What Does General Relativity Say about the Constancy of the Speed of Light?
RTT
According to special relativity, the velocity of light through empty
space should be the same as witnessed by every observer in uniform
motion, right?
If the above is correct, then how does general relativity *refine*
this statement? I've already looked at the Relativty FAQ, and it
basically seems to say that the velocity of light is constant, but it
didn't directly seem to answer my question. Does general relativty
say that the speed of light is constant to observers in both
uniform *and* non-uniform motion? Thanks in advance to anyone who
can explain this to a layman!
RTT
Pmb
"RTT" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ff70be21.0304...@posting.google.com...
> Hi everyone:
>
> According to special relativity, the velocity of light through empty
> space should be the same as witnessed by every observer in uniform
> motion, right?
Yes. That's correct
> If the above is correct, then how does general relativity *refine*
> this statement?
GR states that when measured locally (i.e. "At the same place." whatever
that means ) the speed of light is constant and has the value 'c' it has in
special relativity. But in general the speed of light depends on the
gravitational potential. Some would call that the "coordinate speed of
light."
Einstein proved this in his 1911 paper. You can pick up the Doves book "The
Principle of Relativity" and he proves it in that book since the 1911 paper
is reprinted there.
Pmb
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"RTT" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ff70be21.0304...@posting.google.com...
...
pmb answered all but this one...
> Does general relativty
> say that the speed of light is constant to observers in both
> uniform *and* non-uniform motion?
If "non-uniform" means accelerated via an e-m based force, then no, c is
not constant but is a function of acceleration.
David A. Smith
Pmb
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ngNja.5032$6t.1812@fed1read05...
Oops! Sorry. I didn't quite explain myself did I? If the observer is in an
accelerating frame of reference then the speed of light is not constant. If
the observer is in flat space-time and the observer is in uniform motion
then the speed of light is constant.
pmb
David
The vacuum speed of light is locally invariant whether one is
accelerating or not and whether spacetime is flat or not. It is only
remote coordinate speeds that vary IFF the coordinate frame is chosen
such that it does so. Choosing is also independent of whether
spacetime is flat. For example in Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates the
coordinate speed of radial moving light is globally c for a
Schwarschild spacetime, whereas in Schwarzschild coordinates it is
not. So, "flatness" also has nothing to do with whether the speed of
light is "constant". The remote constancy or variance has only to due
with coordinate choice.
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>"Pmb" <peter....@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:<fyVja.9772$b77...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
>> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:ngNja.5032$6t.1812@fed1read05...
>> > Dear RTT:
>> >
>> > "RTT" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:ff70be21.0304...@posting.google.com...
>> > ...
>> > pmb answered all but this one...
>> > > Does general relativty
>> > > say that the speed of light is constant to observers in both
>> > > uniform *and* non-uniform motion?
>> >
>> > If "non-uniform" means accelerated via an e-m based force, then no, c is
>> > not constant but is a function of acceleration.
>>
>> Oops! Sorry. I didn't quite explain myself did I? If the observer is in an
>> accelerating frame of reference then the speed of light is not constant. If
>> the observer is in flat space-time and the observer is in uniform motion
>> then the speed of light is constant.
>>
>> pmb
David:
>The vacuum speed of light is locally invariant whether one is
>accelerating or not and whether spacetime is flat or not
Dennis :Note the word "locally" above -- which has a bizarre, ambiguous
definition through which physicists can automatically exempt *any* experiment
that shows a variable speed of light.
In stationary Sagnac-square-ring-gyro experiments -- where the square remains
motionless in Earth-based labs -- two rays of light are sent around the same
perimeter in opposite directions and, in the Northern Hemisphere, the clockwise
ray tags up first. So according to Earth-based lab observers, CW rays of light
are faster than CCW rays of light.
The perimeter of a Sagnac square ring is roughly 4 meters -- which is
actually less than the distance light traveled in the first MM. Son one
wonders if there is a non-arbitray reason why the latter is "local" but the
former is not. But of course there isn't any.
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Roberts
> GR states that when measured locally (i.e. "At the same place." whatever
> that means ) the speed of light is constant and has the value 'c' it has in
> special relativity.
Yes. It is also required that one use standard clocks and rulers.
> But in general the speed of light depends on the
> gravitational potential.
No. Say rather that the speed of light depends on HOW IT IS MEASURED.
The dependency on "gravitational potential" you claim is really a
dependence on the coordinates you chose to be able to make a non-local
measurement. The requirement to use standard clocks and rulers to make
a local measurement is enough to ensure the result will be c; other
methods of measurement can yield other values.
> Einstein proved this in his 1911 paper. You can pick up the Doves book "The
> Principle of Relativity" and he proves it in that book since the 1911 paper
> is reprinted there.
He really proves what I said, not what you said, even though your words
are closer to his than mine are. We have learned A LOT about GR since
1911....
I suspect this is related to your insistence on using "relativistic
mass" -- certainly the concepts are related: The proper tick rate of an
ideal clock, the proper length of an ideal ruler, and the mass of an
ideal pointlike object are all INSTRINSIC properties of those objects.
All are independent of how one measures them, of how they are
accelerated, or of how fast they may be moving relative to the
measurement apparatus.
The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal
clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee. Steel behaves within
~0.1% of an ideal ruler for accelerations up to several hundred
gee (IIRC). The mass of a muon behaves within ~1% of an ideal
pointlike object for accelerations up to 10^18 gee and speeds
up to 0.9998c; the mass of a proton behaves within ~1% of an
ideal pointlike object for speeds up to 0.999999c. These are
all real experimental observations.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> Pmb wrote:
{snip theoretical discussion}
>
> The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal
> clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges. Got
a reference for this?
> Steel behaves within
> ~0.1% of an ideal ruler for accelerations up to several hundred
> gee (IIRC). The mass of a muon behaves within ~1% of an ideal
> pointlike object for accelerations up to 10^18 gee and speeds
> up to 0.9998c; the mass of a proton behaves within ~1% of an
> ideal pointlike object for speeds up to 0.999999c. These are
> all real experimental observations.
Great! References please.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
John Anderson
greywolf42 wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > Pmb wrote:
>
> {snip theoretical discussion}
>
> >
> > The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal
> > clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
>
> Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges.
A muon isn't an isotope. What does a centrifuge have to do with
particlephysics or even nuclear physics?
> Great! References please.
>
>
You should supply references that justify that you know anything aboutphysics.
John Anderson
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>>clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
> Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges. Got
> a reference for this?
A centrifuge is woefully inadequate to achieve a large enough
acceleration (really acceleration * radius, or equivalently tangential
velocity) for the effect to be measurable. IOW the experimental
resolutions for such an experiment would be enormously larger than the
effect.
For muons, the reference is (quoted from my FAQ page on the experimental
basis of SR):
Bailey et al., "Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for
positive and negative muons in a circular orbit," Nature 268 (July 28,
1977) p. 301; Nuclear Physics B 150 p.1-79 (1979).
They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When
combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a
highly-relativistic twin scenario (v ~ 0.9994 c), for which the stored
muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab
every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest:Meyer et al., Physical
Review 132, p. 2693; Balandin et al. JETP 40, p. 811 (1974); Bardin et
al. Physics Letters 137B, p. 135 (1984).
>> Steel behaves within
>>~0.1% of an ideal ruler for accelerations up to several hundred
>>gee (IIRC). The mass of a muon behaves within ~1% of an ideal
>>pointlike object for accelerations up to 10^18 gee and speeds
>>up to 0.9998c; the mass of a proton behaves within ~1% of an
>>ideal pointlike object for speeds up to 0.999999c. These are
>>all real experimental observations.
I have no reference for steel -- that is based on common experience. The
muon reference is given above. I have no specific reference for protons,
but this is based on the simple observation that the Fermilab Tevatron
works as designed, and it could not possibly do so unless the
predictions of SR for its protons were accurate within the limits I gave
above.
I see my "0.9998c" above should have been "0.9994c".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bilge
>Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>> Pmb wrote:
>
>{snip theoretical discussion}
>
>>
>> The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal
>> clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
>
>Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges.
Where did you get that idea?
>Got a reference for this?
And your references are?
David Evens
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
> greywolf42:
> >Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> >news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> >> Pmb wrote:
> >
> >{snip theoretical discussion}
> >
> >>
> >> The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal
> >> clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
> >
> >Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges.
>
> Where did you get that idea?
Perhaps the fact that you can measure the SR-predicted effects on the
observations of rapidly spun bodies in a high-speed centrifuge.
> >Got a reference for this?
>
> And your references are?
He'll probably just make something up (as usual). Or spew some
profanity (also as usual).
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>> greywolf42:
>> >Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> >news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>> >> Pmb wrote:
>> >
>> >{snip theoretical discussion}
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal
>> >> clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
>> >
>> >Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges.
>>
>> Where did you get that idea?
>
>Perhaps the fact that you can measure the SR-predicted effects on the
>observations of rapidly spun bodies in a high-speed centrifuge.
Tom Roberts
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 03:50:57 -0000,
> dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>
>>greywolf42:
>>
>>>Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>>>news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
>>>>clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
>>>
>>>Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges.
>>
>> Where did you get that idea?
>
> Perhaps the fact that you can measure the SR-predicted effects on the
> observations of rapidly spun bodies in a high-speed centrifuge.
Get real: Assume a centrifuge with a radius of 20 cm and a rotation rate
of 15,000 RPM. That gives a velocity of 314 meter/sec, so gamma differs
from 1 by about 10^-12. Do you seriously think it is possible measure
the lifetime of an unstable isotope to such a fantastic accuracy? That
is about a billion times more accurate than the lifetime of the neutron
is known.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnb9f79t....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> greywolf42:
> >
> >Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> >news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> >> Pmb wrote:
> >
> >{snip theoretical discussion}
> >
> >>
> >> The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal
> >> clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
> >
> >Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges.
>
> Where did you get that idea?
"... An effect observed by D. H. Whitaker for Los Alamos National
Laboratory. He reports that a sample of radioactive 198Au exhibits a seven
standard deviation shift in its nuclear decay rate when subjected to a
centrifugal (pseudogravitational) field of about 200,000 g. His result is
not widely know, so it has never received independent study."
Quote from:
"Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis, Gravitational
Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata and
Melnikov (eds)
> >Got a reference for this?
>
> And your references are?
>
A fair question.
D.H. Whitaker, 'The effect of acceleration on the decay rate of 198Au,' Los
Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report No. LA-9388-MS, June 1982, 7pp
"Mainstream" enough for you?
greywolf42
John Anderson <and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3E976690...@attglobal.net...
>
>
> greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > > Pmb wrote:
> >
> > {snip theoretical discussion}
> >
> > >
> > > The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal
> > > clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
> >
> > Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges.
>
> A muon isn't an isotope.
I didn't say it was.
> What does a centrifuge have to do with
> particlephysics or even nuclear physics?
It's physics. It's where we get ultra-accelerations in the laboratory
(outside of particle physics or nuclear physics).
> > Great! References please.
>
> You should supply references that justify that you know anything
aboutphysics.
Oh? Right after you and Tom provide "references that you know anything
about physics."
However, here is the reference to the effect I described:
"... An effect observed by D. H. Whitaker for Los Alamos National
Laboratory.* He reports that a sample of radioactive 198Au exhibits a seven
standard deviation shift in its nuclear decay rate when subjected to a
centrifugal (pseudogravitational) field of about 200,000 g. His result is
not widely know, so it has never received independent study."
Quote from:
"Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis, Gravitational
Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata and
Melnikov (eds)
*D.H. Whitaker, 'The effect of acceleration on the decay rate of 198Au,' Los
Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report No. LA-9388-MS, June 1982, 7pp
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> >>The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal
> >>clock for accelerations up to 10^18 gee.
> > Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges.
Got
> > a reference for this?
>
> A centrifuge is woefully inadequate to achieve a large enough
> acceleration (really acceleration * radius, or equivalently tangential
> velocity) for the effect to be measurable. IOW the experimental
> resolutions for such an experiment would be enormously larger than the
> effect.
I'm glad to see we've finally experimentally disproved GR, SR and the
Standard Model all at once. Thanks Tom. See:
"... An effect observed by D. H. Whitaker for Los Alamos National
Laboratory.* He reports that a sample of radioactive 198Au exhibits a seven
standard deviation shift in its nuclear decay rate when subjected to a
centrifugal (pseudogravitational) field of about 200,000 g. His result is
not widely know, so it has never received independent study."
Quote from:
"Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis, Gravitational
Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata and
Melnikov (eds)
*D.H. Whitaker, 'The effect of acceleration on the decay rate of 198Au,' Los
Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report No. LA-9388-MS, June 1982, 7pp
Welcome to the real world.
> For muons, the reference is (quoted from my FAQ page on the experimental
> basis of SR):
>
> Bailey et al., "Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for
> positive and negative muons in a circular orbit," Nature 268 (July 28,
> 1977) p. 301; Nuclear Physics B 150 p.1-79 (1979).
> They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When
> combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a
> highly-relativistic twin scenario (v ~ 0.9994 c), for which the stored
> muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab
> every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest:Meyer et al., Physical
> Review 132, p. 2693; Balandin et al. JETP 40, p. 811 (1974); Bardin et
> al. Physics Letters 137B, p. 135 (1984).
Thanks for the first half of the reference. Now please, the "measurements
of the muon lifetime at rest."
> >> Steel behaves within
> >>~0.1% of an ideal ruler for accelerations up to several hundred
> >>gee (IIRC). The mass of a muon behaves within ~1% of an ideal
> >>pointlike object for accelerations up to 10^18 gee and speeds
> >>up to 0.9998c; the mass of a proton behaves within ~1% of an
> >>ideal pointlike object for speeds up to 0.999999c. These are
> >>all real experimental observations.
>
> I have no reference for steel -- that is based on common experience.
Excuse me, but those precisions are not in my "common experience." I guess
there's no experimental basis for that, then.
> The
> muon reference is given above. I have no specific reference for protons,
> but this is based on the simple observation that the Fermilab Tevatron
> works as designed, and it could not possibly do so unless the
> predictions of SR for its protons were accurate within the limits I gave
> above.
Please just stick to experimental verification.
> I see my "0.9998c" above should have been "0.9994c".
OK.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:v9hgjve...@corp.supernews.com...
I have Beta decay for Au-198. How did he take the measurements? By the
way, centrifugation is *not* "pseudogravitational". Gravity does not
provide acceleration, but EM forces do.
I wish he had chosen something that did not fire light charged particles as
the decay product. The spinning net positive charge will muck up his
detection apparatus, even if he placed it on the axis of rotation.
Maybe it didn't receive "independent study", because he was too embarrassed
to repeat it.
Welcome to the real world.
David A. Smith
David Evens
What the liar Barry Mingst means is that what he pretends are 'clock
malfunctions' applies to isotope samples in a centrifuge. The fact
that the clocks are designed taking into account physics doesn't seem
to bother him.
David Evens
wrote:
You can if you use both a alrge sample and a long experiment time.
It's been DONE, after all.
Bilge
It would be interesting, if true, but my guess is that it's an lanl
technical report and not a phys rev article because it isn't true. I can't
even find the article or a reference to the article on line (or even the
author's name in connection with 198Au in the adopted levels data or los
alamos). If that measurement had been for real, not only would the
experimental group repeated it, they would have climbed over each other to
get the result to prl and lots of other people would have repeated it
immediately. A result such as you describe would have been a big deal,
rather than an internal "we did this experiment" report to satisfy the
administration. So no, I don't believe it and without a complete description
of the experiment, I can't even comment on what significance "seven
standard deviations" has.
Stephen Speicher
> greywolf42:
> >
> >Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnb9f79t....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> greywolf42:
> >> >
> >> >Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges.
> >>
> >> Where did you get that idea?
> >
> >D.H. Whitaker, 'The effect of acceleration on the decay rate of 198Au,' Los
> >Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report No. LA-9388-MS, June 1982, 7pp
> >
> >"Mainstream" enough for you?
>
> It would be interesting, if true, but my guess is that it's an lanl
> technical report and not a phys rev article because it isn't true.
As usual, your guessing-antennae are spot on. It was just a
PRELIMINARY REPORT at LANL which never saw the light of day.
Greywoofie gets his physics by searching through other's trash
cans.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
greywolf42
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030413...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Bilge wrote:
>
> > greywolf42:
> > >
> > >Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > >news:slrnb9f79t....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > >> greywolf42:
> > >> >
> > >> >Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in
centrifuges.
> > >>
> > >> Where did you get that idea?
> > >
> > >D.H. Whitaker, 'The effect of acceleration on the decay rate of
198Au,' Los
> > >Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report No. LA-9388-MS, June 1982,
7pp
> > >
> > >"Mainstream" enough for you?
> >
> > It would be interesting, if true, but my guess is that it's an lanl
> > technical report and not a phys rev article because it isn't true.
>
> As usual, your guessing-antennae are spot on. It was just a
> PRELIMINARY REPORT at LANL which never saw the light of day.
> Greywoofie gets his physics by searching through other's trash
> cans.
>
LOL! But it DID make the light of day. That's why you snipped the source I
used....
"Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis, Gravitational
Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata and
Melnikov (eds)
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
You mean you think the author(s) lied? (Isn't true).
Or do you mean that you believe the experiment was in error?
Or do you mean that you believe the book author was lying about the
existence of the article?
> I can't
> even find the article or a reference to the article on line (or even the
> author's name in connection with 198Au in the adopted levels data or los
> alamos).
Your point would be what? Not everything in the world is on-line.
Especially heretical experiments from 1982.
> If that measurement had been for real,
You are claiming no such experiment was performed?
> not only would the
> experimental group repeated it, they would have climbed over each other to
> get the result to prl and lots of other people would have repeated it
> immediately.
LOL!!!
> A result such as you describe would have been a big deal,
> rather than an internal "we did this experiment" report to satisfy the
> administration. So no, I don't believe it
I didn't ask if you "believed" it.
> and without a complete
description
> of the experiment, I can't even comment on what significance "seven
> standard deviations" has.
If it's not in physical review, then it didn't happen! And -- as folks such
as Luc Bourhis have pointed out -- if it disagrees with SR, then it cannot
get published in physical review (or any other peer-reviewed journal).
Perfect catch-22!
However, despite the best efforts of the relativists, this one leaked.out
via mainstream tomes such as "Status of the Newtonian Gravitational
Constant"
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
greywolf42
Why the mud-slinging about someone you don't know?
Independent study means someone ELSE repeats the experiment. Lack of
independent study means lack of interest or lack of willingness to sacrifice
one's standing in the community.
> Welcome to the real world.
As Luc Bourhis has pointed out, nothing that contradicts SR can get
published in a peer-reviewed journal.
greywolf42
> news:b781tp$4...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > greywolf42 wrote:
> > > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b74miu$j...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
{snip}
>
> > For muons, the reference is (quoted from my FAQ page on the experimental
> > basis of SR):
> >
> > Bailey et al., "Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for
> > positive and negative muons in a circular orbit," Nature 268 (July 28,
> > 1977) p. 301; Nuclear Physics B 150 p.1-79 (1979).
> > They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When
> > combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a
> > highly-relativistic twin scenario (v ~ 0.9994 c), for which the stored
> > muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab
> > every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest:Meyer et al., Physical
> > Review 132, p. 2693; Balandin et al. JETP 40, p. 811 (1974); Bardin et
> > al. Physics Letters 137B, p. 135 (1984).
>
> Thanks for the first half of the reference. Now please, the "measurements
> of the muon lifetime at rest."
Oops. Never mind. You gave references for both halves. Thanks.
My apologies.
Stephen Speicher
>
> dl...@aol.com (formerly) <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:VT4ma.4070$554.3492@fed1read05...
>
> >
>
> As Luc Bourhis has pointed out, nothing that contradicts SR can get
> published in a peer-reviewed journal.
>
So says greywoofie, as the dishnonesty oozes out of his pores.
What Luc _actually_ said:
"No peer-reviewed scientific publication would accept
my paper discussing Aether theories. Why ? Because I
would not be able to say something original about it.
Hundreds of papers have already discussed every
interesting details of the problem."
Greywoofie is a filthy liar, a distorter of fact, and _nothing_
he ever says should be taken seriously.
Stephen Speicher
>
> news:slrnb9ii2a....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>
> > rather than an internal "we did this experiment" report to satisfy the
> > administration. So no, I don't believe it
> > and without a complete
> > description
> > of the experiment, I can't even comment on what significance "seven
> > standard deviations" has.
>
> If it's not in physical review, then it didn't happen! And -- as folks such
> as Luc Bourhis have pointed out -- if it disagrees with SR, then it cannot
> get published in physical review (or any other peer-reviewed journal).
> Perfect catch-22!
>
What Luc _actually_ said:
Bilge
>> It would be interesting, if true, but my guess is that it's an lanl
>> technical report and not a phys rev article because it isn't true.
>
>You mean you think the author(s) lied? (Isn't true).
>
>Or do you mean that you believe the experiment was in error?
>
>Or do you mean that you believe the book author was lying about the
>existence of the article?
You've left off an option. I don't believe the experiment represents
what you believe it does. But since you only posted your biased summary, I
can't say much about the experiment otherwise -- just as I said in my
previous response. As for the authors, I also can't say anything one way
or the other, since I can't even find that article mentioned anywhere, let
alone the article itself. I seriously doubt they lied about anything, but I
have no doubt that you would lie about the claims made in the report. I'm
sure that their claims are nowhere near as grandiose as you make them out
to be. Since I stipulated to that article being an lanl technical report
to make my point, your last option is nothing more than self-serving
rhetoric and an intentional distortion of what I said.
>> I can't even find the article or a reference to the article on line
>> (or even the author's name in connection with 198Au in the adopted
>> levels data or los alamos).
>
>Your point would be what?
My point being:
I can't even find the article or a reference to the article on line (or
even the author's name in connection with 198Au in the adopted levels
data or los alamos).
Same as before. Try reading it the first time.
>Not everything in the world is on-line.
Then perhaps you should post somewhere alongside cold fusion voodoo,
so that you and other kooks will have something to rally around. They
won't even mind if you creatively paraphrase it.
>Especially heretical experiments from 1982.
I seriously doubt it was a "heretical experiment". My guess is that it
was just what it claimed - a technical report - i.e., a status report for
the administration that keeps the administators updated and happy with
blurbs they can use in brochures and paperwork they can send to the DOE,
aprise them of how their grant money is being spent and why they need
more. Every lab puts those things out and what goes into those reports is
essentially an accounting of what's been happening in the lab. You can go
look up "Progress in Research" from the tamu cyclotron and find kevin
wolf's reports on his cold fusion set up that ran for several years and
misconstrue those, too. Since I knew him personally, I also know what the
eventual real outcome was. Nada.
>> If that measurement had been for real,
>You are claiming no such experiment was performed?
I'm not even going to answer that, since you are deliberately being
dishonest regarding what I said.
>> not only would the experimental group repeated it, they would have
>> climbed over each other to get the result to prl and lots of other
>> people would have repeated it immediately.
>
>LOL!!!
As usual, you have no answer for why someome would pass up fame and
fortune just to spite you and rather than look stupid(er) trying to
rationalize why someone would do that, you simply write off the qusetion
and move on to the next misrepresentation.
>> A result such as you describe would have been a big deal,
>> rather than an internal "we did this experiment" report to satisfy the
>> administration. So no, I don't believe it
>
>I didn't ask if you "believed" it.
That's not my problem. You posted an article. I responded. What I write
in my response is not up to you.
>> and without a complete description of the experiment, I can't even
>> comment on what significance "seven standard deviations" has.
>
>If it's not in physical review, then it didn't happen!
What does physical review have to do with me not being able to comment
on the significance of "seven standard deviations" without having a
complete description of the experiment? You didn't post the article did
you? Once again, you show how dishonest you are by attributing to me
something I did not say.
Furthermore, the last time you referenced an article (you remember, the
one about superfulids in neutron stars), what you said and what the
article said were exactly opposite. Your own reference didn't support the
claim for which you referenced the article. Your past dishonesty indicates
I have no reason to believe the article you've referenced this time is any
more likely to to support what you've said it does. However, you have
solved one problem. By choosing to put your own spin on some obscure
technical report, the likelyhood of having me find the article and point
out your own misrepresentations is drastically reduced.
> And -- as folks such as Luc Bourhis have pointed out -- if it disagrees
>with SR, then it cannot get published in physical review (or any other
>peer-reviewed journal). Perfect catch-22!
Articles which are unsupported by sound arguments or contradicted
by experiments also don't get published. So far, nothing you've posted
indicates that the technical report you've cited supports what you say
it does and you've provided many reasons to indicate that you've totally
misrepresented what it does say.
>However, despite the best efforts of the relativists, this one leaked.out
>via mainstream tomes such as "Status of the Newtonian Gravitational
>Constant"
"Leaked out"? No one is hiding anything from anyone or disputing the
existence of the document. I'm disputing your ability to accurately
and honestly convey the content.
Tom Roberts
> "Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis, Gravitational
> Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata and
> Melnikov (eds)
>
> Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report No. LA-9388-MS, June 1982, 7pp
Interesting. I'm submitting library requests for both. I have no idea
how long it might take, as LANL reports that old are probably not online
(especially given other people's failure to find this one). Amazon lists
the book at $392, so that may take a while, too.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Lawrence Foard
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
>LOL! But it DID make the light of day. That's why you snipped the source I
>used....
>
>"Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis, Gravitational
>Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata and
>Melnikov (eds)
Searching the LANL web site I didn't come across it. Do you have a link
to it, or is this a journal available in university libraries?
--
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
Tom Roberts
> Note the word "locally" above -- which has a bizarre, ambiguous
> definition through which physicists can automatically exempt *any* experiment
> that shows a variable speed of light.
No, it's just that Dennis McCarthy relies on unacknowledged puns and
ambiguous meanings of words to try to obfuscate the matter.
This statement is completely false, and there are MANY experiments
which could potentially have measured a "variable speed of light"; the
fact that any experiment using a locally-inertial frame does not do so
is important support for SR (a point Dennis McCarthy ignores). The
experiments that McCarthy claims are "exempt" all measure something
OTHER than the speed of light wrt a locally-inertial frame.
> In stationary Sagnac-square-ring-gyro experiments -- where the square remains
> motionless in Earth-based labs -- two rays of light are sent around the same
> perimeter in opposite directions and, in the Northern Hemisphere, the clockwise
> ray tags up first. So according to Earth-based lab observers, CW rays of light
> are faster than CCW rays of light.
Note the confusion about words like "faster", which ultimately depend
on the definition of "velocity". When we speak casually, we often refer
velocity to the rotating earth, and in our everyday lives that is just
fine. But in discussions like this it is necessary to be more precise.
Dennis McCarthy is referring to the COORDINATE SPEED OF LIGHT, for a
certain set of rotating coordinates. Using such coordinates there is no
constraint on the COORDINATE speed of light; the fact that values other
than c are obtained is not surprising, and is not a violation of the
postulates of SR.
> The perimeter of a Sagnac square ring is roughly 4 meters -- which is
> actually less than the distance light traveled in the first MM. Son one
> wonders if there is a non-arbitray reason why the latter is "local" but the
> former is not. But of course there isn't any.
Sure there is. This is a basic GEOMETRICAL difference between the
Sagnac and Michelson interferometers. Start with a Sagnac
interferometer and continuously deform it until it is a Michelson
interferometer -- this can easily be done (at least mentally). Now
remember that the Sagnac effect is proportional to the area of the
interferometer, and when deformed into Michelson's geometry that area
is zero. So a Michelson interferometer is insensitive to rotation. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030413...@localhost.localdomain...
> >
> > dl...@aol.com (formerly) <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:VT4ma.4070$554.3492@fed1read05...
> >
> > > Welcome to the real world.
> > >
> >
> > As Luc Bourhis has pointed out, nothing that contradicts SR can get
> > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
> >
>
> So says greywoofie, as the dishnonesty oozes out of his pores.
>
> What Luc _actually_ said:
>
> "No peer-reviewed scientific publication would accept
> my paper discussing Aether theories. Why ? Because I
> would not be able to say something original about it.
> Hundreds of papers have already discussed every
> interesting details of the problem."
Yep. Q.E.D. No theory or experiemental paper contradicting SR will be
accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.
>
> Greywoofie is a filthy liar, a distorter of fact, and _nothing_
> he ever says should be taken seriously.
Mirror, mirror.
greywolf42
Lawrence Foard <ent...@farviolet.com> wrote in message
news:b7e9g1$bcs$1...@farviolet.com...
> In article <v9jclgg...@corp.supernews.com>,
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >
> >LOL! But it DID make the light of day. That's why you snipped the
source I
> >used....
> >
> >"Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis,
Gravitational
> >Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata
and
> >Melnikov (eds)
>
> Searching the LANL web site I didn't come across it. Do you have a link
> to it, or is this a journal available in university libraries?
I found it in the University of California, Davis library. The
"Measurements" book is an attempt to bring together all the "best"
experimental work available at the time.
You may also note (if you find it) that the value of G still varies in
mysterious ways. All of the different "precision" measurements are well
outside each other's error bands.
greywolf42
Tom, may I suggest you try your University library for the book, before
shelling out $392? It is one of the benefits of teaching (or did you lose
that gig)? :(
Tom Roberts
> Tom, may I suggest you try your University library for the book, before
> shelling out $392? It is one of the benefits of teaching (or did you lose
> that gig)? :(
I had no intention of purchasing the book. I merely meant that for such
an expensive book it may take a while to find a library that will loan
it to me.
I believe I will have a copy of the LANL Technical Report this evening
(it requires my FNAL cryptocard to access it, and I left that at home).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
greywolf42
> greywolf42:
> >> It would be interesting, if true, but my guess is that it's an lanl
> >> technical report and not a phys rev article because it isn't true.
> >
#1
> >You mean you think the author(s) lied? (Isn't true).
#2
> >Or do you mean that you believe the experiment was in error?
#3
> >Or do you mean that you believe the book author was lying about the
> >existence of the article?
> You've left off an option. I don't believe the experiment represents
> what you believe it does.
I merely provided a quote. It wasn't my quote. You hereby invoke #1.
> But since you only posted your biased summary, I
> can't say much about the experiment otherwise -- just as I said in my
> previous response.
But it wasn't *my* summary. I provided a quote. You just invoked #1.
> As for the authors, I also can't say anything one way
> or the other, since I can't even find that article mentioned anywhere, let
> alone the article itself.
But you only looked online. A 1982 heretical article is not likely to be
online. You just invoked #3.
> I seriously doubt they lied about anything, but
I
> have no doubt that you would lie about the claims made in the report.
Good morning, Bilgewater.... *I* provided a quote from a standard reference.
Are you claiming that I falsified the quote? Otherwise you're invoking #1,
again.
> I'm
> sure that their claims are nowhere near as grandiose as you make them out
> to be.
???? The claim that an experimental result was observed is hardly
*grandiose*! You are here invoking #2.
> Since I stipulated to that article being an lanl technical report
> to make my point, your last option is nothing more than self-serving
> rhetoric and an intentional distortion of what I said.
LOL!!!! My question was to get you to be specific. You claimed: "It would
be interesting, if true, but my guess is that ... it isn't true." Now I
wanted to know what you meant by "not true." It is not distortion to give
you options.
As we see, not only did you attempt all three of the options, you added the
claim that each quote was somehow *my* fault. (I should have expected it
from you, and added it as a fourth option.)
> >> I can't even find the article or a reference to the article on line
> >> (or even the author's name in connection with 198Au in the adopted
> >> levels data or los alamos).
> >
> >Your point would be what?
>
> My point being:
>
> I can't even find the article or a reference to the article on line (or
> even the author's name in connection with 198Au in the adopted levels
> data or los alamos).
Tough cookies. Try research.
> Same as before. Try reading it the first time.
In other words, you have no valid point. That you can't find something
online is not an indication that the article doesn't exist.
> >Not everything in the world is on-line.
>
> Then perhaps you should post somewhere alongside cold fusion voodoo,
> so that you and other kooks will have something to rally around. They
> won't even mind if you creatively paraphrase it.
Total irrelvancy, tied with standard insult on completely different topic.
> >Especially heretical experiments from 1982.
>
> I seriously doubt it was a "heretical experiment". My guess is that it
> was just what it claimed - a technical report - i.e., a status report for
> the administration that keeps the administators updated and happy with
> blurbs they can use in brochures and paperwork they can send to the DOE,
> aprise them of how their grant money is being spent and why they need
> more. Every lab puts those things out and what goes into those reports is
> essentially an accounting of what's been happening in the lab.
One would presume that it's an accurate accounting. :)
Oh, that's right, if you disagree then it didn't exist!
> You can go
> look up "Progress in Research" from the tamu cyclotron and find kevin
> wolf's reports on his cold fusion set up that ran for several years and
> misconstrue those, too. Since I knew him personally, I also know what the
> eventual real outcome was. Nada.
Whatever made you insult one Kevin Wolf and cold fusion reports? That the
eventual result of Mr. Wolf's experiments came to nothing does not mean that
the lack of a peer-reviewed followup means that nothing was found. The
quote at issue explicitly states that there was *no followup.* Not that
nothing was found.
> >> If that measurement had been for real,
>
> >You are claiming no such experiment was performed?
>
> I'm not even going to answer that, since you are deliberately being
> dishonest regarding what I said.
Horsefeathers! You just implied the experiment was *not real.* Back it up
or back off, coward.
> >> not only would the experimental group repeated it, they would have
> >> climbed over each other to get the result to prl and lots of other
> >> people would have repeated it immediately.
> >
> >LOL!!!
>
> As usual, you have no answer for why someome would pass up fame and
> fortune just to spite you and rather than look stupid(er) trying to
> rationalize why someone would do that, you simply write off the qusetion
> and move on to the next misrepresentation.
The bread line is not "fame and fortune." Just ask Halton Arp what happens
to those who experimentally find things that differ too much from the
mainstream.
> >> A result such as you describe would have been a big deal,
> >> rather than an internal "we did this experiment" report to satisfy the
> >> administration. So no, I don't believe it
> >
> >I didn't ask if you "believed" it.
>
> That's not my problem. You posted an article. I responded. What I write
> in my response is not up to you.
>
> >> and without a complete description of the experiment, I can't even
> >> comment on what significance "seven standard deviations" has.
> >
> >If it's not in physical review, then it didn't happen!
>
> What does physical review have to do with me not being able to comment
> on the significance of "seven standard deviations" without having a
> complete description of the experiment?
Go get it, coward.
> You didn't post the article did you?
No. So what? Posting an entire article is against N.G. rules. I posted
the REFERENCE. You want to check it out, go look it up.
> Once again, you show how dishonest you are by attributing to me
> something I did not say.
LOL! You stated "So no, I don't believe it" That is, you believe that it
doesn't exist.
> Furthermore, the last time you referenced an article (you remember, the
> one about superfulids in neutron stars), what you said and what the
> article said were exactly opposite.
LOL!!
> Your own reference didn't support the
> claim for which you referenced the article. Your past dishonesty indicates
> I have no reason to believe the article you've referenced this time is any
> more likely to to support what you've said it does. However, you have
> solved one problem. By choosing to put your own spin on some obscure
> technical report, the likelyhood of having me find the article and point
> out your own misrepresentations is drastically reduced.
Poor Bilge. Caught in the open, he spews ink (or electrons). Tries to
dredge up an old thread that he never would back up his position. Got
caught in an unintentional agreement that Maxwell's EM aether fluid (used in
the derivation of Maxwell's equations) matched the definition of a
superfluid posted on three different websites. Now forever attempts to make
up for admitting the obvious on even one tiny point.
> > And -- as folks such as Luc Bourhis have pointed out -- if it
disagrees
> >with SR, then it cannot get published in physical review (or any other
> >peer-reviewed journal). Perfect catch-22!
>
> Articles which are unsupported by sound arguments or contradicted
> by experiments also don't get published.
Q.E.D. Thanks for supporting my point. Since even on this newsgroup there
is general agreement that LET and SR share the same experiments.
> So far, nothing you've posted
> indicates that the technical report you've cited supports what you say
> it does
But the posts and quotes are not what *I* said about the technical report.
They are what the authors of the mainstream book wrote.
> and you've provided many reasons to indicate that you've totally
> misrepresented what it does say.
LOL!!!
> >However, despite the best efforts of the relativists, this one
leaked.out
> >via mainstream tomes such as "Status of the Newtonian Gravitational
> >Constant"
>
> "Leaked out"? No one is hiding anything from anyone or disputing the
> existence of the document.
You, yourself disputed that several times in this very post.
> I'm disputing your ability to accurately
> and honestly convey the content.
IOW, you are claiming that my quote extracted from the easy-to-find
reference book (as opposed to the hard-to-find technical report) is either
"inaccurate" or "dishonest."
Bye in this thread, coward.
greywolf42
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030413...@localhost.localdomain...
> >
> > Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrnb9ii2a....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >
> > > A result such as you describe would have been a big deal,
> > > rather than an internal "we did this experiment" report to satisfy the
> > > administration. So no, I don't believe it
> [...]
> > > and without a complete
> > > description
> > > of the experiment, I can't even comment on what significance "seven
> > > standard deviations" has.
> >
> > If it's not in physical review, then it didn't happen! And -- as folks
such
> > as Luc Bourhis have pointed out -- if it disagrees with SR, then it
cannot
> > get published in physical review (or any other peer-reviewed journal).
> > Perfect catch-22!
> >
>
> What Luc _actually_ said:
>
> "No peer-reviewed scientific publication would accept
> my paper discussing Aether theories. Why ? Because I
> would not be able to say something original about it.
> Hundreds of papers have already discussed every
> interesting details of the problem."
Yep. Q.E.D. No theory or experiemental paper contradicting SR will be
accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.
> Greywoofie is a filthy liar, a distorter of fact, and _nothing_
> he ever says should be taken seriously.
Mirror, mirror.
Stephen Speicher
This is a classic for ImmortalFumbles, don't you think?
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030413...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, greywolf42 wrote:
> > >
> > > dl...@aol.com (formerly) <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:VT4ma.4070$554.3492@fed1read05...
> > >
> > > > Welcome to the real world.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As Luc Bourhis has pointed out, nothing that contradicts SR can get
> > > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
> > >
> >
> > So says greywoofie, as the dishnonesty oozes out of his pores.
> >
> > What Luc _actually_ said:
> >
> > "No peer-reviewed scientific publication would accept
> > my paper discussing Aether theories. Why ? Because I
> > would not be able to say something original about it.
> > Hundreds of papers have already discussed every
> > interesting details of the problem."
>
> Yep. Q.E.D. No theory or experiemental paper contradicting SR will be
> accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.
>
Let's get this straight. Luc says MY PAPER DISCUSSING AETHER
THEORIES would not be accepted BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
SAY SOMETHING ORIGINAL, and you believe that that means NO THEORY
OR EXPERIMENTAL PAPER which CONTRADICTS SR WILL BE ACCEPTED!
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, could be that stupid to claim that
those two statements mean the same. Also, we can rule out a
difficulty with grasping the English language by a foreign
speaker, so we are left with sci.physics.relativity's version of
Baghdad Bob.
Baghdad Bob screams that there are no Americans here, even as
they are pounding on his front door, and Baghdad greywoofie
likewise denies the facts which are staring him in the face. The
same motivation exists for each of these two mentally disturbed
creatures, namely the inner feeling that if they deny reality
somehow it will go away.
Greywoofie, you are, without a doubt, an unbelievably pathetic
excuse for a human being.
Stephen Speicher
>
Let's get this straight. Luc says MY PAPER DISCUSSING AETHER
THEORIES would not be accepted BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
SAY SOMETHING ORIGINAL, and you believe that that means NO THEORY
OR EXPERIMENTAL PAPER which CONTRADICTS SR WILL BE ACCEPTED!
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, could be that stupid to claim that
those two statements mean the same. Also, we can rule out a
difficulty with grasping the English language by a foreign
speaker, so we are left with sci.physics.relativity's version of
Baghdad Bob.
Baghdad Bob screams that there are no Americans here, even as
they are pounding on his front door, and Baghdad greywoofie
likewise denies the facts which are staring him in the face. The
same motivation exists for each of these two mentally disturbed
creatures, namely the inner feeling that if they deny reality
somehow it will go away.
Greywoofie, you are, without a doubt, an unbelievably pathetic
excuse for a human being.
--
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:v9lps4l...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030413...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, greywolf42 wrote:
> > >
> > > dl...@aol.com (formerly) <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:VT4ma.4070$554.3492@fed1read05...
> > >
> > > > Welcome to the real world.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As Luc Bourhis has pointed out, nothing that contradicts SR can get
> > > published in a peer-reviewed journal.
> > >
> >
> > So says greywoofie, as the dishnonesty oozes out of his pores.
> >
> > What Luc _actually_ said:
> >
> > "No peer-reviewed scientific publication would accept
> > my paper discussing Aether theories. Why ? Because I
> > would not be able to say something original about it.
> > Hundreds of papers have already discussed every
> > interesting details of the problem."
>
> Yep. Q.E.D. No theory or experiemental paper contradicting SR will be
> accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.
Title: "The Grey Logic of Peer-Reviewed Originality"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#YepQED
2 hits in two days.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030414...@localhost.localdomain...
> Calling Dirk Van de moortel ... calling Dirk Van de moortel.
>
> This is a classic for ImmortalFumbles, don't you think?
A classic indeed :-))
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
Just when you think greywoofie has hit bottom, he surprises us
with yet another lower level. Now we await a response from his
friend and colleague, Paul Stowe, who himself has recently
accused another as being a "Sleazy pathetic liar." We'll see
whether Stowe has one standard for honesty, or two.
Bilge
[...]
>
>But it wasn't *my* summary. I provided a quote. You just invoked #1.
In other words, you didn't even read the article yoursel, you merely
repeated another's summary.
[...]
>LOL!!!! My question was to get you to be specific.
I've been as specific as possible without more information (which
you appear unwilling to provide).
> You claimed: "It would
>be interesting, if true, but my guess is that ... it isn't true." Now I
>wanted to know what you meant by "not true." It is not distortion to give
>you options.
But the options you offered were not all of the options available, one
of which is a judgement of how reliable your statements are based upon
previous experience.
>As we see, not only did you attempt all three of the options, you added the
>claim that each quote was somehow *my* fault. (I should have expected it
>from you, and added it as a fourth option.)
No, I addressed the insinuations you made with each of those options
and refused to be constrained to validating one of your insinuations.
[...]
>> I can't even find the article or a reference to the article on line (or
>> even the author's name in connection with 198Au in the adopted levels
>> data or los alamos).
>
>Tough cookies. Try research.
I've done all that the evidence indicates is worth doing. Chasing down
hard to find information based on your word is most likely to involve a
lot of effort for no particular reason.
>> Same as before. Try reading it the first time.
>
>In other words, you have no valid point.
I had a valid point. It just wasn't the one with which you wished to
argue. I'm not going to simply make up something just so you can argue
about it.
> That you can't find something online is not an indication that
>the article doesn't exist.
And you are once again dishonest, since I've not only never stated
that the article didn't exist, but explicitly said that I had no
reason to believe it didn't. What I said was that I didn't believe
what you purport that it shows. You've chosen not to address that
issue and instead decided to continue misrepresenting what I've said.
[...]
>> You can go
>> look up "Progress in Research" from the tamu cyclotron and find kevin
>> wolf's reports on his cold fusion set up that ran for several years and
>> misconstrue those, too. Since I knew him personally, I also know what the
>> eventual real outcome was. Nada.
>
>Whatever made you insult one Kevin Wolf and cold fusion reports?
I'm not insulting kevin. I just happened to be around during the time
his experiments were running and can point to those experiments as a
good example of the difference between a progress report and a published
article. Progress reports aren't necessarily the result of any experiment,
but simply are status reports submitted on research done at the time the
reports are due, which doesn't necessarily coincide with the outcome of
any particular experiment. Hence, my comment regarding the difference
between a technical report and an article submitted for publication.
>That the eventual result of Mr. Wolf's experiments came to nothing
>does not mean that the lack of a peer-reviewed followup means that
>nothing was found.
I'm afraid that's exactly what it means. I was there, I knew kevin and
everyone in his research group personally, talked them on a day to day
basis, and knew their various opinions over the course of the experiment
were regarding any so-called anomalous heat or other indicators regarding
cold fusion. In the end, there was nothing to submit for publication.
> The quote at issue explicitly states that there
>was *no followup.* Not that nothing was found.
Unfortunately, you are reluctant to give any details. All you've
given is a quote from an article about an article that you don't
seem to have read. Knowing your propensity for dishonesty, I find
it rather easy to believe that you simply chose to submit selected
information which leaves out quite a lot about the significance
of the experiment in question.
>> I'm not even going to answer that, since you are deliberately being
>> dishonest regarding what I said.
>
>Horsefeathers! You just implied the experiment was *not real.* Back it up
>or back off, coward.
It's not my problem if you choose to interpret what is said in order
to refute something more convenient. Your propensity for doing that
is exactly why I find everything you post quite suspect.
>> As usual, you have no answer for why someome would pass up fame and
>> fortune just to spite you and rather than look stupid(er) trying to
>> rationalize why someone would do that, you simply write off the qusetion
>> and move on to the next misrepresentation.
>
>The bread line is not "fame and fortune." Just ask Halton Arp what happens
>to those who experimentally find things that differ too much from the
>mainstream.
I've already addressed arp in a thread with another crank who offered
arp as their so-called evidence. Read my response there.
[...]
>> What does physical review have to do with me not being able to comment
>> on the significance of "seven standard deviations" without having a
>> complete description of the experiment?
>
>Go get it, coward.
If you think it's so important, spend some effort posting it rather
than spending so much effort avoiding it.
>> You didn't post the article did you?
>
>No. So what? Posting an entire article is against N.G. rules. I posted
>the REFERENCE. You want to check it out, go look it up.
The newsgroup rules don't seem to prevent you from being an ass and
dwelling on things which have no relation to the newsgroup. I can't
see why all of a sudden you'd become the poster child for newsgroup
etiquette where something with potential relevance is concerned.
[*remaining bullshit snipped*]
Titan Point
Don't hold back Stephen, say what you really feel...
greywolf42
And so we end another classic devolution by Die Hard Relativists (DHRs).
Whenever the DHRs are confronted with something embarrassing (such as actual
evidence) about SR or the Standard Model, the approach is to constantly
divert into side issues. At each step, the original point of physics is
snipped, as we descend further and further from physics to some quote or
interpretation. Then when -- eventually -- a DHR can find something that
can be misinterpreted, they *SCREAM* their findings and demonize the
poster -- calling in their friends to join the party.
> Calling Dirk Van de moortel ... calling Dirk Van de moortel.
>
> This is a classic for ImmortalFumbles, don't you think?
Let's summarize how this poor thread got so tangled and diverted:
Original question by RTT:
"...Does general relativty say that the speed of light is constant to
observers in both uniform *and* non-uniform motion? ..."
PMB:
"GR states that when measured locally (i.e. 'At the same place.' whatever
that means ) the speed of light is constant and has the value 'c' it has in
special relativity. But in general the speed of light depends on the
gravitational potential. Some would call that the 'coordinate speed of
light.' "
"Einstein proved this in his 1911 paper. You can pick up the Doves book "The
Principle of Relativity" and he proves it in that book since the 1911 paper
is reprinted there"
Tom Roberts (re PMB's last statement, standard claim for unreferenced
experimental evidence):
[I can't resist Tom's first sentence, where's "Immortal Fumbles" when you
need them?]
"He really proves what I said, not what you said, even though your words are
closer to his than mine are...."
"...The proper tick rate of an ideal clock, the proper length of an ideal
ruler, and the mass of an ideal pointlike object are all INSTRINSIC
properties of those objects. All are independent of how one measures them,
of how they are accelerated, or of how fast they may be moving relative to
the measurement apparatus."
"The decay rate of a real muon behaves within ~0.1% of an ideal clock for
accelerations up to 10^18 gee. ... These are all real experimental
observations."
greywolf42 (in response to Tom's claim for experimental evidence):
"Odd that it doesn't work that way for unstable isotopes in centrifuges."
Tom Roberts (evasion #1, denial of possibility, ex cathedra):
"A centrifuge is woefully inadequate to achieve a large enough acceleration
(really acceleration * radius, or equivalently tangential velocity) for the
effect to be measurable. IOW the experimental resolutions for such an
experiment would be enormously larger than the effect."
greywolf42 (providing references to physical experiment):
"...See:
'... An effect observed by D. H. Whitaker for Los Alamos National
Laboratory.* He reports that a sample of radioactive 198Au exhibits a seven
standard deviation shift in its nuclear decay rate when subjected to a
centrifugal (pseudogravitational) field of about 200,000 g. His result is
not widely know, so it has never received independent study.'
Quote from:
"Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis, Gravitational
Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata and
Melnikov (eds)
*D.H. Whitaker, 'The effect of acceleration on the decay rate of 198Au,' Los
Alamos National Laboratory Technical Report No. LA-9388-MS, June 1982, 7pp
dlzc (evasion #2, snipping both references and insulting both authors --
without reading either, of course):
"Maybe it didn't receive 'independent study', because he was too embarrassed
to repeat it."
"Welcome to the real world."
[Note that Bilge -- in a parallel part of this thread -- also begins the
process of denying the existence of both the references and the experiment
reported by same. But I have no need to belabor the point.]
greywolf42 (pointing out evasions):
"Why the mud-slinging about someone you don't know?"
"Independent study means someone ELSE repeats the experiment. Lack of
independent study means lack of interest or lack of willingness to sacrifice
one's standing in the community."
> Welcome to the real world.
"As Luc Bourhis has pointed out, nothing that contradicts SR can get
published in a peer-reviewed journal."
Stephen Speicher (foaming at mouth, snipping the physics and jumping right
into a quibble on the meaning of a quote.):
"So says greywoofie, as the dishnonesty oozes out of his pores."
"What Luc _actually_ said:
'No peer-reviewed scientific publication would accept
my paper discussing Aether theories. Why ? Because I
would not be able to say something original about it.
Hundreds of papers have already discussed every
interesting details of the problem.'
"Greywoofie is a filthy liar, a distorter of fact, and _nothing_ he ever
says should be taken seriously."
=============
Hey gang, isn't this fun? We've completely left the subject of physics.
Why bother to address those grandiose claims of experimental results by SR
and those embarrasing contradictory experiments? When we can chop all
reference from our posts and sound authoritative.
=============
greywolf42 (applying elementary logic to Luc's quote):
"Yep. Q.E.D. No theory or experiemental paper contradicting SR will be
accepted by a peer-reviewed journal.:"
================
And now we reach Preacher Speicher's current raving diversion and call to
exorcise all anti-SR demons. His method (as usual for him) is to not only
insult the immediate author (me), but to extend his insults to anyone and
everyone with whom he disagrees.... stooping so low as to imply that those
who disagree are National enemies, allied with Saddam Hussein.
================
Stephen Speicher (foaming and *screaming* even more):
"Let's get this straight. Luc says MY PAPER DISCUSSING AETHER THEORIES would
not be accepted BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY SOMETHING ORIGINAL, and
you believe that that means NO THEORY OR EXPERIMENTAL PAPER which
CONTRADICTS SR WILL BE ACCEPTED!"
==========
The above shows Stephen is capable of copying and capitalizing.
==========
"Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, could be that stupid to claim that those two
statements mean the same."
==============
Actually, anyone with half a brain or an ounce of honesty -- who has read
these newsgroups -- can see that the two statements are essentially the
same. For on this N.G., there are only (or at least 99%) two approaches:
SR and physical media (aether) theories. If you are contradicting SR, you
are supporting a physical cause. If you are supporting SR, you are
contradicting physical causality (aether).
==============
"Also, we can rule out a difficulty with grasping the English language by a
foreign speaker, so we are left with sci.physics.relativity's version of
Baghdad Bob."
==============
Now we segue from even the quote Preacher is raving about, and devolving
into the full demon treatment. And not only about the immediate poster
(me). Preacher must attack all infidels!
==============
"Baghdad Bob screams that there are no Americans here, even as they are
pounding on his front door, and Baghdad greywoofie likewise denies the facts
which are staring him in the face. The same motivation exists for each of
these two mentally disturbed creatures, namely the inner feeling that if
they deny reality somehow it will go away."
==============
Preacher now moves to his standard claim. His personal interpretations are
"facts". And all who disagree "deny reality." Adding the claim of mental
illness.
==============
"Greywoofie, you are, without a doubt, an unbelievably pathetic excuse for a
human being."
==============
And the final closer is Preacher's patented insult. (Why limit yourself to
one or two personal insults, when you can write three?)
And so another classic DEMONstration of the standard DHR process.
1) Claim experimental support to ludicrous levels.
2) Snip the references to contradictory experiments.
3) Deny the existence of the references.
4) Deny the possibility that the experiments might be valid, or even worth
looking up.
5) Insult the poster of the contrdictory experiments/references.
6) Claim that contradictory experiments would be embraced by all, and Nobel
prizes awarded.
7) Place all the evidence presented counter to #6 (in this NG over the past
several years) into the memory hole.
8) Insult the poster.
9) Find a minor point (unrelated to physics) to interpret differently.
Claim the poster is a demon, insane, traitor, physically ugly, etc. Repeat.
That's all for me in this thread. Those who might possibly be interested in
the potential experimental disproof of SR/GR are welcome to read the
references and form their own opinion.
greywolf42
Bilgey surely has "interesting" snips. By deleting Bilge's prior statement,
he can pile sand on his embarassment at getting "caught."
=======================
Bilge (claiming that a lanl report "isn't true.")
> >> It would be interesting, if true, but my guess is that it's an lanl
> >> technical report and not a phys rev article because it isn't true.
> >
#1
> >You mean you think the author(s) lied? (Isn't true).
#2
> >Or do you mean that you believe the experiment was in error?
#3
> >Or do you mean that you believe the book author was lying about the
> >existence of the article?
> You've left off an option. I don't believe the experiment represents
> what you believe it does.
I merely provided a quote. It wasn't my quote. You hereby invoke #1.
> But since you only posted your biased summary, I
> can't say much about the experiment otherwise -- just as I said in my
> previous response.
=======================
Now we return to our "hero." We see that Bilge quite explicitly claimed I
had posted "my" biased summary. To which I clarified.
> >But it wasn't *my* summary. I provided a quote. You just invoked #1.
>
> In other words, you didn't even read the article yoursel, you merely
> repeated another's summary.
Bilge is caught trying to blame the offeding quote (from the standard
physics reference) on me -- so as to deny it's validity as "biased." His
response was to snip his false claim, and shift the argument to "you didn't
read the article yourself." Which is really funny.
The reason I used the quote in the first place was to demonstrate that it
wasn't just *my* interpretation -- but one by *standard* physic(ist)s.
>
> [...]
Another of those "convenient" snips by Bilgewater (David Secor).
Conveniently stripping away the evidence of his frantic, dishonest attempt
to smear the evidence. But give him credit. At least he's begun to mark
his snips.
==============================
> As for the authors, I also can't say anything one way
> or the other, since I can't even find that article mentioned anywhere, let
> alone the article itself.
But you only looked online. A 1982 heretical article is not likely to be
online. You just invoked #3.
> I seriously doubt they lied about anything, but I
> have no doubt that you would lie about the claims made in the report.
Good morning, Bilgewater.... *I* provided a quote from a standard reference.
Are you claiming that I falsified the quote? Otherwise you're invoking #1,
again.
> I'm
> sure that their claims are nowhere near as grandiose as you make them out
> to be.
???? The claim that an experimental result was observed is hardly
*grandiose*! You are here invoking #2.
> Since I stipulated to that article being an lanl technical report
> to make my point, your last option is nothing more than self-serving
> rhetoric and an intentional distortion of what I said.
=============================
> >LOL!!!! My question was to get you to be specific.
>
> I've been as specific as possible without more information (which
> you appear unwilling to provide).
Gee! Without those irritating snipped lines, Bilge has managed to try to
imply that I was trying to get him to be specific about the references. As
we see, my attempt was to get him to be clear about Bilge's original claim:
"It would be interesting, if true, but my guess is that ...it isn't true."
I just wanted him to be specific as to *why* he thought the experiment
"isn't true."
> > You claimed: "It would
> >be interesting, if true, but my guess is that ... it isn't true." Now I
> >wanted to know what you meant by "not true." It is not distortion to
give
> >you options.
>
> But the options you offered were not all of the options available, one
> of which is a judgement of how reliable your statements are based upon
> previous experience.
Correct, there was the other possibility that you'd simply insult me (which
you did). Or that you simply won't accept anything counter to SR claims
(which is my suspicion). But I gave you several options. And you tried
them all. :)
> >As we see, not only did you attempt all three of the options, you added
the
> >claim that each quote was somehow *my* fault. (I should have expected
it
> >from you, and added it as a fourth option.)
>
> No, I addressed the insinuations you made with each of those options
> and refused to be constrained to validating one of your insinuations.
And, coincidentally, never answered why you felt it necessary to imply that
the experiment wasn't "true."
>
>
> [...]
Sigh. Guess I'll have to put this back too, due to an "untruth" later in
Bilge's post.
======================
> >> I can't even find the article or a reference to the article on line
> >> (or even the author's name in connection with 198Au in the adopted
> >> levels data or los alamos).
> >
> >Your point would be what?
======================
> >> I can't even find the article or a reference to the article on line
(or
> >> even the author's name in connection with 198Au in the adopted levels
> >> data or los alamos).
> >
> >Tough cookies. Try research.
>
> I've done all that the evidence indicates is worth doing. Chasing down
> hard to find information based on your word is most likely to involve a
> lot of effort for no particular reason.
Perfect! Bilge has quickly forgotten that it's not my *word* that he's
dissing. It's that irritating standard reference. But he's hoping no one
will notice.
> >> Same as before. Try reading it the first time.
> >
> >In other words, you have no valid point.
>
> I had a valid point. It just wasn't the one with which you wished to
> argue. I'm not going to simply make up something just so you can argue
> about it.
LOL! You made up a whole string of excuses why you couldn't accept an
experiment.
> > That you can't find something online is not an indication that
> >the article doesn't exist.
>
> And you are once again dishonest, since I've not only never stated
> that the article didn't exist,
Of course you didn't state that. But you "even looked" on the internet and
couldn't find it -- thus implying that it didn't exist (after deleting the
references and claiming that the quote from the standards text was mine).
> but explicitly said that I had no reason to believe it didn't.
That is untrue. You have not said that prior to this post. You repeated a
deliberate implication of noexistence -- after I gave you the out to back
off. (See replaced snip immediately above)
> What I said was that I didn't believe
> what you purport that it shows. You've chosen not to address that
> issue and instead decided to continue misrepresenting what I've said.
But -- as we've seen -- *I* have merely quoted somebody else. You keep
trying to imply that the quote is mine, in order to imply that it does not
mean what it says. I'm not misrepresenting you, David. You keep twisting
to try anything to avoid going to the library and simply checking to see if
I copied the quote correctly (from the book, not the article).
> [...]
{snicker} Another "cute" deletion by Bilge.
==================
> >Not everything in the world is on-line.
>
> Then perhaps you should post somewhere alongside cold fusion voodoo,
> so that you and other kooks will have something to rally around. They
> won't even mind if you creatively paraphrase it.
Total irrelvancy, tied with standard insult on completely different topic.
> >Especially heretical experiments from 1982.
>
> I seriously doubt it was a "heretical experiment". My guess is that it
> was just what it claimed - a technical report - i.e., a status report for
> the administration that keeps the administators updated and happy with
> blurbs they can use in brochures and paperwork they can send to the DOE,
> aprise them of how their grant money is being spent and why they need
> more. Every lab puts those things out and what goes into those reports is
> essentially an accounting of what's been happening in the lab.
One would presume that it's an accurate accounting. :)
Oh, that's right, if you disagree then it didn't exist!
====================
David got called on his attempt to divert by insulting unrelated third
parties and claiming that the report (which he can't find) is merely and
"administrative accounting." So he deleted his obvious dishonesty.
But then felt he just "had" to keep the following:
> >> You can go
> >> look up "Progress in Research" from the tamu cyclotron and find kevin
> >> wolf's reports on his cold fusion set up that ran for several years
and
> >> misconstrue those, too. Since I knew him personally, I also know what
the
> >> eventual real outcome was. Nada.
> >
> >Whatever made you insult one Kevin Wolf and cold fusion reports?
>
> I'm not insulting kevin. I just happened to be around during the time
> his experiments were running and can point to those experiments as a
> good example of the difference between a progress report and a published
> article. Progress reports aren't necessarily the result of any experiment,
> but simply are status reports submitted on research done at the time the
> reports are due, which doesn't necessarily coincide with the outcome of
> any particular experiment. Hence, my comment regarding the difference
> between a technical report and an article submitted for publication.
ROTFLMAO!
Sure you insulted Kevin. You also just claimed that the experiment (the one
under discussion) wasn't "necesarily the result of any experiment!" But--
of course -- this one was *specifically* the result of an experiment!
> >That the eventual result of Mr. Wolf's experiments came to nothing
> >does not mean that the lack of a peer-reviewed followup means that
> >nothing was found.
>
> I'm afraid that's exactly what it means.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Shall I just say that your ability to use logic sucks?
> I was there, I knew kevin and
> everyone in his research group personally, talked them on a day to day
> basis, and knew their various opinions over the course of the experiment
> were regarding any so-called anomalous heat or other indicators regarding
> cold fusion. In the end, there was nothing to submit for publication.
That Kevin's group found *nothing to submit* does not mean that that one
case proves that all other cases are the same!
> > The quote at issue explicitly states that there
> >was *no followup.* Not that nothing was found.
>
> Unfortunately, you are reluctant to give any details.
Hello, stupid. I'm not *reluctant*. That was the quote.
> All you've
> given is a quote from an article about an article that you don't
> seem to have read.
Actually it's a quote from a standard physics reference book (not an
"article"). But you know this, because you snipped the reference. You just
can't miss the slightest opportunity to "downgrade" any contrary evidence.
> Knowing your propensity for dishonesty, I find
> it rather easy to believe that you simply chose to submit selected
> information which leaves out quite a lot about the significance
> of the experiment in question.
If you believe your own lies regarding the dishonesty of all who disagree
with you, then it would be child's play for you to go to the library and
obtain the (easily obtainable) book. Then look to see if I've quoted
correctly.
[Here is a snip that David forgot to mark. Because his following statement
is REALLY funny when it's left in.]
===================
> >> If that measurement had been for real,
>
> >You are claiming no such experiment was performed?
===================
> >> I'm not even going to answer that, since you are deliberately being
> >> dishonest regarding what I said.
> >
> >Horsefeathers! You just implied the experiment was *not real.* Back it
up
> >or back off, coward.
>
> It's not my problem if you choose to interpret what is said in order
> to refute something more convenient. Your propensity for doing that
> is exactly why I find everything you post quite suspect.
Caught again in the attempt to divert from his claim that the experiment is
*not real* (and snipping the obvious implication), Bilge continues the
personal insults.
[Here's another laugher of an unmarked snip.]
=================
> >> not only would the experimental group repeated it, they would have
> >> climbed over each other to get the result to prl and lots of other
> >> people would have repeated it immediately.
> >
> >LOL!!!
=================
> >> As usual, you have no answer for why someome would pass up fame and
> >> fortune just to spite you and rather than look stupid(er) trying to
> >> rationalize why someone would do that, you simply write off the
qusetion
> >> and move on to the next misrepresentation.
> >
> >The bread line is not "fame and fortune." Just ask Halton Arp what
happens
> >to those who experimentally find things that differ too much from the
> >mainstream.
>
> I've already addressed arp in a thread with another crank who offered
> arp as their so-called evidence. Read my response there.
Perfect. You now insult Halton Arp, calling him "another crank." Just
because his theories contradict yours.
>
> [...]
[Another giggle snipped by David]
=====================
> >> A result such as you describe would have been a big deal,
> >> rather than an internal "we did this experiment" report to satisfy the
> >> administration. So no, I don't believe it
> >
> >I didn't ask if you "believed" it.
>
> That's not my problem. You posted an article. I responded. What I write
> in my response is not up to you.
>
> >> and without a complete description of the experiment, I can't even
> >> comment on what significance "seven standard deviations" has.
> >
> >If it's not in physical review, then it didn't happen!
=====================
> >> What does physical review have to do with me not being able to
comment
> >> on the significance of "seven standard deviations" without having a
> >> complete description of the experiment?
We see why David felt the need to snip. It's obvious what physical review
has to do with the subject.
> >Go get it, coward.
>
> If you think it's so important, spend some effort posting it rather
> than spending so much effort avoiding it.
Posting the reference would violate the rules of the N.G. I *did* post the
summary that was contained in the Standard reference (which you claim that
you don't believe). Why don't you start with the easy reference?
> >> You didn't post the article did you?
> >
> >No. So what? Posting an entire article is against N.G. rules. I
posted
> >the REFERENCE. You want to check it out, go look it up.
>
> The newsgroup rules don't seem to prevent you from being an ass
Nope. We're both free to do that on the group. :)
> and
> dwelling on things which have no relation to the newsgroup.
How does this address anything? Oh, right. Never pass up an opportunity to
insult.
> I can't
> see why all of a sudden you'd become the poster child for newsgroup
> etiquette where something with potential relevance is concerned.
But the issue is not *potential relevance*. The issue is posting a copy of
a published article in it's entirety (which you requested). Irrelvancy and
personal insult are your forte, not mine.
> [*remaining bullshit snipped*]
>
And put back.
=================
LOL!!
LOL!!!
=======================
Oops. Here I'd told Bilge that I wasn't going to bother with him anymore in
this thread. Then I lost track of which thread was which. And Bilge
snipped my goodbye.
But I've had so much fun with David/Bilge in this post that I'm going to
post it anyway.
Another goodbye in this thread....
Mike Varney
>
Hello crackpot.
Sam Wormley
>
> And so we end another classic devolution by Die Hard Relativists (DHRs).
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Agreywolf42
Bill Vajk
snip
> Actually, anyone with half a brain or an ounce of honesty -- who has read
> these newsgroups --
snip
Lot's lot was difficult. It is almost as unpleasant here.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
AntiCrank
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E9C303D...@hotmail.com...
> greywolf42 wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Actually, anyone with half a brain or an ounce of honesty -- who has
read
> > these newsgroups --
>
> snip
>
> Lot's lot was difficult. It is almost as unpleasant here.
Note that Bill, who is a crank, can only find solace with other cranks, such
as Mingst.
Uncle Al
>
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030414...@localhost.localdomain...
>
> And so we end another classic devolution by Die Hard Relativists (DHRs).
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
> Whenever the DHRs are confronted with something embarrassing (such as actual
> evidence) about SR or the Standard Model, the approach is to constantly
> divert into side issues.
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General relativity.
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
Hey stooopid: to criticize is to volunteer. Where is your superior
theory? Where is your empirical contradiction?
[snip]
Uncle Al has physical big balls,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
You are a capon.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Bilge
[*non-answers and dishonest crap, snipped*]
Bill Hobba
> This statement is completely false, and there are MANY experiments
> which could potentially have measured a "variable speed of light"; the
> fact that any experiment using a locally-inertial frame does not do so
> is important support for SR (a point Dennis McCarthy ignores). The
> experiments that McCarthy claims are "exempt" all measure something
> OTHER than the speed of light wrt a locally-inertial frame.
I wonder if Tom could clarify what he means here. Surely the isotropic and
homogeneity (in space and time) property of an inertial reference frame
automatically implies light would not vary in speed. If not then the speed
of light would be different at different times violating homogeneity in time
eg shine a torch at time t=0 and measure the speed. If it was homogeneous
in time surely shining a torch at any other time and measuring the speed
should lead to the same result?
Thanks
Bill
Stephen Speicher
>
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030414...@localhost.localdomain...
>
Greywolf42, moron extraordinaire, made it appear by a false
attribution that I wrote the garbage which he himself spewed.
What else can you expect from such a liar and distorter of fact
as Barry Mingst (aka greywolf42).
Stephen Speicher
Actually, that now makes it a trio, since Vajk was rubbing noses
with Oriel36 just before. There is nothing like a commonality of
values to bring like people together.
Stephen Speicher
> greywolf42 wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.33.030414...@localhost.localdomain...
> >
Greywolf42, moron extraordinaire, made it appear by a false
attribution that I wrote the garbage which he himself spewed.
What else can you expect from such a liar and distorter of fact
as Barry Mingst (aka greywolf42).
>
> Hey stooopid: to criticize is to volunteer.
>
Not in Barry Mingst's case. All he has to offer is a pack of
distortions and lies, and he is incapable of standing up at the
podium.
>
> You are a capon.
>
You are too kind. What has been removed from Barry Mingst is his
head, not his lower member.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnb9n488....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > greywolf42:
> > >
> > >Bilge <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > [...]
>
> Bilgey surely has "interesting" snips. By deleting Bilge's prior statement,
> he can pile sand on his embarassment at getting "caught."
>
The only thing which Bilge has been caught at is showing to the
world what an ignorant, dishonest phony Barry Mingst (aka
greywolf42) is.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:v9o6s87...@corp.supernews.com...
...
> dlzc (evasion #2, snipping both references and insulting both authors --
> without reading either, of course):
> "Maybe it didn't receive 'independent study', because he was too
embarrassed
> to repeat it."
>
> "Welcome to the real world."
You, at one time, made a positive contribution to the group. I'm sorry to
see that anything that is said apparently strikes you as an insult to you
personally.
I will obviate any need for you to hear from me further.
plonk.
greywolf42
Mike Varney <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3WVma.13$RZ.4...@news.uswest.net...
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:v9o6s87...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
>
> Hello crackpot.
>
Credit in the Bilge school of cowardice. Snip the argument and post an
insult.
Stephen Speicher
>
You have no arguments -- just a bunch of made-up stories -- so an
insult is the most that you deserve.
Mike Varney
Why, hello again, crackpot.
Jeff Krimmel
> > Lawrence Foard <ent...@farviolet.com> wrote in message
> news:b7e9g1$bcs$1...@farviolet.com...
> > In article <v9jclgg...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >LOL! But it DID make the light of day. That's why you snipped the
> source I
> > >used....
> > >
> > >"Status of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant," G.T. Gillis,
> Gravitational
> > >Measurements, Fundamental Metrology and Constants, p 191, 1988, Sabbata
> and
> > >Melnikov (eds)
> >
> > Searching the LANL web site I didn't come across it. Do you have a link
> > to it, or is this a journal available in university libraries?
>
> I found it in the University of California, Davis library. The
> "Measurements" book is an attempt to bring together all the "best"
> experimental work available at the time.
>
> You may also note (if you find it) that the value of G still varies in
> mysterious ways. All of the different "precision" measurements are well
> outside each other's error bands.
I was able to find the book, _Gravitational Measurements, Fundamental
Metrology and Constants_. Unfortunately, after some bit of searching, I
was still unable to come up with the original article (i.e., D.H.
Whitaker's report).
Is your knowledge of Whitaker's results coming from the one paragraph in
the _Gravitational Measurements_ book, or do you have a copy of the
technical report as well?
Jeff
greywolf42
You claimed the authors of the paper might be "too embarassed" to repeat the
study. I do not consider your statement an insult to me in any way.
I pointed out that you had insulted the authors and snipped the references.
If my pointing out your action (as only one part of an overall approach that
removes physics from the thread) offended you, I am sorry. However, I
personally would think the action was the cause. Not my pointing it out.
greywolf42
Jeff Krimmel <jkri...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0304160125570.1393-100000@dhcp-1017-66...
Sorry, I do not have a copy of Whitaker's report. My knowledge of
Whitaker's results does come solely from the book. I also could not easily
get a copy. I have heard of several similar results over the past 30 years
(some rejected by referees, most just didn't bother to submit). But the
reference to Whitaker was the only one that I have that was referenceable.
Jeff Krimmel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:v9qtc74...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Jeff Krimmel <jkri...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0304160125570.1393-100000@dhcp-1017-66...
> >
> > I was able to find the book, _Gravitational Measurements, Fundamental
> > Metrology and Constants_. Unfortunately, after some bit of searching, I
> > was still unable to come up with the original article (i.e., D.H.
> > Whitaker's report).
> >
> > Is your knowledge of Whitaker's results coming from the one paragraph in
> > the _Gravitational Measurements_ book, or do you have a copy of the
> > technical report as well?
>
> Sorry, I do not have a copy of Whitaker's report. My knowledge of
> Whitaker's results does come solely from the book. I also could not
easily
> get a copy. I have heard of several similar results over the past 30
years
> (some rejected by referees, most just didn't bother to submit). But the
> reference to Whitaker was the only one that I have that was referenceable.
Well, it looks like Whitaker's report is locked away, accessible only by
"selected government agencies" from what I have learned. It seems as though
there is some classified nuclear material within the report, and academic
institutions don't qualify for access. Thus, we're going to have to traverse
a different route to find more information about such experiments.
*slightly disappointed*
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mike Varney
>
> dl...@aol.com (formerly) <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:yM0na.62$kj.60@fed1read05...
> > Dear greywolf42:
> >
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:v9o6s87...@corp.supernews.com...
> > ...
> > > dlzc (evasion #2, snipping both references and insulting both
authors --
> > > without reading either, of course):
> > > "Maybe it didn't receive 'independent study', because he was too
> > embarrassed
> > > to repeat it."
> > >
> > > "Welcome to the real world."
> >
> > You, at one time, made a positive contribution to the group. I'm sorry
to
> > see that anything that is said apparently strikes you as an insult to
you
> > personally.
> >
> > I will obviate any need for you to hear from me further.
> >
> > plonk.
>
> You claimed the
www.google.com "plonk" Usenet