op te richten,
>die van 'Joodse' smetten vrij zou zijn.
Ja, en waar denk je dat ze terecht zo kwaad over waren.
Heb je er wel eens aan gedacht dat Einstein een van de redenen geweest
is voor de Nazi propaganda successen in de begintijd van Hitler ?
Met Einstein had die propaganda de perfecte "slechte jood" bij de
hand, en kan een belangrijk deel van de bevolking (de wetenschappers)
over de streep getrokken worden mbt antisemitisme tegen joden, het is
immers een jood die de wetenschap, hun vakgebied, aan het kapotmaken
was...(en kapotgemaakt heeft hij het).
===
[summary and translation jjl: Einstein, by being a fraud, and a "bad
Jew", and a destroyer of science, was a suitable target for nazi
propaganda, and thereby one of the reasons for Hitler's early successes]
In fact the Aryan Science movement led by Lenard and Stark
never succeeded in getting a large following in German Physics,
despite a lot of nazi party backing.
I don't think you should declare JosX himself to be a Nazi-sympathiser,
or white suprematist.
He is just against Einstein, and all modern science in general,
(he doesn't understand Heisenberg either, for example)
and doesn't hesitate in picking all allies he can find,
no matter how dirty.
Best,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 01:11:53 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Not everything he said is as brilliant:
> >> Let's start with the worst/best ;-):
> >>
> >> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
> >> -Albert Einstein
> >
> >Source?
> >It is a well known false one.
> >
> >More generally, never trust any quote ascribed to Einstein
> >without a well documented and verifiable contemporary source.
>
> He probably got it off of one of his favourite white-supremacist
> sites.
I never looked into it,
but the quote is so uncharacteristic of Einstein as we know the man from
other sources that it must be a fake.
For example, shortly after publishing his theory
Einstein wrote a popular book explaining it all for the layman,
and demonstrating how simple it is,
if you look at it from the right side.
(BTW Still in print, after 80 years. JosX won't make it :-)
If I start looking I'll guess Goebbels as the author.
Goebbels often tried to discredit people by planting false quotes.
And having stolen his ideas from others (Poincare, Hilbert, etc)
was a charge frequently leveled against Einstein by 'Aryan scientists',
in a curious double take.
"I only believe in statistics I have faked myself." (Winston Churchill)
is another one that still surfaces every now and then.
Guess three times who wrote that,
Jan
Paul R. Chernoff
all things considered. He estimated that about 1/1000 of the general
population had intelligence at least as great as his. (So he thought
he was one in a thousand, not one in a million or one in two billion.)
He did come up with the quote "If you sit on a hot stove for
a minute, it seems like an hour. If you sit with a pretty girl
for an hour, it seems like a minute." That was his joking way of
explaining relativity to a bunch of newspaper reporters.
And he was not always happy to have so much attention paid to
his tiniest remarks. As he wrote to his good friend Max Born
(see the book "The Born-Einstein Letters"), "Every time I [fart],
they think it's a trumpet concerto."
So I'd say he was *relatively* smart.
-----
E = m c^{1.9997401 [32]}: most recent experimental test of special
relativity. (See current issue of Phys. Rev. Lett.)
-----
--
# Paul R. Chernoff cher...@math.berkeley.edu #
# Department of Mathematics # 3840 #
# University of California "Against stupidity, the gods themselves #
# Berkeley, CA 94720-3840 struggle in vain." -- Schiller #
josX
>On 4 Oct 2002 16:23:16 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ank6hs$2gq$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>>> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
>>>> -Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>Good joke.
>>
>>Kindof a long-shot to make this a joke not?
>>
>>I have read before that he was known to be a plagiarist.
>>
>>Albert Eintein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist|http://home.attbi.com/~xtxinc/
>>Albert Einstein|http://www.whitesurvival.com/Articles/einstein.htm
>>Jewish Individuals - Albert Einstein|http://www.wcotc.com/jews/einstein.html
>>Amazon.com Books Search Results|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/sear
>> ch-handle-url/index%3Dbooks%26field-keywords%3DEinstein%2C%20Albert%2C/r
>> ef%3Dbr%5Fsub%5F/103-8582639-1243830
>> (one link, no spaces)
>
>Yes, the 1st link is an add for the book thgat can be purchased at the
>4th link, and the 2nd and 3rd are white-supremacist sites. This sheds
>light on your politics as well as your mental illness, JosX.
Oh sorry, i didn't know that (is it true?).
You better be happy that only smart people break the relativity
nonsense, so they won't fall likely for racism. One hell of an argument
Einstein is for the jew haters isn't it: Einstein the destroyer of
physics. Be glad racists are stupid.
Even if it was, how does that help the argument for relativity. Do you
magically have proof now for relativity's lightspeed constancy ?
--
jos
Johan Wevers
>josX wrote:
>[snip]
>Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
>carries either four cesium atomic clocks or three rubidum atomic
>clocks in orbit, with full relativistic corrections being applied.
He doesn't believe that after he got lost even with a GPS receiver. :-)
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers // Physics and science fiction site:
joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl // http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
PGP/GPG public keys at http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/pgpkeys.html
Dirk Selis
dirk
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> Even if it was, how does that help the argument for relativity. Do you
> magically have proof now for relativity's lightspeed constancy ?
Not one vetted experiment has disproved it. Not one in over 100 years.
Since the constancy of c is a postulate (i.e. an assumption) it does not
have to be proven experimentally. The -consequences- of the postulate
have been tested experimentally and have not been refuted by a vetted
experiment. That is quite sufficient.
On the other hand the predictions of Newtonian Mechanics with the mass
uncorrected[1] for velocity have been refuted by experiment. Newtonian
Mechanics implies that a massive particle can be accelerated past light
speed in a relatively short time. This is disproved every time a high
energy particle accelerator is fire up. No matter how many electron
volts are generated to drive the particles those stubborn little buggers
will not go faster than light. Classical Newtonian Mechanics augmented
by the Lorentz Force Law of electrodynamics implies that particle
acclerators could me much shorter and smaller than they are. Not so.
There is a reason why linear accerlators are long and why circular
accelerators require umpteen round trips to get up to a substantial
portion of light speed (never exceeding it).
Bob Kolker
[1] mass_rel = mass_rest/sqrt((1-v^2/c^2)) is what I mean by corrected
mass. Relativity purists do not like this nomenclature, but in this
context it makes things clearer to me. Of course the -real- mass i.e.
rest mass is invariant and what I call mass_rel is an energy quantity.
The point is valid regardless of the terminology. Pour as much energy as
you like into a particle accelerator and the particles will not go
faster than light ----- ever.
Spaceman
>Not one vetted experiment has disproved it. Not one in over 100 years.
Not one you will you try right?
How many revs of Earth old are the paradox twins when using
Earth and Sun as reference points?
Hint, and FACT,
The same ages.
hint 2 and also FACT,
Bye bye relativity to anyone with a brain that has
not been brainwashed beyond help like Bob has.
.
HA HA!
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20021005085419...@mb-ba.aol.com...
> >From: Robert Kolker bobk...@attbi.com
>
> >Not one vetted experiment has disproved it. Not one in over 100 years.
>
> Not one you will you try right?
Not one you will try to write right?
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>Not one you will try to write right?
How many revs of Earth old are the twins WRT the Sun Dirky poo?
Still ignoring anything that can prove you wrong huh?
still always skip answers that hurt your case huh?
pleading the fifth on that question huh?
Sad..
Just sad..
The paradox twins are the same revs of Earth old
WRT the Sun.
This is not a "joke like the clocks"
It is the fact about Earth spin WRT the Sun.
It only spins at one rate to all.
You lose.
and.
are still lost.
nightbat
You failed to understand Einstein's inside humor and you
conveniently overlooked one josX.
Paraphrased to English:
" There are only two things I'm sure of, there are lots of theories and
idiots, the former is limited, however, the second is not. "
Albert Einstein
the nightbat
josX wrote:
>
> Not everything he said is as brilliant:
> Let's start with the worst/best ;-):
>
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
> -Albert Einstein
>
> I guess i could stop after this one, but let's examine a few more.
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
> -Albert Einstein
> !
>
> "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
> shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods"
> -Albert Einstein
> Thinks there is no such thing as truth.
> Note that Einstein does just that, disqualifying many decades of real
> research, on the basis of a fantastical fantasy (two actually). Maybe
> this is a kind of subconsious admission that Einstein can't decide with
> fantasy on what is true, and that he feels to be a fool for trying this.
> Maybe he heard us anti-relativists (objectivists) laughing at his ideas.
>
> "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
> and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"
> -Albert Einstein
> Just dumn.
>
> "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit
> with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
> relativity."
> -Albert Einstein
>
> "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
> comprehensible."
> -Albert Einstein
> His from experience dislodged mind.
>
Patrick Reany
Spaceman wrote:
> >From: "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
>
> >Not one you will try to write right?
>
> How many revs of Earth old are the twins WRT the Sun Dirky poo?
> Still ignoring anything that can prove you wrong huh?
> still always skip answers that hurt your case huh?
If the earth is a clock it can only "measure"
its own age.
Patrick
Spaceman
>If the earth is a clock it can only "measure"
>its own age.
Why?
and
If really so,
why do atomic clocks measure twins ages at all then?
josX
>josX wrote:
>>>
>> Even if it was, how does that help the argument for relativity. Do you
>> magically have proof now for relativity's lightspeed constancy ?
>
>Not one vetted experiment has disproved it. Not one in over 100 years.
>
>Since the constancy of c is a postulate (i.e. an assumption) it does not
>have to be proven experimentally. The -consequences- of the postulate
>have been tested experimentally and have not been refuted by a vetted
>experiment. That is quite sufficient.
No it's not sufficient to simply have some unproven hypotheses. It's
the job of science to prove the things it claims.
>On the other hand the predictions of Newtonian Mechanics with the mass
>uncorrected[1] for velocity have been refuted by experiment. Newtonian
>Mechanics implies that a massive particle can be accelerated past light
>speed in a relatively short time.
Indeed, IF you are still exerting a force near lightspeed. Aparently
electromagnetism only has a force below it's wave-speed, which is c.
> This is disproved every time a high
>energy particle accelerator is fire up. No matter how many electron
>volts are generated to drive the particles those stubborn little buggers
>will not go faster than light. Classical Newtonian Mechanics augmented
>by the Lorentz Force Law of electrodynamics implies that particle
>acclerators could me much shorter and smaller than they are. Not so.
>There is a reason why linear accerlators are long and why circular
>accelerators require umpteen round trips to get up to a substantial
>portion of light speed (never exceeding it).
Because you are using electromagnetism itself to propel your particle.
This never popped into your mind, or the mind of any scientist ?
Hard to believe.
Indoctrination must be some hefty force on the brain.
>Bob Kolker
>
>[1] mass_rel = mass_rest/sqrt((1-v^2/c^2)) is what I mean by corrected
>mass. Relativity purists do not like this nomenclature, but in this
>context it makes things clearer to me. Of course the -real- mass i.e.
>rest mass is invariant and what I call mass_rel is an energy quantity.
>The point is valid regardless of the terminology. Pour as much energy as
> you like into a particle accelerator and the particles will not go
>faster than light ----- ever.
Put as many men behind a piano, and make them push and pull, even if your
force will go to infinity, the piano will never exceed the speed of the
fastest man on Earth. Also a great miracle of nature?
--
jos
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Put as many men behind a piano, and make them push and pull, even if your
> force will go to infinity, the piano will never exceed the speed of the
> fastest man on Earth. Also a great miracle of nature?
There is no way of doing an infinite of work on a massive body. WHich is
another way of saying a massive body will never attain light speed ---
ever. Think about it. Where will one obtain an infinite of energy? If
the Kosmos is finite there can only be a finite amount of energy
therein, taking into account the equivalence of rest_mass with energy.[1]
Bob Kolker
[1] Energy = work denominated in units [mass][velocity * velocity] or
[mass][distance/time^2]*[distance]. Take your pick.
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> No it's not sufficient to simply have some unproven hypotheses. It's
> the job of science to prove the things it claims.
That is impossible. The laws of physics are universally quantified and
apply to a potential infinitity of instances. Non of Newton's laws could
have been -proved- either experimentally or from first principles. The
only thing a theory can claim is that none of its predictions will be
refuted experimentally. If such a refutation is made, the theory is wrong.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>There is no way of doing an infinite of work on a massive body. WHich is
>another way of saying a massive body will never attain light speed ---
>ever. Think about it.
I have,
you have not.
First you think that "mass increases with speed"
but you are wrong,
energy increases "not mass"
so there is no need for infinite anything.
and you have never come close to even a billionth of a percent
of infinite anyway.
so
when you speak of infinite forces needed at all,
you speak of bologna.
If infinite force was needed for FTL.
Then Kinetic energy force for larger objects would be wrong.
but guess what.
It is not.
196,000 mps is not a speed that would need infinite anything.
DUH!
Do the math dingbat!
5 grams at 196,000 mps.
No infinite energy needed dufeball!
75 tons at 300,000 miles per second.
again,
no infinites!
you are a "lost the basic math" fool.
Wake up and stop allowing me to make you look like one.
DUH!
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Put as many men behind a piano, and make them push and pull, even if your
>> force will go to infinity, the piano will never exceed the speed of the
>> fastest man on Earth. Also a great miracle of nature?
>
>There is no way of doing an infinite of work on a massive body. WHich is
>another way of saying a massive body will never attain light speed ---
>ever. Think about it. Where will one obtain an infinite of energy? If
>the Kosmos is finite there can only be a finite amount of energy
>therein, taking into account the equivalence of rest_mass with energy.[1]
What is your point ?
You don't need infinite force to get ahead of lightspeed. Your mind just
has deep grooves along the lines of relativity, it shows. You just need some
phenomena traveling faster then light to propell particles above ligthspeed.
Seems like a nobrainer. Aparently, a static field has something to do with
lightspeed, doesn't it. But, we will never find out what because Einstein
has blocked off research what it might be, because any real answer will
take away the magic relativity needs.
If you put an infinite amount of energy in men, who are pushing a piano,
they won't get it exceeding the velocity of a running man. To get a
piano above this speed, you need some men to carry other men, and then
run in a two-story type of fashion, and you can get the piano over the
running speed of men with far less then infinite men. It depends upon
how you deploy them. Thinking "there is a magical law that makes piano's
never exceed the running speed of men", means we are never going to figure
a way how to do it, and if it gets figured, people don't want to know because
there is this immutable holy truth that the piano can never exceed the
running speed of a man (and to disproof the holy doctrine is 'rude').
>Bob Kolker
>
>[1] Energy = work denominated in units [mass][velocity * velocity] or
>[mass][distance/time^2]*[distance]. Take your pick.
--
jos
josX
F=m*a is only worthwhile because it is a desription of past experimental
evidence. If you want to solidly and irrifutably proof F=m*a, you do an
experiment and find out how it works, within the error-bars you will come
to the same conclusion as Newton: F=m*a, it's objective, that is it's
worth.
--
jos
MasterCougar
Chernoff) posted news:anm8e9$1h9v$1...@agate.berkeley.edu:
> So I'd say he was *relatively* smart.
>
>
I'd say he was relatively a genius. The genius being in looking at
things in a different way and going with it.
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
Spaceman
>What is your point ?
>You don't need infinite force to get ahead of lightspeed.
To get 1 gram to 200,000 mps
is a finite amount of energy.
they lose.
simple as that.
KE,
E,
and even
F,
all prove such.
:)
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> F=m*a is only worthwhile because
Fails for high velocities, for the n-th time.\
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>Fails for high velocities, for the n-th time.\
>
Only if you are missing factors for the same n-th time.\
Boy you are ignorant.
Show us where it fails when all data is given.
I will show you where the "missing data is"
I have said it way too many times already
and you still seem ignorant to such facts..
that simply being,
FREE ELECTRONS.
are the missing factors you keepo ignoring.
and "just wish to stay ignorant" to such "facts"
that you can not "invalidate"
Still refuse to research all clocks too huh?
That is the largest proof of your ignorance.
and you prove it with each and every post
defending a "clock God" without even knowing it.
<LOL>
josX
For the nth time: your particles can't get over c because you are
thrusting them with a phenomenon which moves at c.
--
jos
Robert Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>>From: Robert Kolker bobk...@attbi.com
>
>
>>Fails for high velocities, for the n-th time.\
>>
>
>
> Only if you are missing factors for the same n-th time.\
>
> Boy you are ignorant.
>
> Show us where it fails when all data is given.
> I will show you where the "missing data is"
O.K. Mass = one kilogram Acceleration 1000 kilometers/sec/sec
F = M.A. One million Newtons. A = F/M = 1000 kilometers/sec/sec.
That is all the data. You have the mass, you have the acceleration and
you have the force. The only thing missing is the time over which the
force is applied to the mass. Let us calculate this and see what happens
(or doesn't happen).
Assuming the mass stays constant over time (this is what Newton assumed)
how fast will that mass be moving after t seconds? The answer is A*t.
Now let t > c/A, where c is the speed of light. Then A.t > c, so the
accleration will move a one kilogram mass past the speed of light in
300,000/1000 seconds or in 300 seconds (five minutes). That does not
happen.
This does not happen in real life. If it did, superluminal particles
would be streaming out of the business end of the Stanford Linear
Accelerator or any of the circular accelerators. What does happen in
real life that that the relativistic mass of the particles grow as
(1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) as v approaches c becoming infinite when v = c. This
is not possible.
What happens in real life as that more and more energy is poured into
these machines and the particles acquire more energy but get a smaller
and smaller velocity boost per additional unit of energy. The
measurements made at these machines totally conforms to the relativistic
prediction. We can measure the velocity of electrons by seeing how their
trajectory is bent in a magnetic field using the Lorentz force law.
The end result are particles with a tremendous amount of energy but a
velocity less than c.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>O.K. Mass = one kilogram Acceleration 1000 kilometers/sec/sec
one kilogram of "what"
and
when have you ever done such a test?
>That is all the data.
No,
it is far from all the data.
It is a joke still.
you have no "real mass" "only a number"
and you have nothing for a medium yet.
you have "nothing for proof" in other words.
Spaceman
>For the nth time: your particles can't get over c because you are
>thrusting them with a phenomenon which moves at c.
They are just blowing wind at fixed sail, sailboat with no driver!
:)
They are squirting water molecules to try and make "one water molecule"
move faster than all the others. (while inside a tank of them that they can not
get rid of)
:)
Got waves?
Than you got electrons (everywhere you got waves) ..
sheesh.
what a bunch of dufes they are.
:)
I should own one of those particle accelerators.
(It would turn up as the first "warp drive" unit technology)
:)
and ..
not time warps all you time travel dingbats!
<LOL>
actual speeds that only basic math can work with correctly.
:)
David Evens
>dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
>>On 4 Oct 2002 16:23:16 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:ank6hs$2gq$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>>> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources"
>>>>> -Albert Einstein
>>>>
>>>>Good joke.
>>>
>>>Kindof a long-shot to make this a joke not?
>>>
>>>I have read before that he was known to be a plagiarist.
>>>
>>>Albert Eintein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist|http://home.attbi.com/~xtxinc/
>>>Albert Einstein|http://www.whitesurvival.com/Articles/einstein.htm
>>>Jewish Individuals - Albert Einstein|http://www.wcotc.com/jews/einstein.html
>>>Amazon.com Books Search Results|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/sear
>>> ch-handle-url/index%3Dbooks%26field-keywords%3DEinstein%2C%20Albert%2C/r
>>> ef%3Dbr%5Fsub%5F/103-8582639-1243830
>>> (one link, no spaces)
>>
>>Yes, the 1st link is an add for the book thgat can be purchased at the
>>4th link, and the 2nd and 3rd are white-supremacist sites. This sheds
>>light on your politics as well as your mental illness, JosX.
>
>Oh sorry, i didn't know that (is it true?).
Which didn't you know? That you referenced an add, a commerce site,
and two white supremacist sites, or that this would demonstrate things
about you?
>You better be happy that only smart people break the relativity
>nonsense, so they won't fall likely for racism. One hell of an argument
>Einstein is for the jew haters isn't it: Einstein the destroyer of
>physics. Be glad racists are stupid.
Your stupidity has never stopped you from posting before.
Being incoherent (as you just were) only demonstrates you stupidity.
Eric Gisse
Then how do we make them go faster than c?
Please cite an example which exists in reality.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>>From: Robert Kolker bobk...@attbi.com
>
>>O.K. Mass = one kilogram Acceleration 1000 kilometers/sec/sec
>
>one kilogram of "what"
>and
>when have you ever done such a test?
Um, mass?
Also, when have you *ever* done an experiment? Really....when?
<snip>
josX
>>From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
>
>>For the nth time: your particles can't get over c because you are
>>thrusting them with a phenomenon which moves at c.
>
>They are just blowing wind at fixed sail, sailboat with no driver!
>:)
>
>They are squirting water molecules to try and make "one water molecule"
>move faster than all the others. (while inside a tank of them that they can not
>get rid of)
>:)
>
>Got waves?
>Than you got electrons (everywhere you got waves) ..
>sheesh.
>what a bunch of dufes they are.
>:)
>
>I should own one of those particle accelerators.
>(It would turn up as the first "warp drive" unit technology)
>:)
Yeah, we would get a particle above c before they, because we know
it can be done and why it doesn't yet work. They believe nature has
a magical speed limit, so they will never even try.
I already have my first superluminal particle accelerator design:
Put a Particle accelerator on a spinning wheel, spin the wheel.
Worth a try no?
--
jos
Spaceman
>Um, mass?
Yup,
different masses act differently in speeds and different surroundings.
so.
I also ask about "mediums and waves already present in such a medium.
so,
YUP,,
MASS,
and ONE KILO OF "WHAT" mass is just as important as anything else
in the experiment.
>Also, when have you *ever* done an experiment? Really....when?
>
all clocks asshole!
and all the time asshole
Tis why I can laugh at you about each and every second, that you think
changed rate.
<LOL>
So Mr smarty pants (gov/edu) flip side man scam artist.
How fast does superglue dry at closest to lightspeed
possible?
You goinn to light that match in the cargo bay full of gas
and have extra time because the ship is traveling
close to c?
<LOL>
You are fool Eric.
you ask me for "real" experiments,
and yet when given "the setups for such"
you refuse to bother.
Got all clocks yet?
Or still worshipping "only one god clock"?
<LOL>
Spaceman
>Yeah, we would get a particle above c before they, because we know
>it can be done and why it doesn't yet work. They believe nature has
>a magical speed limit, so they will never even try.
>
>I already have my first superluminal particle accelerator design:
>Put a Particle accelerator on a spinning wheel, spin the wheel.
>Worth a try no?
"all is worth a try if done safely"
:)
I say.
(In the future of course)...
we straigten the bugger out.
place it in space and
try to move it (the entire accelerator) and all aboard (connected)
and keep tons of particles still instead of pushing them
and push away from them.
(then start grabbing space sections in front and pull and push
the "rowing" will get us to move faster than the wind
if we can simply row fast enough.
:)
hint hint.. (warp drive unit)
:)
josX
Cool, might very well work!
_______ _________
/ \ / \
/ [*] [*] \
/ ^ [*] [*] ^ \
| | [*] | [*] | |
| [*] V [*] |
| [*] [*] |
\ space [*] [*] ship /
\_________/ \___________/
Then we should have the field in such a way
that the majority of the mass gets ejected at the
back right? We only need some kind of power source.
Problem is thought that space has such a thin medium...
Maybe there is a way to propell the ship from pure
electromagnetism (aether), putting that out of the back,
getting more from ahead.
Since aparently it takes some time to accelerate a particle
to FTL, and current accelerators are so large, you might
build a small wheel to the side of the accelerator that
catches protons/electrons traveling at near c, and then
accelerates them even further. Problem is though that it's
not certain how much the electromagnetism is going to be
dragged with the wheel, perhaps the electromagnetic fields
of Earth will flow around and in the wheel. But i read MMX
was more succesfull depending on the thickness of the walls
of the lab, if that is true you might trap the aether (electro
magnetic fields) using a thick walled wheel, so that the
electromagnetism gets swinged around with the wheel, and then
accelerated. It could work in principle.
--
jos
Spaceman
>We only need some kind of power source.
>Problem is thought that space has such a thin medium...
>Maybe there is a way to propell the ship from pure
>electromagnetism (aether), putting that out of the back,
>getting more from ahead.
>
Power source would be a "hybrid of tj's and electrical output from such"
and
we need to make magnetic fields like you speak but
making the ship a particle.
and the space surrounding it an accelerator tube.
sort of like this..
One perm field in the center of the ship
(say north to front)
and a switchable field in the back.
pulse it "forward" by having a larger field "click on"
and release before the "repulsion waves"
(if south towards front facing south in perm mag.)
once it hits the perm field, if it is no longer actually
connected to the ship.
it should allow the push (row)
timing ...
is always the key.
:)
but absolute timing of course.
not this relative crap jokes about "timing".
too simple huh?
HEY NASA!
Have fun!
Let me make one!
:)
It is easy!
but you must "remove the invisible wall thinking"
Helmut Wabnig
>Not everything he said is as brilliant:
>Let's start with the worst/best ;-):
>
>..........
>
>I guess i could stop after this one, but let's examine a few more.
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
> -Albert Einstein
Why do you, joshb, critzise that saying?
It is an accurate description of your person.
Lot'sa " imagination"
nihil " knowledge"
Who could ever find a better characterization of
JO...@MRAHA.KITENET.NET (JOSX).
after 3000 postings, spoiling usenet.
>
> "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
> shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods"
> -Albert Einstein
Not only the gods laugh about you, joshb, we too, do.
At least, we try.
It's not always that interesting fun, your bullshit.
>Thinks there is no such thing as truth.
Wadda not don't say.
w.
--
On the Internet nobody knows that I am a dog.
Don't remove the X-es
Mitchell Jones
Newtonian
> Mechanics implies that a massive particle can be accelerated past light
> speed in a relatively short time.
***{Not true. Suppose, for example, that we have a merry-go-round sitting
motionless, unconnected to any source of motive power, and that we
endeavor to boost its rim velocity up past lightspeed by firing bullets at
it, so that they all impact it in the forward direction, at locations very
nearly tangent to its outer edge. Result: even if the merry-go-round is
frictionless and in a vacuum, we can never boost its rim velocity above
the velocity of the bullets that are hitting it. The reason is obvious: it
is the velocity of impact of the bullets relative to the rim, call it Vi,
that matters. If Vb is the velocity of the bullets relative to the ground
and Vr is the velocity of the rim relative to the ground, then Vi = Vb -
Vr = 0, when Vr = Vb. The implication: according to Newtonian mechanics,
we can never boost the velocity of anything above the velocity of its
impactors, no matter how many times we hit that object with impactors.
Result: Newtonian mechanics implies that we can never boost the speed of
anything above lightspeed, unless we hit it with impactors that are,
themselves, moving faster than light. --MJ}***
This is disproved every time a high
> energy particle accelerator is fire up. No matter how many electron
> volts are generated to drive the particles those stubborn little buggers
> will not go faster than light.
***{Wrong again. Nothing in a particle accelerator is moving faster than
light, and, thus, nothing in a particle accelerator can, by striking
anything else, drive it above the speed of light. Hence nothing in the
results obtained from particle accelerators is violative of the
predictions of Newtonian mechanics. (It's real sad! :-) --MJ}***
Marco Nelissen
> In article <3D9EE005...@attbi.com>, bobk...@attbi.com wrote:
>
> Newtonian
>> Mechanics implies that a massive particle can be accelerated past light
>> speed in a relatively short time.
>
> ***{Not true. Suppose, for example, that we have a merry-go-round sitting
> motionless, unconnected to any source of motive power, and that we
> endeavor to boost its rim velocity up past lightspeed by firing bullets at
> it, so that they all impact it in the forward direction, at locations very
> nearly tangent to its outer edge. Result: even if the merry-go-round is
> frictionless and in a vacuum, we can never boost its rim velocity above
> the velocity of the bullets that are hitting it. The reason is obvious: it
> is the velocity of impact of the bullets relative to the rim, call it Vi,
> that matters. If Vb is the velocity of the bullets relative to the ground
> and Vr is the velocity of the rim relative to the ground, then Vi = Vb -
> Vr = 0, when Vr = Vb. The implication: according to Newtonian mechanics,
> we can never boost the velocity of anything above the velocity of its
> impactors, no matter how many times we hit that object with impactors.
> Result: Newtonian mechanics implies that we can never boost the speed of
> anything above lightspeed, unless we hit it with impactors that are,
> themselves, moving faster than light. --MJ}***
And now, instead of firing the bullets at the rim, fire them at a point
closer to the center of the merry-go-round, say 1 inch from the center.
Then tell us how fast the part at 1 inch from the center will eventually
move, and what that means for the velocity at the rim.
> This is disproved every time a high
>> energy particle accelerator is fire up. No matter how many electron
>> volts are generated to drive the particles those stubborn little buggers
>> will not go faster than light.
>
> ***{Wrong again. Nothing in a particle accelerator is moving faster than
> light, and, thus, nothing in a particle accelerator can, by striking
> anything else, drive it above the speed of light. Hence nothing in the
> results obtained from particle accelerators is violative of the
> predictions of Newtonian mechanics. (It's real sad! :-) --MJ}***
You, like Jos 'josX' Boersema, seem to be unable to grasp the
difference between an electrostatic field, and an electromagnetic wave.
Why don't you learn the difference and get back to us?
Since you seem to be agreeing with Jos, you might also want to read this,
for entertainment value: http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
J. J. Lodder
> On 4 Oct 2002 13:54:04 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>
> >Not everything he said is as brilliant:
> >Let's start with the worst/best ;-):
> >
> >..........
> >
> >I guess i could stop after this one, but let's examine a few more.
> >
> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
> > -Albert Einstein
>
> Why do you, joshb, critzise that saying?
> It is an accurate description of your person.
>
> Lot'sa " imagination"
> nihil " knowledge"
>
>
> Who could ever find a better characterization of
> JO...@MRAHA.KITENET.NET (JOSX).
> after 3000 postings, spoiling usenet.
>
> >
> > "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is
> > shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods"
> > -Albert Einstein
>
> Not only the gods laugh about you, joshb, we too, do.
> At least, we try.
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." (Schiller)
Helaas,
Jan
bhanwara
Maybe AE was wrong, maybe he was right, in his theories.
That is no reason to attack the individual.
I have myself put forth the theory that AE and his contemporaries
were living in a social milieu where 7% cocaine solution
was considered normal and intellectual, and maybe that
explains SR,GR,constancy and Quantum Mysticism to some extent.
I have also put forth the theory that SR/GR/constancy/Quantum-Mysticism
are based on religious ("let there be light" and "free-will")
rather than scientific insights.
However, please note that all this is an attempt at
explaining a very inexplicable phenomenon -- the wide
acceptance of SR/GR/constancy/QM by reasonably intelligent
people without sufficient critical thought. What I have put forth
are reasonable socieological hypotheses.
I have also claimed that light propagation requires a much
simpler mechanism than the early 1900s crowd would have us
believe, that SR and constancy are incorrect, that QM
interpretations are much simpler than QMers would like us to
think, and that GR is complex in its details but trivial
and incorrect in its significance.
But at no time have I attacked AE and contemporaries as
individuals. (And that is a very fine line indeed, while
discarding the faith and substance-usage based insights
of individuals, not to attack the individuals.)
So I feel that it is indeed possible to discredit theories
without attacking the individuals.
Please remember, physics is a science!! Being wrong is not
a sin in science.
Edward Green
...
> Result: Newtonian mechanics implies that we can never boost the speed of
> anything above lightspeed, unless we hit it with impactors that are,
> themselves, moving faster than light.
And yet, starting from rest wrt the ground, I am able to toss a ball
with some velocity greater than zero.
Does this imply that I violate Newtonian mechanics every time I toss a
ball, that your analysis is faulty, or that it doesn't apply to the
release of stored energy?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
<snip>
>>Also, when have you *ever* done an experiment? Really....when?
>>
>
No James, thats not an experiment. Try again.
This is one of the many times where thought experiment deviate from
reality.
Mitchell Jones
<mar...@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> In nl.wetenschap Mitchell Jones <mjo...@jump.net> wrote:
> > In article <3D9EE005...@attbi.com>, bobk...@attbi.com wrote:
> >
> > Newtonian
> >> Mechanics implies that a massive particle can be accelerated past light
> >> speed in a relatively short time.
> >
> > ***{Not true. Suppose, for example, that we have a merry-go-round sitting
> > motionless, unconnected to any source of motive power, and that we
> > endeavor to boost its rim velocity up past lightspeed by firing bullets at
> > it, so that they all impact it in the forward direction, at locations very
> > nearly tangent to its outer edge. Result: even if the merry-go-round is
> > frictionless and in a vacuum, we can never boost its rim velocity above
> > the velocity of the bullets that are hitting it. The reason is obvious: it
> > is the velocity of impact of the bullets relative to the rim, call it Vi,
> > that matters. If Vb is the velocity of the bullets relative to the ground
> > and Vr is the velocity of the rim relative to the ground, then Vi = Vb -
> > Vr = 0, when Vr = Vb. The implication: according to Newtonian mechanics,
> > we can never boost the velocity of anything above the velocity of its
> > impactors, no matter how many times we hit that object with impactors.
> > Result: Newtonian mechanics implies that we can never boost the speed of
> > anything above lightspeed, unless we hit it with impactors that are,
> > themselves, moving faster than light. --MJ}***
>
> And now, instead of firing the bullets at the rim, fire them at a point
> closer to the center of the merry-go-round, say 1 inch from the center.
***{Why? The point of the analogy was to focus readers' minds on the fact
that an impactor can't give a push to a target which it cannot
catch--which means: you can't give a particle which is moving at
lightspeed a push from behind unless the push is from an object that is
moving faster than light. No analogy is perfect, but I'll bet the one I
used was good enough so that most readers understood what I was getting
at. --MJ}***
> Then tell us how fast the part at 1 inch from the center will eventually
> move, and what that means for the velocity at the rim.
***{Why? That would be utterly irrelevant to the point, which was that
particle accelerators--which accelerate particles, not rigid arms that
pivot off of axles--do not violate Newtonian mechanics when they fail to
push particle velocities above lightspeed. Thus the objection you are
making is an attack on the analogy that I used to make my point, rather
than on the point itself. The question, therefore, is this: do you dispute
the point, or just the analogy? --MJ}***
> > This is disproved every time a high
> >> energy particle accelerator is fire up. No matter how many electron
> >> volts are generated to drive the particles those stubborn little buggers
> >> will not go faster than light.
> >
> > ***{Wrong again. Nothing in a particle accelerator is moving faster than
> > light, and, thus, nothing in a particle accelerator can, by striking
> > anything else, drive it above the speed of light. Hence nothing in the
> > results obtained from particle accelerators is violative of the
> > predictions of Newtonian mechanics. (It's real sad! :-) --MJ}***
>
> You, like Jos 'josX' Boersema, seem to be unable to grasp the
> difference between an electrostatic field, and an electromagnetic wave.
***{Making public guesses about what I, or anyone, can grasp, is ad
hominem. This discussion should focus on the substantive issue, and leave
pejorative speculations about the mental characteristics of individuals to
more appropriate venues (e.g., to psychotherapy sessions).
Regarding the difference between an electrostatic field and an
electromagnetic wave, I would suggest that you are assuming, without a
shred of evidence, that the push from an electrostatic field is not
mediated by particles. (If it *is* mediated by particles, then the
particles in question must exceed the speed of light, in order to give
particles in an accelerator a faster-than-light push from behind.)
--Mitchell Jones}***
> Why don't you learn the difference and get back to us?
***{OK, I can play that game. Why don't you learn some manners? And why
don't you learn to identify the point of an analogy before responding to
it? --MJ}***
> Since you seem to be agreeing with Jos, you might also want to read this,
> for entertainment value: http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
***{I am not concerned with the particulars of who I do or do not agree
with. I happened upon this thread because I had done a word search on
"Robert Kolker" to make sure that he had not responded to some of the
things I have said to him recently, in threads different from the ones in
which my comments were posted. In the process, I came upon a post of his
in this thread which seemed interesting, and responded to it. Thus his was
the only post in this thread that I had read at that time. Bottom line:
(a) if I have stepped into a flamewar between two opposing camps, that was
not my intent; and (b) my point stands: Newtonian mechanics does not, in
fact, conflict with the results of particle accelerator tests. --MJ}***
Mitchell Jones
null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> mjo...@jump.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote in message
news:<mjones-0610...@66-105-229-44-aus-02.cvx.algx.net>...
> ...
>
> > Result: Newtonian mechanics implies that we can never boost the speed of
> > anything above lightspeed, unless we hit it with impactors that are,
> > themselves, moving faster than light.
>
> And yet, starting from rest wrt the ground, I am able to toss a ball
> with some velocity greater than zero.
***{The ball, when you release it, is moving at the same speed as the last
part of your hand that is in contact with it. It never moves faster than
your hand. --MJ}***
> Does this imply that I violate Newtonian mechanics every time I toss a
> ball, that your analysis is faulty, or that it doesn't apply to the
> release of stored energy?
***{I would say it implies that you have managed to miss my point. You
might as well tell me that a pitched ball caroms off a swung bat faster
than the velocity of the bat. Well, that is true: the ball has a lot of
energy coming in, and energy is conserved. Thus in a perfectly elastic
collision it is going to rebound with most of the energy it had coming in,
plus whatever energy it picked up from the bat. However, the point is that
if a baseball is going at 100 mph *toward* the pitcher's mound, the batter
is going to have to swing his bat *faster* than 100 mph if he wants to hit
the ball from behind and speed it up. And the same principle applies in a
particle accelerator: you can't boost particles above lightspeed by giving
them a kick from behind, unless the kick comes from something moving
Helmut Wabnig
>...............
>
>So I feel that it is indeed possible to discredit theories
>without attacking the individuals.
If you cannot do the math, don't attack physics.
Start learning.
Edward Green
> In article <2a0cceff.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>
> > mjo...@jump.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote in message
> news:<mjones-0610...@66-105-229-44-aus-02.cvx.algx.net>...
> > ...
> >
> > > Result: Newtonian mechanics implies that we can never boost the speed of
> > > anything above lightspeed, unless we hit it with impactors that are,
> > > themselves, moving faster than light.
> >
> > And yet, starting from rest wrt the ground, I am able to toss a ball
> > with some velocity greater than zero.
>
> ***{The ball, when you release it, is moving at the same speed as the last
> part of your hand that is in contact with it. It never moves faster than
> your hand. --MJ}***
And my hand never moves faster than my wrist, which never moves faster
than my forearem, shich never moves faster than my upper arm, which
never moves faster than shoulder, which never moves moves faster than
my waist ... shoes ...
And yet, I can toss the ball, starting with arms relaxed at my sides,
and without moving either shoe ... which touch the ground on the
planet, that jack boot.
J. J. Lodder
> Folks, folks, could we stop with the ad hominem please?
>
> Maybe AE was wrong, maybe he was right, in his theories.
> That is no reason to attack the individual.
You are right, but your complaints are misdirected,
it is JosX you want, not folks, folks.
> I have myself put forth the theory that AE and his contemporaries
> were living in a social milieu where 7% cocaine solution
> was considered normal and intellectual,
That is a mythology which was maliciously spread
by Dr Watson's literary agent.
And Dr Waton is on record as not considering cocaine use
normal or even acceptable.
As for Einstein's intellectual milieu,
the (theoretical) physics community:
cocaine use was almost unknown there,
and was certainly not considered normal or acceptable.
The rapid acceptance of Einstein's ideas
by the physics community of his day has other causes,
such as being the obviously correct solution
to a number of long-standing problems.
> and maybe that
> explains SR,GR,constancy and Quantum Mysticism to some extent.
[snip more nonsense]
> But at no time have I attacked AE and contemporaries as
> individuals. (And that is a very fine line indeed, while
> discarding the faith and substance-usage based insights
> of individuals, not to attack the individuals.)
>
> So I feel that it is indeed possible to discredit theories
> without attacking the individuals.
The dirty episode of 'Aryan Physics'
(in which it was claimed that only people
of the right race could possibly do good physics)
has had the useful effect that to a real physicist
people who try to use these kind of arguments in physics
are automatically disqualified, whatever else they may say.
The simple fact that JosX seeks his allies in this dirty corner
should be enough to show he is not to be taken seriously.
He has tarred himself with the brush he tries to paint with.
The feathers have been supplied by this forum :-)
> Please remember, physics is a science!! Being wrong is not
> a sin in science.
No, but pig-headed sticking to ideas which have been shown wrong is.
And most physicists do not suffer a fool gladly.
Jan
Tris
> >> the job of science to prove the things it claims.
> >
> >That is impossible. The laws of physics are universally quantified and
> >apply to a potential infinitity of instances. Non of Newton's laws could
> >have been -proved- either experimentally or from first principles. The
> >only thing a theory can claim is that none of its predictions will be
> >refuted experimentally. If such a refutation is made, the theory is
wrong.
>
> F=m*a is only worthwhile because it is a desription of past experimental
> evidence. If you want to solidly and irrifutably proof F=m*a, you do an
> experiment and find out how it works, within the error-bars you will come
> to the same conclusion as Newton: F=m*a, it's objective, that is it's
> worth.
How does data for past experiments _prove_ F=ma for experiments that haven't
been done?
Donald G. Shead
"Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:anrkc3$tb$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
divided by acceleration) _times_ acceleration.
The two sides of the formula are inversely related; or reciprocal: F =
(f/a)a!
josX
Einstein's status is an intricate part of the argument for his
theories. If some 'Marcus von Barguise' had thought of them, they
would be completely debated on merrits, but since it is Einstein,
everybody goes in this "i see the Most Genius Person's Intelectual
clothes, or i believe i should see them if i were smart" mode. So,
Einstein's person really is part of the argument for relativity,
probably the only real argument. IMHO attacking him personally,
by showing that he really wasn't very smart at all, merely chips a
little bit off of his fame, not much, it levels the playing field.
If a person thinks Einstein is the most brilliant person ever, then
he will blame mistakes he made always on a failure to understand,
and that's why there never is an end to the relativity debate.
Einstein is the prophet, and if you don't believe him, you are stupid,
if you see contradictions, you aparently "don't understand him". We
have the media to thank for this situation btw, first in going crazy
about fudzed data that /couldn't/ say anything about anything in
the first place (solar eclipse), and recently in making him the man
of the century (times). So they keep the mysticism alive, to get rid
of relativity means to get rid of the personal glory of Einstein, who
was argueably a below average university student, and a ripoff, wanted
to work at unevirsity's, but needed the help of friends to get lifted
to his patent office job. I guess he is so famous because he was able
to take credit for some major achievements (in those days) of scientists,
and pass them off in one year (1905) as his own, establishing himself
as some kind of a miracle. If only he had stolen critical lines of
thought, and not mystical fantasies with no basis in fact...
--
jos
josX
F=m*a is the best guess, because everything proves it in the past, and it
is our experience that F=m*a, and that even if we project it to happen, it
will still happen.
--
jos
Spaceman
>This is one of the many times where thought experiment deviate from
>reality.
and still the parrot will not research all clocks.
<LOL>
Tris
> >How does data for past experiments _prove_ F=ma for experiments that
haven't
> >been done?
>
> F=m*a is the best guess, because everything proves it in the past, and it
> is our experience that F=m*a, and that even if we project it to happen, it
> will still happen.
Likewise for relativity. It has worked in the past and it works at present.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:anrv7l$53m$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>"Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
><snip>
>>>How does data for past experiments _prove_ F=ma for experiments that haven't
>>>been done?
>>
>>F=m*a is the best guess, because everything proves it in the past, and it
>>is our experience that F=m*a, and that even if we project it to happen, it
>>will still happen.
>
>Likewise for relativity. It has worked in the past and it works at present.
Special Relativity can be summarized as lightspeed constancy.
--
jos
Spaceman
>Likewise for relativity. It has worked in the past and it works at present.
>
No,
relativity has been proven wrong and will remain
"just a theory" forever.
People try to teach about such facts
(clock malfunctions)
yet many worshippers (like you) get in the way and give
crap but yet no actual physics to back thier claims
up.
Still refusing any "real forces" research of thier "god",
they worship it "unquestionably"
physics time travel dupes (like you) just worship the clock malfunction
and "do not allow any looking for the malfunction at all".
Robert Kolker
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> In article <3D9EE005...@attbi.com>, bobk...@attbi.com wrote:
>
> Newtonian
>
>>Mechanics implies that a massive particle can be accelerated past light
>>speed in a relatively short time.
>
>
> ***{Not true. Suppose, for example, that we have a merry-go-round sitting
Forget the merry go round. Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant.
That implies that velocities add. Now do the following gedanken with me.
Take a linear accelerator and bost an electron to a little over half of
light speed. Now, in the reference frame of the electron (where it is at
rest) apply an identical boost. The velocities add so the electron can
be moved to over light speed. That is a consequence of Galilean invariance.
For the details see -Special Relativity- by A.P.French pp 10-11. The
application of Galilean relativity leads to a prediction that an
electron can be driven as fast as one wishes, but the actual
measurements show otherwise. Conclusion, Galilean invariant theories are
-wrong!-. They look good at low speeds, but a high speeds they break
down. BTW, the proof that Newtonian mechanics implies that an electron
can be driven past c, does not involve any relativistic assumptions. The
problem lies in the application of Maxwell's electrodynamic laws which
macroscopically are verified by experiment. In a linear accelarator,
James Clerk Maxwell is doing the the driving.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>For the details see -Special Relativity- by A.P.French pp 10-11. The
>application of Galilean relativity leads to a prediction that an
>electron can be driven as fast as one wishes, but the actual
>measurements show otherwise. Conclusion, Galilean invariant theories are
>-wrong!-.
and yet again,
a twist to make something wrong that is not.
Nowhere does Newton say
the wind can get the "driverless boat" to go faster than the wind
itself.
The problem is you are "thinking the force" is greater than
it can even be.
If the wind is 100 mph.
the fastest you will get that dang boat (without driver)
is about the speed or lower (mostly lower from medium drag)
Newton does not have it wrong
and Galilean addition of speeds is not wrong either.
Don't be a twisting worshipper.
It's sad.
"basic addition is not wrong"
stop even thinking it is.
It's sad.
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
> F=m*a is the best guess, because everything proves it in the past, and it
> is our experience that F=m*a, and that even if we project it to happen, it
> will still happen.
So you believe. Not proven until it happens and that still leaves the
next time the experiment is tried, or tried under conditions not yet met
before. This is the famous Problem of Induction. One cannot validly
derive a universally quantified proposition from a subset of possible
applications of the proposition. And that is why no scientific theory is
ever proven true. The best you can say of a theory is so far, so good.
The worst you can say is that a contrary experimental outcome has proved
that it is incorrect.
Once you grasp this principle, you might even be able to stop wearing
your tinfoil hat.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Tris wrote:
>
> Likewise for relativity. It has worked in the past and it works at present.
And what is more it works everywhere that Newtonian mechanics works (low
speed) and works where Newtonian mechanics fails. See action of any
highspeed particle accelerator.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
> "Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
> Special Relativity can be summarized as lightspeed constancy.
No. Lorentz invariance is better.
Bob Kolker
josX
This is exactly what i say. It is you who always makes it into a universal
postulate, and then you say "because you believe this postulate, we can
also postulate about lightspeed without evidence".
--
jos
josX
Pray-tell, what does classical mechanics (curve fittings and direct
evidence) get wrong in particle accelerators ?
Do you notice that it /can't/ get it wrong?
I always win, at least never lose. That's because i stick to the evidence,
and try to get it on the same table in order to find explanations, and
where they illude us, i leave them 'yet unknown, need more research'.
--
jos
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> This is exactly what i say. It is you who always makes it into a universal
> postulate, and then you say "because you believe this postulate, we can
> also postulate about lightspeed without evidence".
The support is in the predictions that follow from the assumptions.
Newton could not verify has universally quantified laws of motion. He
could only make predictions and see that experiment supported them.
It is not always possible to verify the postulates. On the other hand,
if a postulate is refuted empirically, the theory is in deep doo doo.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
>
> Pray-tell, what does classical mechanics (curve fittings and direct
> evidence) get wrong in particle accelerators ?
The Newtonian/Maxwellian prediction that an electron can be driven past
light speed by an electromagnet. See -Special Relativity- by French. pp
9-10. Newtonian theory would predict that for an input of less than 1
million electron volts an electron can be driven past light speed. The
results are quite different. There are accelerators the operate in the
giga electron volt range and cannot put electrons to light speed. Look
at the Lorentz Force law. If relativistic mass did not increase, an
electromagnet drives the electron faster and faster which increases the
force on the electron which drives it faster and faster. Eventually the
speed would exceed any arbitrary amount.
Bob Kolker
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Special Relativity can be summarized as lightspeed constancy.
>
>No. Lorentz invariance is better.
Because it sounds more difficult, makes people think "wow, that sounds
difficult!" ?
--
jos
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
> Because it sounds more difficult, makes people think "wow, that sounds
> difficult!" ?
No. Because it encompasses the -two- postulates of S.R. In addition to
the constancy of light speed is the assumption that -all- the laws of
physics remain invariant in inertial frames. That includes both optical
laws (electromagnetism) and mechanical laws.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Mitchell Jones wrote:
> not my intent; and (b) my point stands: Newtonian mechanics does not, in
> fact, conflict with the results of particle accelerator tests. --MJ}***
But it does. Any Galilean invariant theory will predict incorrectly.
Bob Kolker
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
> F=m*a is the best guess, because everything proves it in the past, and it
> is our experience that F=m*a, and that even if we project it to happen, it
> will still happen.
Watch Jos ignore this:
every time that F=m*a is "proven", relativity is also proven, since
within the margin of error, they will predict the same thing for those
cases. Jos knows this full well, but he chooses to ignore it, hypocrite
that he is.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
> evidence) get wrong in particle accelerators ?
The energy of the particles, for starters.
> Do you notice that it /can't/ get it wrong?
We have noticed that in your delusioned mind (see
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html for more details) you
never lose, yes.
> I always win, at least never lose. That's because i stick to the evidence,
> and try to get it on the same table in order to find explanations, and
> where they illude us, i leave them 'yet unknown, need more research'.
No, it's because you stick to fantasies, and 'fuzzbabble' around all
the evidence that proves you wrong. And there is plenty of that.
Did I mention http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html yet? It
clearly proves you are a hypocrite, insane, psychotic, and a liar.
Mitchell Jones
> mjo...@jump.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote in message
news:<mjones-0610...@66-105-229-54-aus-02.cvx.algx.net>...
>
> > In article <2a0cceff.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> > null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
> >
> > > mjo...@jump.net (Mitchell Jones) wrote in message
> > news:<mjones-0610...@66-105-229-44-aus-02.cvx.algx.net>...
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Result: Newtonian mechanics implies that we can never boost the speed of
> > > > anything above lightspeed, unless we hit it with impactors that are,
> > > > themselves, moving faster than light.
> > >
> > > And yet, starting from rest wrt the ground, I am able to toss a ball
> > > with some velocity greater than zero.
> >
> > ***{The ball, when you release it, is moving at the same speed as the last
> > part of your hand that is in contact with it. It never moves faster than
> > your hand. --MJ}***
>
> And my hand never moves faster than my wrist, which never moves faster
> than my forearem, shich never moves faster than my upper arm, which
> never moves faster than shoulder, which never moves moves faster than
> my waist ... shoes ...
***{That is false. The end of a rigid structure that is rotating about a
pivot point obviously moves faster, in general, that parts of the
structure which are closer to the pivot. Indeed, I very explicitly said,
"The ball, when you release it, is moving at the same speed as the last
part of your hand that is in contact with it." Why do you think I narrowed
my focus down to the point of specifying "the part of the hand that is in
contact" with the ball, if not to avoid a time wasting and diversionary
excursion into irrelevancies of this sort? --MJ}***
Mitchell Jones
<nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
***{According to Hume, and to his disciple Robert Kolker, it does not and
cannot. By their view necessary connections are not given in sense
experience and the validity of inductive reasoning is not deducible from
self-evident premises. Thus there is no basis for belief in a connection
between the past and the present, or between the present and the future.
Result: if F = ma yesterday, it may equal 32ma today, and (m^3)[a^(1/2)]
tomorrow. Moreover, you can't even say that it will *probably* equal ma in
the future, because the very idea of probability rests on the assumption
that things will continue to behave as they behaved in the past. --MJ}***
Mitchell Jones
<nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> news:anrv7l$53m$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> > "Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> <snip>
> > >How does data for past experiments _prove_ F=ma for experiments that
> haven't
> > >been done?
> >
> > F=m*a is the best guess, because everything proves it in the past, and it
> > is our experience that F=m*a, and that even if we project it to happen, it
> > will still happen.
>
> Likewise for relativity. It has worked in the past and it works at present.
***{The *equations* work--which means: if you plug in the right numbers
and do the right mathematical manipulations, you will get answers that, to
good accuracy, agree with the actual measurements. Whether Einstein's
*interpretations* of his equations work, however, is quite another
matter--especially given the firestorm of controversy that has swirled
around those interpretations from the outset, and which continues today.
My own view is that how the equations ought to be interpreted is a
separate issue from whether they agree with experimentally determined data
points. In the matter of interpretation, I would say that the test is (a)
whether the interpretation has internal contradictions; (b) whether it
clashes with more fundamental principles on which science in particular or
knowledge in general rests; and (c) whether it clashes with other
well-established theories that adequately explain the same equations. The
point: I think we can accept, and use, Einstein's equations without
feeling obligated to accept his interpretations, and I don't see much
benefit in trying to stifle dissent over those interpretations by hurling
insults at the dissenters. (I'm not saying you are doing that, mind you.
But as I have read more and more posts in this thread, it has become
apparent to me that much of the commentary resembles a flame war more than
a reasoned discussion.) --MJ}***
Mitchell Jones
> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > In article <3D9EE005...@attbi.com>, bobk...@attbi.com wrote:
> >
> > Newtonian
> >
> >>Mechanics implies that a massive particle can be accelerated past light
> >>speed in a relatively short time.
> >
> >
> > ***{Not true. Suppose, for example, that we have a merry-go-round sitting
>
> Forget the merry go round. Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant.
> That implies that velocities add. Now do the following gedanken with me.
> Take a linear accelerator and bost an electron to a little over half of
> light speed. Now, in the reference frame of the electron (where it is at
> rest) apply an identical boost.
***{Can't be done. The accelerator is not in the reference frame of the
electron. Any additional boost that it applies will be from its rest
frame--which means: the successives pushes that it applies to the electron
will be weaker and weaker, as the electron moves faster and faster.
Result: the electron can never move faster than the speed of light unless
the particles that are catching up to it from behind are also moving
faster than light. But, of course, conventional physics does not claim
that accelerators are hitting electrons from behind with particles that
are moving faster than light. Hence the assertion that particle
accelerator results contradict Newtonian mechanics is wrong. --MJ}***
The velocities add so the electron can
> be moved to over light speed. That is a consequence of Galilean invariance.
***{Nope. If you fire a bullet from a gun, and then endeavor to boost that
bullet to a higher speed by hitting it from behind with another object,
the second object has to move faster than the bullet, relative to the gun.
Otherwise, it will never catch up, and, obviously, it can't push what it
can't catch. --MJ}***
> For the details see -Special Relativity- by A.P.French pp 10-11. The
> application of Galilean relativity leads to a prediction that an
> electron can be driven as fast as one wishes, but the actual
> measurements show otherwise.
***{I have all of French's books, as it happens, and he does not address
the point I'm raising in any of them. In the section of *Special
Relativity* that you referred to above, for example, he begins the
discussion in a way that makes it clear that he simply *assumes* it is
possible to apply a constant acceleration to an object, and that he is
utterly unaware that when the boost is due to the impacts of particles
coming up from behind the object, the force and acceleration are going to
drop off as the difference between the velocity of the object and the
velocities of the objects giving the push decreases. Here is how he begins
the discussion:
"According to the equations of Newtonian mechanics, there is in principle
no upper limit to the velocity that may be given to an object. Imagine,
for example, that a body is acted on continually by a constant force equal
in magnitude to the force of gravity at the earth's surface. It's
acceleration would always have the value 9.8 m/sec^2. After 1 year,
starting from rest, its speed would be about 3x10^8 m/sec (i.e., equal to
the speed of light in a vacuum); after 2 years it would be 6x10^8 m/sec,
and so on." [*Special Relativity*, by A.P. French, pg. 6-7]
In the above and later in his dicussion of particle accelerators, he
simply assumes that the impressed force is constant. He never argues for
that conclusion anywhere, and exhibits no awareness whatever of the fact
that any push is going to drop off as the speed of the object being pushed
approaches closer and closer to the speeds of the particles doing the
pushing, and he exhibits a similar lack of awareness that such a result is
a direct implication of the principles of Newtonian mechanics.
Bottom line: A.P. French's dog won't hunt. :-)
--Mitchell Jones}***
Stephen Speicher
> My own view is that how the equations ought to be interpreted is a
> separate issue from whether they agree with experimentally determined data
> points.
You do realize, though, that such equations do not just pop into
existence, right? The equations _must_ agree with valid
experimental data, but what you call 'interpretation' --
hypotheses, ideas, principles -- are part of the normal birthing
process for the equations. In fact, for general relativity, there
was a spaucity of experimental data upon which Einstein could
base his equations, and his 'interpretation' was fundamental to
creating the mathematics which now, after the fact, has been
shown to be in such good agreement with experimental verification
of its predictions.
> In the matter of interpretation, I would say that the test is (a)
> whether the interpretation has internal contradictions; (b) whether it
> clashes with more fundamental principles on which science in particular or
> knowledge in general rests; and (c) whether it clashes with other
> well-established theories that adequately explain the same equations.
Well, in that regard, just how do you think Einstein's equations
of general relativity stack up according to your (a), (b), and
(c)?
> The
> point: I think we can accept, and use, Einstein's equations without
> feeling obligated to accept his interpretations, and I don't see much
> benefit in trying to stifle dissent over those interpretations by hurling
> insults at the dissenters.
Perhaps you are new to these sci.* groups: I get the impression
that your above use of "dissent" carries with it the qualifier of
"rational." These groups are populated by many "dissenters" who
are impervious to reason and experimental fact, and a truly
rational dissenter is a rare creature indeed. The standard fare
are ignorant dolts who offer little but emotional rants and
made-up fantasy stories. Rational dissent is not just tolerated,
but it is encouraged, albeit rarely seen on these groups.
I have not read any of your previous posts: are you a rational
dissenter? If so, please make your case.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
J. J. Lodder
> F=m*a is the best guess, because everything proves it in the past, and it
> is our experience that F=m*a, and that even if we project it to happen, it
> will still happen.
No need to guess: F = m*a
-does hold- in special relativity, as a four-vector eqn.
It reduces to the 3-vector eqn
you (just barely) understand for v<<c
Best,
Jan
Robert Kolker
Mitchell Jones wrote:
>
> ***{Can't be done. The accelerator is not in the reference frame of the
> electron.
Its a gedanken. Put another accelerator in the rest frame of the
electron and you get a boost past the speed of light. The point is that
Newtonian mechanics predicts no speed limit. The fact that theory allows
for unlimited speed shows that it is defective.
Bob Kolker