Speed of Gravity Controversy
John Teller
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sog.html
It turns out that analysis behind the result is flawed!
--John
Mike Varney
"John Teller" <johnte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9b43a45f.03021...@posting.google.com...
Hello Crank.
Richard Henry
And yet, Jupiter Scientific makes the following statement:
"It does not make sense to change Einstein's theory so that the speed of
gravity cg is an adjustable parameter. In other words, the speed of gravity
must be the speed of light."
Eric Gisse
Your back!
Thought you left for good....
Now I don't have to read just uncle al to be amused anymore.
Minor Crank
news:o422a.313$EH5.1...@news.uswest.net...
No, ignorance is not crankishness. To the best of my knowledge, the
controversy over the analysis hasn't yet been resolved to
everybody's satisfaction, especially with major heavyweights like
Clifford Will lining up on the other side.
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
news:G452a.71823$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Unless, of course, you're claiming that "John Teller" is
whatshisface in disguise just promoting his book?
Minor Crank
Sam Wormley
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
Number 620 #1, January 13, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein
The Speed of Gravity
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/620-1.html
Can the speed of gravity be measured directly through the observation
of gravitational lensing effects? Two scientists who monitored the
deflection of quasar light as it passed very near Jupiter argue that
they have derived an experimental value for the speed of gravity equal
to 1.06 times the speed of light (with an uncertainty of 20%). But two
other scientists claim that the lensing experiment only served as a
crude measurement of the speed of light itself.
Physicists have long taken for granted that the effect of
gravitational force, like the effect of electromagnetic force, is not
instantaneous but should travel at a finite velocity. A familiar
example of this delay is the fact that when we see the sun, we see it
as it was 8 minutes ago. Many believe that gravity also travels at the
speed of light. The trouble is, while it is relatively easy to gauge
the strength of gravity (one can measure gravity even near a black
hole, where orbiting matter emits telltale x rays), it is difficult to
study the propagation of gravity.
Although not as heavy as a star, Jupiter still has considerable
gravity, and when on September 8, 2002, it swept very near the
position of quasar J0842 + 1835, the theory of general relativity
suggests that the apparent quasar position on the sky would execute a
small loop over the course of several days owing to the lensing of
quasar light by the passing planet. Sergei Kopeiken (University of
Missouri) and Ed Fomolont (National Radio Astronomy Observatory, or
NRAO) have now seen just such a loop, as they reported this week at
the meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) in Seattle. For
this purpose they employed the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) of
radio telescopes, a configuration of dish detectors providing an
angular resolution of 10 micro-arcseconds. Actually the observed
lensing loop was slightly displaced from what one would expect if
gravity propagated instantaneously. Kopeiken and Fomolont interpret
this slight displacement as providing an experimental handle on the
speed of gravity itself, and thereby calculate the value of 1.06 times
c.
Other scientists disagree with this interpretation, and say that the
radio lensing data can do little more than provide a measurement of
the speed of light, not gravity. Two such opinions, by scientists who
did not report at the AAS meeting, are as follows: Clifford Will of
Washington University in the US (preprint at
(www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145) and Hideki Asada of Hirosaki
University in Japan (www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0206266)
Gordon D. Pusch
And that statement is correct. Kopeikin's analysis changes the ``speed of
gravity'' in an ad hoc and ill-defined fashion, without even bothering to
ask what such a change would mean. For example, his ``speed of gravity''
c_g is the speed measured relative to _what_ ??? In Kopeikin's analysis,
he in effect arbitrarily and inconsistently assumes that c_g is the velocity
relative to ``coordinate space'' --- in effect, assuming an ``aether.''
Clifford Will's analysis points out tha such a ``velocity'' is ill-defined,
and shows that under a self-consistent analysis of the problem within the
PPN framework, Kopeikin's experiment measures the _speed of light_, not the
``speed of gravity,'' and that any effect due to a ``speed of gravity''
differing from the speed of light do not appear until _second order_ in c_g/c,
not first order as Kopeikin claims <http://www.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145>.
(Will's result will not suprise anyone who followed the debate over Tom
van Flandern's nonsense, where the same result obtained,
<http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#speed>.)
Asada's analysis, while less rigorous, reaches the same conclusion,
<http://www.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0206266>. Kopeikin, unfortunately,
appears unwilling to admit that he's made a mistake.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Mike Varney
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:G452a.71823$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Are you going to be at the April APS meeting? Will speaks before the
rest. Should be fun.
Uncle Al
At the moment it appears that Clifford Will is holding the short end
for not carefully reading Sergei Kopeikin's assignment of variables.
Your citation is not refereed literature.
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212121
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145
The two fellows will sit down amidst a lot of blackboards and have it
out. One shared agreement will emerge, they'll shake hands, General
Relativity will emerge unscathed either way. It's a tempest in a
teapot.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Harry Conover
>
> controversy over the analysis hasn't yet been resolved to
> everybody's satisfaction, especially with major heavyweights like
> Clifford Will lining up on the other side.
>
> Minor Crank
I agree, but the opinions of "major heavyweights like Cliffor Will"
shouldn't really enter the picture so far as scientific objectivity is
concerned.
The Jupiter results are so deeply buried in noise that they are
virtually meaningless, just as were many reported positive results in
cold fusion.
It is very easy to assume that based on experience with magnetic
fields and the predictions of General Relativity theory that
perturbations in a gravitational field will propagate at the velocity
of light in free space however, it is by no means a demonstrated
scientific fact that this is the case.
I predict that the compelling evidence for the propagation velocity of
gravitational waves will be based on the results of an interference
experiment, which to date no one knows how to conduct.
Harry C.
Minor Crank
No.
> Will speaks before the
> rest. Should be fun.
>
Be sure to take good notes to share with us! Not just on this
subject, but
anything that strikes your fancy!
Minor Crank
Mike Varney
Check out the abstracts for session R12. Can you see a few of the
cranks? :-)
I myself will be presenting at the focus section, but I might stay an
extra day and check out the bruhaha.
Minor Crank
> Check out the abstracts for session R12. Can you see a few of the
> cranks? :-)
> I myself will be presenting at the focus section, but I might stay
an
> extra day and check out the bruhaha.
Do stay the extra day, if you can!
I've never been to a physics meeting, but I've been to chemistry,
microbiology, molecular biology and software engineering meetings
ranging in size from the huge Cold Spring Harbor Symposia to little
special interest meetings. They are valuable for networking, setting
up collaborations, etc. Think in terms of your long-term career
goals. My experience is that the guys who get the grants are usually
the guys who know lots of people.
Minor Crank
Traveler
Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote:
>They are valuable for networking, setting
>up collaborations, etc. Think in terms of your long-term career
>goals. My experience is that the guys who get the grants are usually
>the guys who know lots of people.
Sounds like a bunch of political and/or religious conspirators talking
about how to split the tax payer's money among themselves. It's pretty
much who you know and how much ass you kiss. :-D
I've always suspected that science is mostly about politics and
ass-kissing. This confirms it. From the horse's mouth, no less!
Louis Savain
-------------------------------------------------
Temporal Intelligence:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm
The Silver Bullet:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Reliability.htm
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Robert Kolker
Traveler wrote:
>
> I've always suspected that science is mostly about politics and
> ass-kissing. This confirms it. From the horse's mouth, no less!
>
The day of the gentleman scientist of independent means is long gone.
That occurred a great deal during the 19-th century. Maxwell was not
government funded. He lived on his own (or his family's) money and was
not treated to tax payer revenues.
Unfortunately, the government has insinuated itself into scientific
doings, mostly from weapons development. Every since radar and the
a-bomb it has been a government game.
Then there are the corporate and academtic connections which are just as
likely to be corrupt as the government involvement. It would be
wonderful to get scientific work back to private voluntary funding.
Footnote. Robert Godard, Wern von Bruan's spiritual father was mostly
privately funded in the early days of his research. But this is way more
the exception than the rule.
Bob Kolker
Minor Crank
news:fpil4vk6vgd44a7md...@4ax.com...
> In article <KMz2a.89733$HN5.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Minor
> Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >They are valuable for networking, setting
> >up collaborations, etc. Think in terms of your long-term career
> >goals. My experience is that the guys who get the grants are
usually
> >the guys who know lots of people.
>
> Sounds like a bunch of political and/or religious conspirators
talking
> about how to split the tax payer's money among themselves. It's
pretty
> much who you know and how much ass you kiss. :-D
>
> I've always suspected that science is mostly about politics and
> ass-kissing. This confirms it. From the horse's mouth, no less!
Science is a social activity. Through networking, you can set up
collaborations, share ideas, make friends. My graduate advisor spent
hours on the phone every week arguing science with former
colleagues, current collaborators, etc. and would attend at least
three meetings a year. He also organized several meetings during the
years I was with him. He always seemed to be aware of new
developments before they reached the journals. His productivity was
quite high, typically over a dozen papers a year coming out of his
lab, of which several would be collaborative research efforts with
colleagues in France, Germany, California, Minnesota, etc.
Louis, you are a loner who could never understand the value of
collaboration and the sharing of ideas. In all the time that you've
been on this newsgroup, I have not seen any genuine give-and-take of
ideas on your part. It's always been, "Everybody in the universe is
an idiot except me. Why won't people listen?"
No wonder you are a failure at science.
Minor Crank
Traveler
<blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote:
It is still a good old boys network. This is the reason that science
needs checks and balances. Problem is, the concept of peer review
reinforces the good old boy network. You can deny it till kingdom
come, but peer review is synonymous to ass-kissing and censorship,
pure and simple.
The only way to democratize science is to open it up to the public who
pays for it all. Ideas must be allowed to stand or fall on their own
merit not on the basis of favoritism within a tightly-knit,
shoulder-patting network of ass-kissers competing for grant money.
>Louis, you are a loner who could never understand the value of
>collaboration and the sharing of ideas.
This is a lie since I am collaborating right now with several people
in my AI and software engineering projects. And I am making excellent
progress, I might add. So pack it up your ass.
> In all the time that you've
>been on this newsgroup, I have not seen any genuine give-and-take of
>ideas on your part. It's always been, "Everybody in the universe is
>an idiot except me. Why won't people listen?"
This is a lie since I never complain about why people don't listen to
me. And I never said that everybody in the universe is an idiot. Only
you and a few other ass kissers. :-D
Unlike you, I don't subscribe to the notion that science is a
popularity contest. I don't post on the physics newsgroups because I
need approval from other ass kissers or because I'm trying to build a
following. I post in order to insult and show my contempt for assholes
like you and I have fun doing it. Popularity be damned!
>No wonder you are a failure at science.
Taking a strawman and wrestling it to the ground is neither
particularly brave nor sensible. It shows you for what you are, an
asshole. And an ass-kissing one at that. :-D
Gordon D. Pusch
<*!PLONK!*>
Traveler
(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
>(gnus-kill "From" "trav...@nospam.com")
>
><*!PLONK!*>
Another ass kisser heard from. Pack it up your ass, Pusch.
Minor Crank
Louis, the only people I can imagine you "collaborating" with are
people who would be willing to take a completely subordinate
position to you and your ideas, i.e. "ass-kissers."
For you to collaborate with intellectual equals or superiors would
be unthinkable. You have too much of an ego to protect.
Minor Crank
CC
Teller <johnte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The modern pseuodscientific academic community measuring the speed of a
phenomenon which they haven't a clue concerning the nature and cause of
is a bit rich.
CC
Mike Varney
"CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
news:130220030204401620%c...@singtech.com...
Really? Are they supposed to understand gravity without
experimentation?
What is your understanding of gravity?
*smirk*
Rarely have I seen someone show that they are a crank as quickly and
completely and with a minimum of words as you just did, CC.
For that reason alone I nominate you to Old Man's crank list.
Traveler
<blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote:
Not at all. It's a laissez-faire type of collaboration. We exchange
interesting ideas.
>For you to collaborate with intellectual equals or superiors would
>be unthinkable. You have too much of an ego to protect.
It seems that your ego is mightily offended.
Mike Varney
> In article <dNJ2a.95458$be.71760@rwcrnsc53>, "Minor Crank"
> <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >Louis, the only people I can imagine you "collaborating" with are
> >people who would be willing to take a completely subordinate
> >position to you and your ideas, i.e. "ass-kissers."
>
> Not at all. It's a laissez-faire type of collaboration. We exchange
> interesting ideas.
Exactly. Since you pull your ideas from your ass, Savian(DING!), and
your intellectual peers do the same, it seems you are doing nothing but
kissing each others asses.
QED.
Traveler
<var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
Maybe. But I would rather kiss the asses of my intellectual peers than
kiss the wrinkled old asses of Franz Heymann and Old Man, something
that you do on a daily basis. In public, no less.
BTW, Varnette. How many blacks and Mexicans do you and your
ass-kissing buddy, Uncle Adolf, plan on running over this year, you
racist asshole?
Traveler
<var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
>For that reason alone I nominate you to Old Man's crank list.
And I nominate you as Old Man's ass-kissing lover. You like Old Man's
old wrinkled ass, don't you Varnette?
Sam Wormley
>
> Maybe. But I would rather kiss the asses of my intellectual peers than
> kiss the wrinkled old asses of Franz Heymann and Old Man, something
> that you do on a daily basis. In public, no less.
>
> BTW, Varnette. How many blacks and Mexicans do you and your
> ass-kissing buddy, Uncle Adolf, plan on running over this year, you
> racist asshole?
>
Louis--Clean up your language! Here's a summary of what's
going on with the indirect speed of gravity measurements.
Traveler
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
This is old boring news. Why do keep posting this crap? Kopeikin and
his buddies are a bunch of religious fanatics. They have to prove that
Einstein was right about the speed of gravity even if it kills them.
If they had any sense, they would try to falsify Einstein's theory,
not show their obvious bias by trying to support it with a confusing
and crappy experiment. In addition, if those guys were really after
understanding, they would try to understand the true causal mechanism
of gravity, not trying to prop up a "theory" that can only be
described as more Ptolemaic epicycles. GR is an infuriatingly boring
theory.
BTW, why is this thread being posted to sci.physics.fusion,
sci.polymers and sci.med.physics? Note follow-up.
tj Frazir
universe is energy under presure and wave interactions and just a
wavical lowering ep is afecting the energy rates of space between
matter.
Matter is bouyant in energy and allwas pushed to less energy.
Gravity is a push to less energy and identical t the law of
conservation.
What the fuck waz U thinkin ?
CC
> "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:130220030204401620%c...@singtech.com...
> > In article <9b43a45f.03021...@posting.google.com>, John
> > Teller <johnte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There is a nice report about the recent measurement of the speed of
> gravity at
> > >
> > > http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sog.html
> > >
> > > It turns out that analysis behind the result is flawed!
> > >
> > > --John
> >
> > The modern pseuodscientific academic community measuring the speed of
> > a phenomenon which they haven't a clue concerning the nature and cause
> > of is a bit rich.
>
> Really? Are they supposed to understand gravity without
> experimentation?
I repeat for the sake of your intellectual density (even though I am
convinced it will do absolutely no good) :-): "The modern
pseuodscientific academic community measuring the speed of a
phenomenon which they haven't a clue concerning the nature and cause of
is a bit rich."
I never said that they were supposed to understand gravity without
experimentation, you loon. That you eruct such disfunctional unrelated
comments is typical of your inability to participate in a conversation
concerning physics in a meaningful way. You set up your straw men and
then you knock them over and you think no one can see through your
duplicity?
> What is your understanding of gravity?
> *smirk*
Smirk all you want. That only reifies my contention that you're an
arrogant dickhead who really has nothing to be arrogant about.
You don't understand gravity. I do. I unified electromagnetism and
gravity some years back now. To convey the pertinent points to you
would first require that you became a reasonable person, not bursting
out from the effects of your own swelled ego. There's a principle that
has to do with the acquistion of knowledge which is that if you already
think yourself knowledgable (that's you in a nutshell) then when the
truth comes knocking on your intellectual door, you're sure to send it
away with scorn (because you think you already have it and so whatever
appears you must esteem as an imposter).
Varney, you've always been an arrogant dickhead and I'm certain you'll
go to your grave as an arrogant dickhead.
My understanding of gravity has been shared with many people and many
have become convinced. But I can't share it with you. To share means
there has to be both a giver/sharer and a receiver of that which was
shared. You aren't capable of receiving it for the very reasons I
pointed out above. I could write it out in detail and you still
couldn't get it though many around you could grasp it perfectly.
CC.
Traveler
<c...@singtech.com> wrote:
>In article <b2gi8u$due$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>, Mike Varney
><var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
>
[cut]
>My understanding of gravity has been shared with many people and many
>have become convinced. But I can't share it with you. To share means
>there has to be both a giver/sharer and a receiver of that which was
>shared. You aren't capable of receiving it for the very reasons I
>pointed out above. I could write it out in detail and you still
>couldn't get it though many around you could grasp it perfectly.
Whatever you have, don't waste it on Varnette. Varnette has written
the book on ass kissing. The asshole lives to kiss ass. He's also an
inveterate shit regurgitator.
Mike Varney
> In article <b2gi8u$due$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>, Mike Varney
> <var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
>
> > "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > news:130220030204401620%c...@singtech.com...
> > > In article <9b43a45f.03021...@posting.google.com>, John
> > > Teller <johnte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is a nice report about the recent measurement of the speed
of
> > gravity at
> > > >
> > > > http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sog.html
> > > >
> > > > It turns out that analysis behind the result is flawed!
> > > >
> > > > --John
> > >
> > > The modern pseuodscientific academic community measuring the speed
of
> > > a phenomenon which they haven't a clue concerning the nature and
cause
> > > of is a bit rich.
> >
> > Really? Are they supposed to understand gravity without
> > experimentation?
>
Repeating does little but convince people that you are an ignorant nut.
> I never said that they were supposed to understand gravity without
> experimentation, you loon.
That is precicely what you stated, twit.
> That you eruct such disfunctional unrelated
> comments is typical of your inability to participate in a conversation
> concerning physics in a meaningful way.
You are the one lacking in the ability to converse about topics relating
to science. Please, it is obvious you lack the basic knowledge (words)
needed to make your case about anything regarding physics. Thus, I will
simply taunt and ridicule you, as you have nothing else to offer.
> > What is your understanding of gravity?
> > *smirk*
>
> Smirk all you want. That only reifies my contention that you're an
> arrogant dickhead who really has nothing to be arrogant about.
I note that you, by omission, admit that you are ignorant on the topic
of gravitation. That is ok, as you share that particular affliction
with at least 90% of the planet. Of course, that 90% is ignorant, while
you are simply stupid and proud of it. *smirk*
> You don't understand gravity. I do.
LOL!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> I unified electromagnetism and
> gravity some years back now.
Hahahaha! Time to check and see if you are on Old Man's crackpot
list...... Nope... I am sure you will be soon enough, Crazy-Crank.
> To convey the pertinent points to you
> would first <SNIP blah blah blah>
> Varney, you've always been an arrogant dickhead and I'm certain you'll
> go to your grave as an arrogant dickhead.
Better to be arrogant like me than stupid and willfully ignorant like
yourslef. *snicker*
> My understanding of gravity has been shared with many people and many
> have become convinced.
Especially after the people in the white jackets administer their
thorazine.
> But I can't share it with you.
Oh... of course you cannot... direct word of god is a highly personal
experience I am told.
Go play with your fellow inmates... the one who thinks he is napoleon
might be more receptive to your ramblings that I. *smirk*
Old Man
Does CC = Charles Cagle? Sure sounds like him. Cagle is
already on the sci.physics crackpot list. Is CC going to earn
the same honors? [Old Man]
Jan
> Whatever you have, don't waste it on Varnette. Varnette has written
> the book on ass kissing.
This is all you write about. Is this a complex or something? People
*can* agree on issues, you know.
Jan Bielawski
Franz Heymann
[...]
> I repeat for the sake of your intellectual density (even though I am
> convinced it will do absolutely no good) :-): "The modern
> pseuodscientific academic community measuring the speed of a
> phenomenon which they haven't a clue concerning the nature and cause
of
> is a bit rich."
Hey, Cagle, the speed of light was known reasonably accurately long,
long before anything significant was known about its nature.
Franz Heymann
[...]
Franz Heymann
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:3e506595_1@newsfeed...
They are indeed one and the same. Old Man should be able to recognise
the style by now.
Franz Heymann
CC
<Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Franz Heymann
> [...]
You're assuming, Mr. Heyman, that significant things are known about
its nature (I'm speaking of a photon or photons now because you changed
the subject to that in a specific way). In fact, I'd agree with such
an assumption but that still doesn't mean that people understand the
nature and characteristics of a photon. To assume that a photon
produces a gravitational field is correct but without understanding the
nature of a gravitational field in the first place means there's left a
huge gap in understanding photons (for the mainstream academic
community of pseudophysicists, that is).
Because I have a correct model of the nature of a gravitational field
then I can answer the question of the speed of gravity whereas a person
who doesn't understand the nature or characteristics of a gravitational
field can only conjecture and they can only do that quite poorly.
Since I claim that I have discovered the mechanism by which the
universe nonconservatively furnishes itself with mass then the very
idea of a particle which has a gravitational field suddenly coming into
being by the topological transformation of an existing structure would
pose the question of how soon that gravitational field would be
'connected' to the other components of the universe should be an
interesting question. The answer to the question is instantly.
CC.
CC
<trav...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <160220031844489825%c...@singtech.com>, CC
> <c...@singtech.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <b2gi8u$due$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>, Mike Varney
> ><var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
> >
> [cut]
> >My understanding of gravity has been shared with many people and many
> >have become convinced. But I can't share it with you. To share means
> >there has to be both a giver/sharer and a receiver of that which was
> >shared. You aren't capable of receiving it for the very reasons I
> >pointed out above. I could write it out in detail and you still
> >couldn't get it though many around you could grasp it perfectly.
>
> Whatever you have, don't waste it on Varnette. Varnette has written
> the book on ass kissing. The asshole lives to kiss ass. He's also an
> inveterate shit regurgitator.
>
> Louis Savain
Louis, many people, including myself, tend, at times, to become bad
mannered because of the responses that our posts seem to provoke. I'm
certainly aware of Varney the Vile but you're not doing so bad in that
department yourself, either. Its always a minor victory for people
like Varney when we respond in kind to their nasty remarks. I've
certainly given them a hatful of such victories myself but I'm
convinced that no good really comes of it and recommend that you try to
break the habit. (I'm not there myself but I'm trying.) :-).
CC. (Charles Cagle)
Cliff Frost
> "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:160220031844489825%c...@singtech.com...
...
> Hahahaha! Time to check and see if you are on Old Man's crackpot
> list...... Nope... I am sure you will be soon enough, Crazy-Crank.
Then neither you nor Old Man are very well-informed. CC has been on
Internet crackpot lists for years. Right along with Archie Plutonium
and many others.
Cheers,
Cliff
Traveler
<c...@singtech.com> wrote:
>Louis, many people, including myself, tend, at times, to become bad
>mannered because of the responses that our posts seem to provoke. I'm
>certainly aware of Varney the Vile but you're not doing so bad in that
>department yourself, either. Its always a minor victory for people
>like Varney when we respond in kind to their nasty remarks. I've
>certainly given them a hatful of such victories myself but I'm
>convinced that no good really comes of it and recommend that you try to
>break the habit. (I'm not there myself but I'm trying.) :-).
I disagree. Assholes must be relentlessly attacked with a barrage of
insults.
Franz Heymann
> In article <b2qbs9$nnl$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> > "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > news:160220031844489825%c...@singtech.com...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I repeat for the sake of your intellectual density (even though
I am
> > > convinced it will do absolutely no good) :-): "The modern
> > > pseuodscientific academic community measuring the speed of a
> > > phenomenon which they haven't a clue concerning the nature and
cause
> > > of is a bit rich."
>
> > Hey, Cagle, the speed of light was known reasonably accurately
long,
> > long before anything significant was known about its nature.
>
> > Franz Heymann
> > [...]
>
> You're assuming, Mr. Heyman, that significant things are known about
> its nature (I'm speaking of a photon or photons now because you
changed
> the subject to that in a specific way). In fact, I'd agree with
such
> an assumption but that still doesn't mean that people understand the
> nature and characteristics of a photon.
Charles seems to have forgotten the point he tried to make and I
refuted by reminding him that the speed of light was measured when
very litle was known about the detailed nature of light. Now he
should go and reread what he said about the speed of gravity which
provoked my response.
Franz Heymann
> To assume that a photon
> produces a gravitational field is correct but without understanding
the
> nature of a gravitational field in the first place means there's
left a
> huge gap in understanding photons (for the mainstream academic
> community of pseudophysicists, that is).
Charles is singing from the wrong song sheet.
>
> Because I have a correct model of the nature of a gravitational
field
> then I can answer the question of the speed of gravity whereas a
person
> who doesn't understand the nature or characteristics of a
gravitational
> field can only conjecture and they can only do that quite poorly.
Charles is wrong in thinking that he has any kind of model, right or
wrong, about anything. He does not possess the intellectual abilities
to go beyond the qualitative handwaving stage.
>
> Since I claim that I have discovered the mechanism by which the
> universe nonconservatively furnishes itself with mass then the very
> idea of a particle which has a gravitational field suddenly coming
into
> being by the topological transformation of an existing structure
would
> pose the question of how soon that gravitational field would be
> 'connected' to the other components of the universe should be an
> interesting question. The answer to the question is instantly.
Highly purified horse manure.
Franz Heymann
Bilge
><c...@singtech.com> wrote:
>
>>Louis, many people, including myself, tend, at times, to become bad
>>mannered because of the responses that our posts seem to provoke. I'm
>>certainly aware of Varney the Vile but you're not doing so bad in that
>>department yourself, either. Its always a minor victory for people
>>like Varney when we respond in kind to their nasty remarks. I've
>>certainly given them a hatful of such victories myself but I'm
>>convinced that no good really comes of it and recommend that you try to
>>break the habit. (I'm not there myself but I'm trying.) :-).
>
>I disagree. Assholes must be relentlessly attacked with a barrage of
>insults.
For you that becomes a self-referential nightmare which grows
exponetially.
Old Man
> In article <b2qbs9$nnl$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > news:160220031844489825%c...@singtech.com...
> You're assuming, Mr. Heyman, that significant things are known about
> its nature (I'm speaking of a photon or photons now because you changed
> the subject to that in a specific way). In fact, I'd agree with such
> an assumption but that still doesn't mean that people understand the
> nature and characteristics of a photon. To assume that a photon
> produces a gravitational field is correct but without understanding the
> nature of a gravitational field in the first place means there's left a
> huge gap in understanding photons (for the mainstream academic
> community of pseudophysicists, that is).
Crackpots frequently change their handle whilst maintaining
their unshakable delusions. Updating:
sci.physics Crackpot List:
CC <-------------- Charles Cagle in disguise
Pmb
Burt Libe
Mathew Orman
FrediFizzx
Spaceman
Jeff Relf
Richard Perry
Traveler
tj Frazir
Y.Porat
Charles Cagle
Mitchell Jones
Jack Sarfatti
ole.rughede
Anonymous
TomGee
kdthrge
ralph sansbury
Kenneth 'pawl' Collins
josX
HERetic3
Harry Conover
Dr X
2N3819
Oriel36
Habshi
Slavek.
JPDavid
James Harris
GRAVITYMECHANIC2
Henry Wilson
smart1234
DON JENSEN
Archimedes Plutonium
John C. Polasek
Keith Stein
Richard
Paul Stowe
Douglas Eagleson
David Thomson
brian the Roary Lion
David Rutherford
Average Joe
Anna&Will
Maleki
Robert
reticher
Dave Ulmer
Harold Ensle
MarkK
ThomasL283
S. Enterprize Company
V.Gopal
John Chelen
Tom Potter
By Courtesy of [Old Man]
kra...@dellepro.com
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:3e5173ba_2@newsfeed...
Dan Seur
arguments get in everyone's way. Best to ignore the assholes; without
stimulation they'll yawn and go home. Believe it.
Gregory L. Hansen
Traveler <eightwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <170220030557563141%c...@singtech.com>, CC
><c...@singtech.com> wrote:
>
>>Louis, many people, including myself, tend, at times, to become bad
>>mannered because of the responses that our posts seem to provoke. I'm
>>certainly aware of Varney the Vile but you're not doing so bad in that
>>department yourself, either. Its always a minor victory for people
>>like Varney when we respond in kind to their nasty remarks. I've
>>certainly given them a hatful of such victories myself but I'm
>>convinced that no good really comes of it and recommend that you try to
>>break the habit. (I'm not there myself but I'm trying.) :-).
>
>I disagree. Assholes must be relentlessly attacked with a barrage of
>insults.
Attacking anyone relentlessly with a barrage of insults makes you an
asshole that must be attacked relentlessly with a barrage of insults.
Maybe you won't think so, but anyone else that thinks assholes
must be attacked relentlessly with a barrage of insults will think so.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Traveler
wrote:
>Traveler - unfortunately, these NGs are like crowded rooms, and loud
>arguments get in everyone's way. Best to ignore the assholes; without
>stimulation they'll yawn and go home. Believe it.
No they don't. Assholes are like bugs and mosquitoes in a tropical
swamp. They must be relentlessly and resolutely attacked. It's a never
ending battle.
Mike Varney
> In article <3E5180F7...@casta.net>, Dan Seur <cl...@casta.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Traveler - unfortunately, these NGs are like crowded rooms, and loud
> >arguments get in everyone's way. Best to ignore the assholes; without
> >stimulation they'll yawn and go home. Believe it.
>
> No they don't. Assholes are like bugs and mosquitoes in a tropical
> swamp. They must be relentlessly and resolutely attacked. It's a never
> ending battle.
Savain(DING!), you have lost the battle, so the battle has ended.
The only battle left is for you to get enough lip ointment to heal your
ass-kissing chafed lips.
Mike Varney
Traveler
<var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
>
>"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:f0135vs6idinmgmor...@4ax.com...
>> In article <3E5180F7...@casta.net>, Dan Seur <cl...@casta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Traveler - unfortunately, these NGs are like crowded rooms, and loud
>> >arguments get in everyone's way. Best to ignore the assholes; without
>> >stimulation they'll yawn and go home. Believe it.
>>
>> No they don't. Assholes are like bugs and mosquitoes in a tropical
>> swamp. They must be relentlessly and resolutely attacked. It's a never
>> ending battle.
>
>Savain(DING!), you have lost the battle, so the battle has ended.
The battle has not even begun, you spineless moron.
>The only battle left is for you to get enough lip ointment to heal your
>ass-kissing chafed lips.
You should speak. Do you deny that you kiss Old Man's and Franz
Heymann's asses daily and publicly on these newsgroups? Keep at it.
You like it and the senile old fucks need it. And don't ever forget
Uncle Adolf. He craves your adoring lips on his racist ass. :-D
Gordon D. Pusch
> sci.physics Crackpot List:
>
> CC <-------------- Charles Cagle in disguise
Not much of a disguise! Just KILLfile any address originating from his
"company's" domain, "singtech.com," since he appears to be its only user
(and quite probably its only "employee"!). That way, he will only darken
your screen if he uses one of his notorious AT&T anagram aliases acc'ts.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Traveler
(Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
>"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> writes:
[cur ego stroking crap from Pusch]
BTW, is OLd Man a cross-dresser? Does he wear high heels, lipstick, a
thong and a bra? Why do so many people on these NGs insist on kissing
the wrinkled ass of a senile old fuck? Who the fuck is Old Man anyway?
tj Frazir
energy and identical to conservation .
Y.Porat
> news:170220030550135325%c...@singtech.com...
> > In article <b2qbs9$nnl$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> > <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > > news:160220031844489825%c...@singtech.com...
>
> > You're assuming, Mr. Heyman, that significant things are known about
> > its nature (I'm speaking of a photon or photons now because you changed
> > the subject to that in a specific way). In fact, I'd agree with such
> > an assumption but that still doesn't mean that people understand the
> > nature and characteristics of a photon. To assume that a photon
> > produces a gravitational field is correct but without understanding the
> > nature of a gravitational field in the first place means there's left a
> > huge gap in understanding photons (for the mainstream academic
> > community of pseudophysicists, that is).
>
> Crackpots frequently change their handle whilst maintaining
> their unshakable delusions. Updating:
whts your real name old senile cook
you are a pain in the neck for the advance of scince
and you should be treated as such.
i suggest it is Franz Heymann
Y.porat
----------------------------
Mike Varney
"Y.Porat" <por...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:c91f39eb.03021...@posting.google.com...
Y. Porat, can't you at least spell better than Brown? After all,
America dumps quite a bit of money into Israeli education system. You
think you would have benefited.
Titan Point
> In article <giadgud...@pusch.xnet.com>, gdp...@NO.xnet.SPAM.com
> (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote:
>
>>"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> writes:
>
> [cur ego stroking crap from Pusch]
>
> BTW, is OLd Man a cross-dresser? Does he wear high heels, lipstick, a
> thong and a bra? Why do so many people on these NGs insist on kissing
> the wrinkled ass of a senile old fuck? Who the fuck is Old Man anyway?
>
> Louis Savain
>
Someone who's got your number.
Titan Point
Does "benefitted" have one "t" or two?
Mike Varney
Traveler
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
Funny but lately I've only been dreaming of tropical beaches, coconut
palms and margueritas on the rock. You take yourselves too seriously.
greywolf42
> news:170220030550135325%c...@singtech.com...
> > In article <b2qbs9$nnl$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> > <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > > news:160220031844489825%c...@singtech.com...
>
> > You're assuming, Mr. Heyman, that significant things are known about
> > its nature (I'm speaking of a photon or photons now because you changed
> > the subject to that in a specific way). In fact, I'd agree with such
> > an assumption but that still doesn't mean that people understand the
> > nature and characteristics of a photon. To assume that a photon
> > produces a gravitational field is correct but without understanding the
> > nature of a gravitational field in the first place means there's left a
> > huge gap in understanding photons (for the mainstream academic
> > community of pseudophysicists, that is).
>
> Crackpots frequently change their handle whilst maintaining
> their unshakable delusions.
Actually, it's the relativists who get blown out of the water time after
time and resort to multiple tags to make it appear that more people agree
with them. Including staged arguments with themselves.
I am hurt that you didn't include me on your list. Please rectify the
situation immediately!!!!!
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
pmb
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote
> I am hurt that you didn't include me on your list. Please rectify the
> situation immediately!!!!!
:-D
Good one. Now that you mention it - the list is a reflection in part of
people who will not have opinions forced on them. I can always appreciate
that part of a persons personality
Pmb
Harry Conover
accidental you omitted one very key name from your list of crackpots.
I trust you will agree with the list as corrected and augmented.
Harry C.
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<3e5173ba_2@newsfeed>...
>
> Crackpots frequently change their handle whilst maintaining
> their unshakable delusions. Updating:
Crackpots also rarely hold any academic creditials in the subjects on
which they pontificate.
>
> sci.physics Crackpot List:
>
> CC <-------------- Charles Cagle in disguise
> Pmb
> Burt Libe
> Mathew Orman
> FrediFizzx
> Spaceman
> Jeff Relf
> Richard Perry
> Traveler
> tj Frazir
> Y.Porat
> Charles Cagle
> Mitchell Jones
> Jack Sarfatti
> ole.rughede
Old Man
Mike Varney
"pmb" <peter....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8mu4a.9383$_k4....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote
>
>
> > I am hurt that you didn't include me on your list. Please rectify
the
> > situation immediately!!!!!
>
> :-D
>
> Good one.
*yawn* Yes... greywolf was pretty good at coming up with something not
very unique.
Your response, Brown, is equally dull.
*smirk*
Traveler
hhc...@yahoo.com (Harry Conover) wrote:
[cut]
Has anybody figured out who Old Man is? How about Minor Crank? Who are
those senile old fucks? Could they be well-known usenet ass-kissers in
disguise? I know neither of them is Varney since Varney is just an
imbecile in drag. But then again, one never knows. :P
Harry Conover
> In sci.physics.fusion Mike Varney <var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
>
> > "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > news:160220031844489825%c...@singtech.com...
>
> > Hahahaha! Time to check and see if you are on Old Man's crackpot
> > list...... Nope... I am sure you will be soon enough, Crazy-Crank.
>
> Then neither you nor Old Man are very well-informed. CC has been on
> Internet crackpot lists for years. Right along with Archie Plutonium
> and many others.
>
> Cheers,
> Cliff
Cliff, you really have to forgive 'Old Man' for his snap judgments,
since is is a 'newby' to the net (at least to the sci newsgroups),
hence really doesn't have a clue.
I seriously doubt that in posting his list of 'crackpots', as a
'newby' he justifies holding the position of honor at the head of his
own list! :-)
Is 'Old Man' a 'newbie' to the sci.newsgroups? As best I can tell,
'Old Man' made few if any posts before 2000, and since then his post
consisted largely of vitriolic snipes made at other posters. Hence, he
tends to remind me of the character who in 'Pogo' lived in the log and
specialized in 'free insults.'
[Anybody recall the character's name? Was it Grelber?]
At any rate, in a nutshell that's my perception of 'Old Man'. Someone
with nothing to positive to offer, but critical of everyone who does
not honker down to his rather conventional and pedestrian viewpoints.
I made his 'crackpots' list simply because I would not agree with the
majority opinion that the velocity of gravitational wave propagation
has not been positively established, which it hasn't. I was therefore
honored to make Old Man's crackpot list, an honor equaled only by
making Cagle's Kill File! :-)
I wouldn't even begin to repond to clueless crackpots like Old Man,
because there is too much remaining in life to be accomplished in so
little time, but because I'm snowed in today in Boston I have. Make
the most of it.
Harry C.
Cliff Frost
...
Old Man, I have to say you've really produced a pretty weak effort with
your list.
The main thing I object to about it is that it lacks any sense of humor.
For a good job, take a look at:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
or
http://www.crank.net/
For a more simple attempt, here is one of my own:
.net_kook_rc: C. "loonier than a coot" Cagle;
Len "Helical Hand Wave" Gaasenbeek;
G. "scientific proof of the existence of Factor Analysis" Hammond;
Darryl Lloyd "approximately 109.471220634491 degrees" Jarmush;
******((((({{{{{M "Principal Continuous Gasbag" J}}}}}}}*******;
Archie Plutonium;
Porat "the man who refused to eat his hat";
Jed "Frothwell" Rothwell;
Mica "the Admitted Absurdist" Swartz
The second major flaw with your list is that it contains at least one entry
who is clearly not a crackpot. So you've allowed your personal animosity towards
at least one particular individual to lower the standards of entry to your list.
Please try to do better next time. Nothing worse than a usenet bore... ;-)
Thanks,
Cliff
Traveler
<cl...@ack.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>> sci.physics Crackpot List:
>...
>
>Old Man, I have to say you've really produced a pretty weak effort with
>your list.
>
>The main thing I object to about it is that it lacks any sense of humor.
>For a good job, take a look at:
>
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>or
> http://www.crank.net/
>
>For a more simple attempt, here is one of my own:
>
>.net_kook_rc: C. "loonier than a coot" Cagle;
> Len "Helical Hand Wave" Gaasenbeek;
> G. "scientific proof of the existence of Factor Analysis" Hammond;
> Darryl Lloyd "approximately 109.471220634491 degrees" Jarmush;
> ******((((({{{{{M "Principal Continuous Gasbag" J}}}}}}}*******;
> Archie Plutonium;
> Porat "the man who refused to eat his hat";
> Jed "Frothwell" Rothwell;
> Mica "the Admitted Absurdist" Swartz
Funny. Let me add a few more:
Kip Wormhole Thorne, went back in time and fathered himself.
Stephen Black Hole Hawking, the little con man in the wheelchair.
Michio Superstring Kaku, (they've compactified my balls).
Uncle Adolf (I am a Jew but I would rather be Aryan or Anglo).
Old Man, senile old fart in drag.
Spaceman
"Cliff Frost" <cl...@ack.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message news:b2uh5b$1dik$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Old Man, I have to say you've really produced a pretty weak effort with
> your list.
>
Dear Cliff Frost.
Do you know that both Old Man and Dirk are clueless about "real causes"?
both Dirks site and Old Mans list are filled with nothing of proof.
Do you always follow the lemmings?
Stephen Speicher
>
> At any rate, in a nutshell that's my perception of 'Old Man'. Someone
> with nothing to positive to offer, but critical of everyone who does
> not honker down to his rather conventional and pedestrian viewpoints.
>
I have disagreed with "Old Man" before, but I respect him and his
knowledge of physics. In contrast, Harry Conover is a pretentious
dolt, who is still smarting from being properly identified by
"Old Man" as being a crackpot, a well-deserved appellation for
all on "Old Man's" list.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <por...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
> news:c91f39eb.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:<3e5173ba_2@newsfeed>...
> > > CC <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > > news:170220030550135325%c...@singtech.com...
> > > > In article <b2qbs9$nnl$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> > > > <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:160220031844489825%c...@singtech.com...
>
> > > > You're assuming, Mr. Heyman, that significant things are known
> about
> > > > its nature (I'm speaking of a photon or photons now because you
> changed
> > > > the subject to that in a specific way). In fact, I'd agree with
> such
> > > > an assumption but that still doesn't mean that people understand
> the
> > > > nature and characteristics of a photon. To assume that a photon
> > > > produces a gravitational field is correct but without
>
> > and you should be treated as such.
>
> Y. Porat, can't you at least spell better than Brown? After all,
> America dumps quite a bit of money into Israeli education system. You
> think you would have benefited.
Miky
its the fisrt time i hear from you a single sentense that is
not just primitive abuse
ok i will answer to your semi intelligent remarks
1 this editor of google that we use right now has not
a reasonable spell checker (probably it was not ment
for 'strangers like me )
2 the Us is not spending money on Israel just for our
'bloody jewish' beutiful eyes, they have some sentiment
for israel as the only democratic state in ME
but that is not the main motivation:
the main motivation is that we *give something in return*
for instance it is the only state here that the us can take
for granted as an alie (a practical alie not a theorethic one......)
we cooperate scintifically in amnt fields
even little Porat is doing his best to contribute his little
'silly' findings to be used one day for the free world.
(believe it or not : one of my underlying motivations
for doing it ,for good or worse, is some sense of gratefulness
for the US )and many of my people act like that.
we are not the some ungrateful countrys which i will not
mention here (just a hint, they are somewhere around Paris ...)
so Miky
some sense of proportion from you please:
spelling is not the most important issue in our life.
the main point is that most people here understand anythying
i type ,though the poor spelling.
keep well
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
Gordy
are you not by any chance 'old man' ??? i wonder
it fits you nicely.
all the best
Y.porat
-------------------
Mike Varney
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
news:<b2t8qc$aer$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
all,
> > America dumps quite a bit of money into Israeli education system.
You
> > think you would have benefited.
> ---------------
> Miky
> its the fisrt time i hear from you a single sentense that is
Perhaps you could use some of that money for a brain transplant, Porat.
Traveler
<var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
Varnette's brain, OTOH, is in his ass. He get a new brain every time
he takes a dump.
CC
Conover <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I made his 'crackpots' list simply because I would not agree with the
> majority opinion that the velocity of gravitational wave propagation
> has not been positively established, which it hasn't. I was therefore
> honored to make Old Man's crackpot list, an honor equaled only by
> making Cagle's Kill File! :-)
Like most fools, you honor yourself. You're not in my killfile - I
don't keep such things yet I crave to be in the killfiles of fools like
you. The beauty of being in various killfiles is that such fools will
not see my posts and hence won't go into a frenzy of loon postings when
I write an article. May I be in the kill file of every fool on the
Earth.
CC.
Old Man
> ...
>
> Old Man, I have to say you've really produced a pretty weak effort with
> your list.
>
> The main thing I object to about it is that it lacks any sense of humor.
> For a good job, take a look at:
>
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> or
> http://www.crank.net/
>
> For a more simple attempt, here is one of my own:
>
> .net_kook_rc: C. "loonier than a coot" Cagle;
> Len "Helical Hand Wave" Gaasenbeek;
> G. "scientific proof of the existence of Factor Analysis"
Hammond;
> Darryl Lloyd "approximately 109.471220634491 degrees"
Jarmush;
> ******((((({{{{{M "Principal Continuous Gasbag"
J}}}}}}}*******;
> Archie Plutonium;
> Porat "the man who refused to eat his hat";
> Jed "Frothwell" Rothwell;
> Mica "the Admitted Absurdist" Swartz
This is very good! It's not the first time that Old Man has
been outclassed.
> The second major flaw with your list is that it contains at least one
entry
> who is clearly not a crackpot. So you've allowed your personal animosity
> towards
> at least one particular individual to lower the standards of entry to your
list.
> Please try to do better next time. Nothing worse than a usenet bore...
;-)
>
> Thanks,
> Cliff
Please supply the name of the wronged individual. Old Man
is always willing to own-up to mistakes. However, No one
on the list is known to share this characteristic. [Old Man]
Old Man
No one cares what Pmb believes. Pmb is on the list
because he is a Pontificating buffoon. [Old Man]
Traveler
And Old Man being is on the list for being a Pontificating senile old
fart.
Fredi Fizzx
Still haven't read those Usenet netiquette posting quides yet have
you? You really should study them real hard. Never too late for and
old dog to learn new things.
FrediFizzx
CC
<Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Charles seems to have forgotten the point he tried to make and I
> refuted by reminding him that the speed of light was measured when
> very litle was known about the detailed nature of light. Now he
> should go and reread what he said about the speed of gravity which
> provoked my response.
>
> Franz Heymann
You're insane Heymann, and that's probably chief among the reasons that
you are easy to provoke. It's not like you actually have the capacity
to think but rather it seem you can provide a knee-jerk reaction. You
refute nothing except your own words which are full of illogic. You're
using an inappropriate comparison, but I'm sure you will never be
convinced otherwise.
There was quite a lot known about light but still even to this day not
enough is known about it by the so-called mainstream community of
scientists (who for the most part are pseudoscientists). Scientists
like Newton, Hygens, Thomas Young, and Maxwell had all made significant
contributions to understanding light before it became possible to
measure its rate of propagation.
On the other hand you ignorant dick, we don't have examples of the
defraction of a gravity wave, nor do we see evidence that it (gravity)
is particulate in nature (though that hasn't stopped any number of
idiotic pseudoscientific sons of bitchs such as you must admire from
insisting that gravity is carried by 'gravitons') nor has gravity been
shown to be quanta in any realistic or logical set of equations that
have been substantiated by any experiments which are accepted by the
mainstream community of physics. So, again, it is quite rich to see
pseudoscientists fiddling away at such experiments like LIGO when
they're not quite sure that the critter that they might catch in their
traps would be gravity anyway. Now more hopeful numbnuts are thinking
that they might measure the speed of a thing even though they have no
idea how it might be packaged.
You're a fool Heymann and the appropriate apologist for more fools like
yourself. Please keep sticking your feet in your mouth, its always
good for a laugh. LOL!.
CC.
Franz Heymann
[...]
>
> On the other hand you ignorant dick, we don't have examples of the
> defraction of a gravity wave,
If you will tell us wha the defraction of a wave might be, I will
inturn tell you whether we have examples of it or not.
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
"Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message news:b2vaq7$86f$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> Perhaps you could use some of that money for a brain transplant, Porat.
Mike is asking for a new brain for himself!
<LOL>
S. Enterprize Company
be about 10^13 m/sec. This calculation was based on the formation of a black
hole and it was assumed that, that black hole had the equivalent mass of a
small galaxy. There are black holes at the centers of most galaxies, BTW.
I did this in the early 1980's.
S. Enterprize Co. (Membership)
http://www.s-enterprize.com/
S. Enterprize (Smart1234's Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/index1.html
(under construction..)
CC
<Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Right, "defraction" is a typo for 'diffraction'.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
news:060320031723107561%c...@singtech.com...
> In article <b3bej7$ad7$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
...
> > > On the other hand you ignorant dick, we don't have examples of the
> > > defraction of a gravity wave,
> >
> > If you will tell us wha the defraction of a wave might be, I will
> > inturn tell you whether we have examples of it or not.
>
> Right, "defraction" is a typo for 'diffraction'.
A diffraction grating works by having areas of the "glass" that are opaque
to the light being otherwise transmitted. Two slits behave similarly, only
transmission does not occur (propagation does).
What would be opaque to gravitational waves, or at least slow down their
propagation. Something that could be localized. Do gravity waves
propagate at c, or c_medium?
David A. Smith
eerie pimp
"CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
news:190220030325445446%c...@singtech.com...
zorro
CC
<"dl...@aol.com> wrote:
First you're assuming the existence of a thing (gravity waves) which
have never been proven to exist. On top of that the whole community of
pseudoscientists (who are taken to be legitimate scientists in the
academic community) don't even really know what gravity is in the first
place. So, it is rather audacious and quite laughable that they are
searching for 'waves' of the thing for which they have no rational
model nor logical explanation for the existence thereof. Do we have
evidence even for the finite propagation velocity of the electric flux
which constitutes the 'field' of a charged particle which comes into
existence with the decay of a neutron (or with the transition of a
gamma ray to a pair of charged particles in a pair creation event)?
The answer, of course, is no. The Aharanov-Bohm effect tells us that
vector potential is the medium of propagation for charged particles and
when the magnetic field is turned on there is a phase shift. Why
should that be except that by creating the magnetic field the number of
particles in the universe just underwent a change. That change is
reflected immediately in the finite number of relationships of which
the unit charge is composed.
The propagation of the relationship is instantaneous. Gravity is a
relationship related field and the instant that a new particle (new
mass) is created in the universe then the magnitude of the unit charge
in terms of the quantity of the finite number of relationships which
compose it is globally changed. Gravity is a gradient field and the
magnitude of the gradient will change infinitesimally but globally in
an instant each time the universe generates a new particle of matter in
the form of a charge and its conjugate.
CC.
Aleksandr Timofeev
I repost it again.
============================================================
Subject: Re: Speed of Gravity Controversy
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:13:12 GMT
From: CC <c...@singtech.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.relativity
In article <wyT9a.1804$JR....@news1.west.cox.net>, formerly\
<"dl...@aol.com> wrote:
First you're assuming the existence of a thing (gravity waves) which
Lawrence Foard
Aleksandr Timofeev <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>First you're assuming the existence of a thing (gravity waves) which
>have never been proven to exist. On top of that the whole community of
>pseudoscientists (who are taken to be legitimate scientists in the
>academic community) don't even really know what gravity is in the first
>place.
We don't know what anything really is, doesn't mean we can't
make predictions :)
>So, it is rather audacious and quite laughable that they are
>searching for 'waves' of the thing for which they have no rational
>model nor logical explanation for the existence thereof. Do we have
>evidence even for the finite propagation velocity of the electric flux
>which constitutes the 'field' of a charged particle which comes into
>existence with the decay of a neutron (or with the transition of a
>gamma ray to a pair of charged particles in a pair creation event)?
>The answer, of course, is no. The Aharanov-Bohm effect tells us that
>vector potential is the medium of propagation for charged particles and
>when the magnetic field is turned on there is a phase shift. Why
>should that be except that by creating the magnetic field the number of
>particles in the universe just underwent a change. That change is
>reflected immediately in the finite number of relationships of which
>the unit charge is composed.
There better be a finite propagation velocity of the electric field,
otherwise you can send messages back in time with a little fiddling.
In SR an 'infinite' speed has no meaning in general, it is frame
dependant. If several observers can send stuff at infinite speeds, they
can then send a message back in time.
>The propagation of the relationship is instantaneous. Gravity is a
>relationship related field and the instant that a new particle (new
>mass) is created in the universe then the magnitude of the unit charge
>in terms of the quantity of the finite number of relationships which
>compose it is globally changed.
Mass is conserved, so there is no need for instant communication.
>Gravity is a gradient field and the
>magnitude of the gradient will change infinitesimally but globally in
>an instant each time the universe generates a new particle of matter in
>the form of a charge and its conjugate.
The mass was already there in the form of the photons that created the
particle pair, there is no discontinuity, just a shifting of the sources
of the field at a speed of c or less. Same goes for the electric field
of pair creation, a dipole is created with components seperating at the
speed c or less, no need for any field energy to move faster than c.
Any reasonable system must have gravity moving at a speed c or less. Faster
would again allow communication back in time.
--
Be a counter terrorist perpetrate random senseless acts of kindness
Rave: Immanentization of the Eschaton in a Temporary Autonomous Zone.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"
-Benjamin Franklin
eki
(Lawrence Foard) wrote:
>
>The mass was already there in the form of the photons that created the
>particle pair, there is no discontinuity, just a shifting of the sources
>of the field at a speed of c or less. Same goes for the electric field
>of pair creation, a dipole is created with components seperating at the
>speed c or less, no need for any field energy to move faster than c.
>
>Any reasonable system must have gravity moving at a speed c or less. Faster
>would again allow communication back in time.
You seem to imply it's a priori impossible...According to Yoga-suutra
of Pataņjali (III 16):
pariNaama-traya-saMyamaad atiitaanaagata[ati-ita-an-aagata]-jņaanam.
I.K.Taimni translates it like:
By performing saMyama on the three kinds of transformations
(nirodha, samaadhi and ekaagrataa) knowledge of the past and future.
If knowledge of the future is possible, it means IMO, that
something is "communicated" from the future, i.e. back in time.
(Just kidding! :p)
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e16a4a22.03040...@posting.google.com...
> I bring apologies, since I do not see in GOOGLE's archive of this
article,
> I repost it again.
It posted as if CC had said this...
Perhaps it is not rational, but there is evidence that angular momentum is
leaving a system that we believe is an orbiting pair (pulsars). Gravity
waves are a proposed mechanism for allowing this to occur. There is the
anomolous acceleration during flyby of satellites... getting a little more
boost that we expected. Perhaps the two phenomenon are related?
> Do we have
> evidence even for the finite propagation velocity of the electric flux
> which constitutes the 'field' of a charged particle which comes into
> existence with the decay of a neutron (or with the transition of a
> gamma ray to a pair of charged particles in a pair creation event)?
> The answer, of course, is no. The Aharanov-Bohm effect tells us that
> vector potential is the medium of propagation for charged particles and
> when the magnetic field is turned on there is a phase shift. Why
> should that be except that by creating the magnetic field the number of
> particles in the universe just underwent a change. That change is
> reflected immediately in the finite number of relationships of which
> the unit charge is composed.
Creation of a magnetic field is the warping of space. This merely adjusts
the postions of all the other charges. I have no clue how this would
describe the perception of instantaneous "electric flux".
> The propagation of the relationship is instantaneous. Gravity is a
> relationship related field and the instant that a new particle (new
> mass) is created in the universe then the magnitude of the unit charge
> in terms of the quantity of the finite number of relationships which
> compose it is globally changed. Gravity is a gradient field and the
> magnitude of the gradient will change infinitesimally but globally in
> an instant each time the universe generates a new particle of matter in
> the form of a charge and its conjugate.
There is no "new creation" of matter, as you suggest, since any photon
already contributed to the local field.
> CC.
And this is the signature of someone other than "Aleksandr Timofeev".
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <a_n_ti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e16a4a22.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > I bring apologies, since I do not see in GOOGLE's archive of this
> article,
> > I repost it again.
>
> It posted as if CC had said this...
>
> And this is the signature of someone other than "Aleksandr Timofeev".
>
> David A. Smith
You are completely right, it was the lost GOODLE's message wrote by CC.
My message is below. I am very grateful to my friend from Canada
Walter Babin ( http: // www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/ ) for rectifying
of my English text of the message:
I feel deep respect to Tom Van Flandern for scientific courage,
" the standard theory of gravitation " is converted into ideological
dogma, which basic purpose is the upkeep of geopolitical interests..."
The fundamental physical constants are " corner granite stones ",
which create the epistemological base of any physical theory.
The epistemological base is deep-seated under deceptive, sparkling
and blinding specular surface of shaky and ephemeral " human Knowledge
of a Nature ", it extends in gloomy depths of our "Ignorance".
Thus both fundamental physical constants and any reasonings concerning
them are purest METAPHYSICS. Eternally magic and the eternal uncertain
boundary flickers between Physics and METAPHYSICS.
METAPHYSICS
" Metaphysical substance of concept of velocity of gravitation "
Tom Van Flandern carried out very useful and effective METAPHYSICAL
PUBLIC DEBATE. ABSOLUTELY ALL participants of this informal
metaphysical public debate do not understand physical substance
of natural phenomena of GRAVITATION. It is natural, that the fanatical
religious participants, standing on protection of pseudo-scientific
ideological global political interests, here are switched on too;
so-called odious RELATIVISTS.
All participants of the controversy consider central and key
" METAPHYSICAL concept of velocity of gravitation ".
1. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance is isolated local
process.
2. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has character
spatially of concentrated central interaction.
3. The relativists can not convincingly prove, that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance in gravitational
system is not plurality of spatially - distributed and of
mutual - bound processes.
4. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has not
character character of the off-center interaction, dispersed
in space.
5. The relativists can not convincingly prove that the process
of a gravitational interaction of a substance has mixed
character of central and off-center interactions.
Without the experimental solution of problems of local
and non-local gravitational interaction, the scientific argment
regarding the "metaphysical concept " of "gravitation velocity "
is absolutely senseless.
Absurdity and inaccuracy of the logic structure GR.
Tom Van Flandern has yielded some valuable and convincing
experimental examples refuting "relativity" in the politely
latent shape, and as a corollary he has proven the conceptual
physical absurdity and inaccuracy of all logical structure of GR.
Van Flandern convincingly has shown, that in the solar system
the arrangement of celestial bodies is determined by STATIONARY
spatially distributed interdependent gravitational processes,
i.e. the dynamic STATIONARY behaviour of bodies in solar system
does not submit to a principle of a locality of gravitational
interaction, but it submits to a principle of a distributed
nonlocal gravitational interaction.
( The Newton's principle of long-range action follows from here!
The well known physical planetary analog for solar system,
the quantum mechanical description of the model of the atom gives
a relativity principle in complete disarray.)
It is senseless to apply the term " velocity of gravitational
interaction " to a mixed central and non-central gravitational
interaction in stationary gravitational systems making _steady-state
natural gravitational oscillations_ , since the character of the
shape of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
natural system properties of a concrete gravitational system and
does not depend at all on " velocity of gravitational interaction ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE
The electrodynamics figures phenomena in " ANOTHER'S SPACES "
Look at natural oscillations of a string with anchored ends .
The shape of natural standing oscillations of a string does not
depend on the velocity rate of propagation of waves of elasticity
in the material of a string, for any string the shape of standing
waves is same. You instantaneously will claim that you can
calculate the velocity of waves of elasticity utillizing the
oscillation frequency of the string or elastic plate. I propose
the opposite; we have considered waves in "another's" spaces,
and these waves do not have energy sufficient for fracture of
"another's" space. Any electromagnetic waves are always spread
in "another's" spaces, i.e. in "spaces" which are generated by
nonelectromagnetic interaction of substance.
Maxwell's electrodynamics are not applicable for the
description of physical processes inside master cells, which
pluralities create "another's" space in which Maxwell
electrodynamics already becomes applicable. Fundamental
physical principle is that the Maxwell electrodynamics is
applicable only in "another's" spaces, since the Maxwell
electrodynamics demands the assignment of boundary CONDITIONS.
THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are a latent electrodynamic postulate
about physical existence " of ANOTHER'S SPACE " in which the
electromagnetic phenomena are carried out.
The concept of boundary CONDITIONS cannot be eliminated
from electrodynamics.
Maxwell's electrodynamics is a theory about dynamic processes
in " ANOTHER'S SPACES ".
"PROPER" or "NATURAL" SPACE of gravitational systems
The physical gravitational analog of the electrodynamic
concept of boundary CONDITIONS does not exist for Solar system.
From my point of view just this physical fact ruins any
theoretical attempts at proof of the steadiness and stability
of the Solar system undertaken by physicists until now.
On the other hand, there are phenomenological proofs of
steadiness and stability of the Solar system. This fact yields
the basis for the assumption, that the terms of the Solar
system are a collective source of self-consistent dynamic
INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS for themselves as single unit.
In electrodynamics, the EXTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied. In the gravitational dynamic theory of planetary
systems in latent shape the INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS are
applied, therefore the Solar system creates a " PROPER
(NATURAL) GRAVITATIONAL SPACE " and the volume " of
gravitational space " is determined by the gravitational
interaction of bodies of the Solar system. The character
of "standing" gravitational oscillations is defined by
the proper system properties of a concrete gravitational
system and does not depend on the metaphysical concept
of the "velocity of gravitational interaction ".
Who can now calculate the " velocity of gravitational
interaction "on measurings positions of planets if he
can not point out INTERIOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS in
an explicit way for solar or any other concrete
gravitational system?
Demise of an individualistic relativity
The terms of natural gravitational systems are
collectives of a stationary self-consistent collective
dynamic motion with sad consequences for an individualistic
relativity.
" The experimental time constants " of many processes
of sluggish changes in the motions of the planets are known
now uncertainly or unreliablly. The main difficulty in the
study of "natural" gravitational systems similar to the
solar system is the absence of an opportunity to perform
violent experiments to arbitrarily change the positions
of bodies of the system.
All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
a local character and are carried out in "another's
gravitational space", therefore, distribution of theresults
of these experiments on astronomical spatial gauges has
a hypothetical character.
Comments.
---
Regards,
Aleksandr Timofeev
"Latent gravitational chiral symmetry for an actual
gravitational phenomenon of the Nature - the Solar system"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Aleksandr Timofeev" <t_...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:df6db65f.0304...@posting.google.com...
...
> All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
> a local character and are carried out in "another's
> gravitational space", therefore, distribution of theresults
> of these experiments on astronomical spatial gauges has
> a hypothetical character.
I am intriged by the anomolous increase in G purported to Pioneer data (I
know there are many ways to skin this particular cat), the need to invent
Dark Matter to hold galaxies together... mostly near the rims, and the
anomolous boost that satellites get on flyby. And then Dark Energy is
invoked to explain expansion and acceleration.
Like you, I don't think GR is in its final form. Not that I understand the
form it is currently in... but the need to invent mystical substances
reminds me too much of "There be Dragons Here...".
David A. Smith
Aleksandr Timofeev
> Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:
>
> "Aleksandr Timofeev" <t_...@mail.ru> wrote in message
> news:df6db65f.0304...@posting.google.com...
> ...
> > All terrestrial laboratory gravitational experiments have
> > a local character and are carried out in "another's
> > gravitational space", therefore, distribution of theresults
> > of these experiments on astronomical spatial gauges has
> > a hypothetical character.
>
> I am intriged by the anomolous increase in G purported to Pioneer data (I
> know there are many ways to skin this particular cat), the need to invent
> Dark Matter to hold galaxies together... mostly near the rims, and the
> anomolous boost that satellites get on flyby. And then Dark Energy is
> invoked to explain expansion and acceleration.
"the anomolous increase in G purported to Pioneer data"
"the anomolous boost that satellites get on flyby"
"to invent Dark Matter"
I shall do some neat hint and singular emphasis on interesting and
exotic dynamic features of behaviour of planets. The dynamic
features of behaviour of planets have a feedforward with "a dynamic
gravitational screening ". The satellite systems of planets are physical
screens fulfilling " dynamic gravitational screening " of planets.
_The Dynamic gravitational screening of planets_ is responsible for
planetary structure of Solar system:
"Latent gravitational chiral symmetry for an actual
gravitational phenomenon of the Nature - the Solar system"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B368678%40MailAndNews.com
Dynamic gravitational screening by satellites of the planets responsible
for absence of ideal equality to integers in the ratios:
Table I
Planetary masses and Ratios of linear combinations of masses
Planet Symbol Mass | Ratio Exact Rounded
used for value | considered value ratio
each planet Earth=1 | of the ratio
. |
Jupiter MJU or 1 317.735 |(MJU+MSA)/(MUR+MNE) = 12.9959 ~ 13
Saturn MSA or 2 95.147 | MJU/(MUR+MNE) = 10.0010 ~ 10
Neptune MNE or 3 17.23 | MSA/(MUR+MNE) = 2.9948 ~ 3
Uranus MUR or 4 14.54 | (MJU+MSA)/MNE = 23.9630 ~ 24
Earth MTE or 5 1.000 | MUR/(MTE+MVE) = 8.0110 ~ 8
Venus MVE or 6 0.815 | (MNE+MUR)/MVE = 38.9816 ~ 39
Mars MMA or 7 0.108 | (MTE+MVE)/MME = 33.0000 ~ 33
Mercury MME or 8 0.055 | MVE/(MMA+MME) = 5.0000 ~ 5
Inside satellite systems other type of general-system gravitational
mechanisms acts. I intensively work above these problems.
>
> Like you, I don't think GR is in its final form. Not that I understand the
> form it is currently in... but the need to invent mystical substances
> reminds me too much of "There be Dragons Here...".
>
> David A. Smith
GR is the trial and error theory of a gravitation, GR is not capable to
describe an actual World.
Best regards,
Aleksandr