Fraud in Experimental and Theoretical Science
Pentcho Valev
results. This type of fraud is difficult to prove but at least it is
easy to define. In theoretical science the situation seems analogous at
first sight. If, say, the second law of thermodynamics is false and
professors teach it as if it were true, we have fraud again. Which
second law? P. Bridgman: there are almost as many formulations of the
second law as there have been discussions of it
( http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ ). Clearly, the
situation in theoretical science is by no means analogous. In its
indeterminacy the second law is neither false nor true so teaching it
cannot be defined as fraud. Rather, teaching it converts students into
zombies but after 150 years of intense education the conversion is
complete. New creatures have supplanted ancient scientists. These
creatures feed on inconsistency and incommensurability and would die
from different nourishment.
Pentcho Valev
john.s...@aspenresearch.com
against in all the possible conditions. It is considered "true" because
it is useful and allows for predictions in situations that it has not
been tested against. As more and more evidence piles up against the
law, it will be "improved". This improvement will most commonly be an
extension of it that works in some situations. An outright expulsion
of the entire law is much less common. Relativity and quantum mechanics
did not replace Newtonian mechanics, they are "extensions" that work in
some situations. (It can be effectively argued that Newtonian
mechanics is an asymptotic approximation of relativity and quantum
mechanics. I chose the words I did as they match the historical
development. In any case, all three theories coexist. No particular one
ejected the others.) An example of total replace would be the
Copernican model replace the Ptolomeic model.
So... as much as you wish that the second law is true/false, it isn't.
That we don't know any limitations to it reflects our ignorance, not
our intention to deceive. All of this makes the fraud argument pretty
weak.
John
Aspen Research - www.aspenresearch.com
"Turning Questions into Answers"
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my
employer.
Sam Wormley
It's hard to argue that QM is an "extension" of Newtonian mechanics,
as the latter is just not applicable to the quantum world.
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Professor Woo Suk Hwang did not do the experiments. He made up the
> results. This type of fraud is difficult to prove but at least it is
> easy to define. In theoretical science the situation seems analogous at
> first sight. If, say, the second law of thermodynamics is false and
> professors teach it as if it were true, we have fraud again.
False. A fraud is an intentional misrepresentation. You seem to find it
easy to misdefine words. You're committing a misrepresentation against
the english language here.
Salmon Egg
Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> It's hard to argue that QM is an "extension" of Newtonian mechanics,
> as the latter is just not applicable to the quantum world.
That is a matter of viewpoint. Richard Feynman certainly came up with an
implementation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics using the classical
lagrangian. It was his sum over all paths approach for calculating
probability amplitudes. He had to add terms to include the effects of spin
and the like because there was no classical representation for that.
Bill
-- Ferme le Bush
Bill Hobba
"Salmon Egg" <salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BFE29B67.13C79%salm...@sbcglobal.net...
> On 1/5/06 9:07 AM, in article zncvf.686362$_o.512223@attbi_s71, "Sam
> Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> It's hard to argue that QM is an "extension" of Newtonian mechanics,
>> as the latter is just not applicable to the quantum world.
>
> That is a matter of viewpoint.
Not really. The Kochen-Specker theorem shows that QM can not be both value
definitive and non-contextual - both properties of classical systems.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
> Richard Feynman certainly came up with an
> implementation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics using the classical
> lagrangian. It was his sum over all paths approach for calculating
> probability amplitudes. He had to add terms to include the effects of spin
> and the like because there was no classical representation for that.
Sure - and is one of the best ways of showing classical mechanics is a
limiting case of QM. Also the use of lagrangeians in classical mechanics
(the PLA) is derivable from the principles of QM.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/OgbornTaylor.pdf
It is a rather deep mystery why all our modern fundamental theories (not
just classical ones) are formulateable in terms of lagrangians.
Thanks
Bill
Mike
john.s...@aspenresearch.com wrote:
> No "Law" of science can ever be proven "true". You can never test it
> against in all the possible conditions. It is considered "true" because
> it is useful and allows for predictions in situations that it has not
> been tested against. As more and more evidence piles up against the
> law, it will be "improved". This improvement will most commonly be an
> extension of it that works in some situations. An outright expulsion
> of the entire law is much less common. Relativity and quantum mechanics
> did not replace Newtonian mechanics, they are "extensions" that work in
> some situations. (It can be effectively argued that Newtonian
> mechanics is an asymptotic approximation of relativity and quantum
> mechanics.
Go crap out some place else Mr. Answers. Relativity and QM are
speculations about the ontology of physical reality built upon a theory
(NM) which makes no such speculation whatsoever but, as Newton said, it
is derived inductively from experiment.
Because of this (the speculation) there are infinite theories
relativity and QM like that produce similar results (example: SR, LET,
LR, PR,etc) but imply different spacetime ontologies.
On the contrary, there is no alternative to Newtonian Mechanics. What
can it be? NM is just a clever tautology. Makes no other claims. The
only catch is the equivalence principle, the shaky foundation of the
tautology break out. Look:
F = d(miv)/dt , mi = inertial mass
To use the above law, we must have a measure of mi, the inertial mass.
How do we do that? we use a balance to measure mi against a known
standard and we set the units properly. But the measurement says:
F = mg x g , where mg is the gravitational mass.
Now, mi dv/dt = mg x g only if mi = mg. Well, this is measured to hold
to about 1 part in one trillion so Newton was indeed smart and found a
way out of a tautology for first time in human history.
The rest, Dr. "Al", QM phakheads and string theorists are just
phakheads.
> I chose the words I did as they match the historical
> development. In any case, all three theories coexist. No particular one
> ejected the others.) An example of total replace would be the
> Copernican model replace the Ptolomeic model.
You are indeed stupid because GR makes no claim about the center of the
planetary system. Worse, SR declares the equivalence of geocentric and
heliocentric.
>
> So... as much as you wish that the second law is true/false, it isn't.
> That we don't know any limitations to it reflects our ignorance, not
> our intention to deceive. All of this makes the fraud argument pretty
> weak.
Hey stupid, the input power was 1 Watt and the output was 4 Watts. How
much money did they get not to repeat the experiment? Any guess?
Mike
glbrad01
<john.s...@aspenresearch.com> wrote in message
news:1136480039....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> No "Law" of science can ever be proven "true". You can never test it
> against in all the possible conditions.
(snip)
Just about what old Albert wrote in his book, Relativity, when he said
Relativity is valid circumstantially. Not given the particular circumstances
where it would valid, it is then invalid. Example: The speed of light is
constant in a vacuum. This is the circumstance where its 'constancy' is
valid.
Given the right circumstance, the right situation, the rule, or law, or
whatever, is invariably valid: Which is why Einstein very much preferred the
descriptive word "invariance" to "relativity" for his theories (theories of
invariance). "Relativity" was not clear enough he thought, it was too loose
a descriptive for all he was after (the first and foremost rule or law, that
of specific circumstances' relationship to the rule of invariable -- or
invariant -- constancy, might get muddied beyond recognition and totally
lost in the crowd).
GLB
jgr...@seol.net.au
Hwang = Shapiro, who's conspiracy with (or direction by) the US Defence
Dept,
has tried to hide the true situation that c'=c+v as proved beyond
reasonable doubt by
Bryan Wallace from radar ranging of venus in 1960's
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html
(see whole site, especially pages 7,8)
Jim G
c'=c+v
zzbu...@netscape.net
It's not that deep, since all Einstein did was assume that
Lagragrians work in elevators, and it's not that much
of a surprise.
And all Van Newmann did was assume Lagrangians
work in computers, and it's not that big of a surprise
that do.
Since lagrangian is just of way saying that
Galileo has been through this deja vu universe
previously.
Sam Wormley
>
> Hwang = Shapiro, who's conspiracy with (or direction by) the US Defence
> Dept,
> has tried to hide the true situation that c'=c+v as proved beyond
> reasonable doubt by
> Bryan Wallace from radar ranging of venus in 1960's
> http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html
> (see whole site, especially pages 7,8)
>
c'=c+v is correctly refuted by special relativity... empirically so.
PD
jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>
> Hwang = Shapiro, who's conspiracy with (or direction by) the US Defence
> Dept,
> has tried to hide the true situation that c'=c+v as proved beyond
> reasonable doubt by
> Bryan Wallace from radar ranging of venus in 1960's
> http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html
> (see whole site, especially pages 7,8)
>
OK, ya gotta ask yerself why on earth the US Defense Department would
try to hide whether c'=c or c'=c+v. Is it because:
1. Shapiro is fabulously but secretly wealthy and he's paid off
politicians to support his position?
2. It's a disinformation campaign to keep the Chinese and the Russians
wasting their time on instruments improperly designed for c'=c?
3. The cabal of physicists have threatened to blow up a device if they
cannot continue to say ridiculous and incorrect things?
4. It is dangerous to let the common population know the truth that
c'=c+v, because the correct knowledge could lead to the development of
all sorts of technology that we are not morally equipped to handle
responsibly?
5. The government once bought into c'=c in the development of the
atomic bomb, and it would be tremendous embarassment to reveal that the
bomb worked despite the error and we don't really understand at all how
it works.
PD
zzbu...@netscape.net
PD wrote:
> jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>
> >
> > Hwang = Shapiro, who's conspiracy with (or direction by) the US Defence
> > Dept,
> > has tried to hide the true situation that c'=c+v as proved beyond
> > reasonable doubt by
> > Bryan Wallace from radar ranging of venus in 1960's
> > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html
> > (see whole site, especially pages 7,8)
> >
>
> OK, ya gotta ask yerself why on earth the US Defense Department would
> try to hide whether c'=c or c'=c+v. Is it because:
> 1. Shapiro is fabulously but secretly wealthy and he's paid off
> politicians to support his position?
It's irrelevent, since atomic weapons work entirely on the
principle that Uranium Hexacloride isn't yellow.
> 2. It's a disinformation campaign to keep the Chinese and the Russians
> wasting their time on instruments improperly designed for c'=c?
> 3. The cabal of physicists have threatened to blow up a device if they
> cannot continue to say ridiculous and incorrect things?
> 4. It is dangerous to let the common population know the truth that
> c'=c+v, because the correct knowledge could lead to the development of
> all sorts of technology that we are not morally equipped to handle
> responsibly?
> 5. The government once bought into c'=c in the development of the
> atomic bomb, and it would be tremendous embarassment to reveal that the
> bomb worked despite the error and we don't really understand at all how
> it works.
How atomic bombs work is simple, since the c=c' comes
from assumptions about air pressure gradients, not
anything military or explosives.
>
> PD
john.s...@aspenresearch.com
understanding Mike please?
I understand the coarse language and ad homium attacks that for
whatever reason seems to be part-and-parcel for some newsgroups (I've
got a thick skin and know better than to take it personally), but it
doesn't seem like he is arguing at all with the point that I was making
regarding the OP. Instead, he's going on about the various
NM/QM/GR/... models which were not the point, rather they were
analogies. He's also seems to be arguing with things that I didn't say
or imply, and bringing in statements that could only be made to fit
with a well lubricated shoehorn and massive pressure.
Is this common behavior for Mike, or am I really missing something?
Gregory L. Hansen
PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>3. The cabal of physicists have threatened to blow up a device if they
>cannot continue to say ridiculous and incorrect things?
Option 3 seems patently absurd until you correlate it with other
accusations by antirelativists of moral and cognitive problems in
everyone but themselves. That is, greed. Physicists want to protect the
vast flows of money they're getting from the gullible public buying books
on relativity and Einstein's biography, not to mention related merchandise
like posters, coffee mugs, and calendars. And there's the fear that if it
were discovered that c' is not really equal to c, then government science
funding would suddenly be shifted to certain vocal members of the Usenet
community like Greenfield himself, who would then show how science can be
done without resorting to complicated math or difficult measurements.
Beyond the direct effect on science funding, when it comes out how easy
science really is, fierce competition from non-specialists will dilute
what little funding remains for non-relativity research.
You can see there's a whole empire to protect.
--
"I often think how wasteful it is that those with real capabilities should
doubt their abilities, while bunglers seem so damn sure of themselves." --
Gil Amelio, "On the Firing Line"
The Ghost In The Machine
<swor...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:31:25 GMT
<1bvvf.681802$x96.229438@attbi_s72>:
Pedant point: Special Relativity refutes nothing; only
correctly-performed experiments and their results can
refute theories. One can of course show that SR and c'=c+v
are inconsistent (this is of course trivial, since c'=c
is one of SR's hypotheses). A fair number of experiments
support SR, although they cannot prove it.
I for one don't know why the Russians and the Americans
got differing results for radar ranging of Venus. I'd have
to study the matter.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Lloyd Parker
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
>john.s...@aspenresearch.com wrote:
>> No "Law" of science can ever be proven "true". You can never test it
>> against in all the possible conditions. It is considered "true" because
>> it is useful and allows for predictions in situations that it has not
>> been tested against. As more and more evidence piles up against the
>> law, it will be "improved". This improvement will most commonly be an
>> extension of it that works in some situations. An outright expulsion
>> of the entire law is much less common. Relativity and quantum mechanics
>> did not replace Newtonian mechanics, they are "extensions" that work in
>> some situations. (It can be effectively argued that Newtonian
>> mechanics is an asymptotic approximation of relativity and quantum
>> mechanics.
>
>Go crap out some place else Mr. Answers. Relativity and QM are
>speculations about the ontology of physical reality built upon a theory
>(NM) which makes no such speculation whatsoever but, as Newton said, it
>is derived inductively from experiment.
QM is probably the most experimentally verified theory there is.
Der alte Hexenmeister
<john.s...@aspenresearch.com> wrote in message
news:1136561672.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Could some of the regulars in these groups help me out with
> understanding Mike please?
Sure, if possible.
> I understand the coarse language and ad homium attacks that for
> whatever reason seems to be part-and-parcel for some newsgroups (I've
> got a thick skin and know better than to take it personally),
Ok, so why mention it?
If you can take the heat, stay in the kitchen and start peeling the spuds.
Throw out the rotten ones, but wash the dirt off the others and don't
confuse the two, or I'll be peeling back your thick skin.
> but it
> doesn't seem like he is arguing at all with the point that I was making
> regarding the OP. Instead, he's going on about the various
> NM/QM/GR/... models which were not the point, rather they were
> analogies. He's also seems to be arguing with things that I didn't say
> or imply, and bringing in statements that could only be made to fit
> with a well lubricated shoehorn and massive pressure.
>
> Is this common behavior for Mike, or am I really missing something?
You sure are missing something, you've posted a complaint without
giving reference to what it specifically is.
ad hominem :
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an
answer to the contentions made
That looks like an ad hominem attack on Mike from here.
Where's the beef?
Hexenmeister.
Sam Wormley
> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@mchsi.com>
> wrote
> on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:31:25 GMT
> <1bvvf.681802$x96.229438@attbi_s72>:
>
>>jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hwang = Shapiro, who's conspiracy with (or direction by) the US Defence
>>>Dept,
>>>has tried to hide the true situation that c'=c+v as proved beyond
>>>reasonable doubt by
>>>Bryan Wallace from radar ranging of venus in 1960's
>>>http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html
>>>(see whole site, especially pages 7,8)
>>>
>>
>> c'=c+v is correctly refuted by special relativity... empirically so.
>
>
> Pedant point: Special Relativity refutes nothing; only
> correctly-performed experiments and their results can
> refute theories. One can of course show that SR and c'=c+v
> are inconsistent (this is of course trivial, since c'=c
> is one of SR's hypotheses). A fair number of experiments
> support SR, although they cannot prove it.
Good point of clarification!
mkne...@yahoo.com
discussing the comments made by the OP regarding what constitutes fraud
in science.
That is a much more interesting topic than what most of the other posts
in this thread involve.
Fraud is intentional misrepresentation, e.g. when one reports
experimental observations that one did not actually see. (Which seems
to be the situation with the recent stem-cell stuff.)
Being wrong is not fraud, even if you are being stupid about it. This
makes it kind of hard to see how a theory could be fraudulent (as
opposed to just stupid or wrong), but I could imagine some situation
where someone claims that some complicated calculation results in some
answer, when he knows it actually doesn't.
I think spevacek's mistake was trying to use relativity as an example,
this opened the doors to floods of insane people to regurgitate all
over this thread.
Der alte Hexenmeister
<mkne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136570799....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I understood john.spevacek's main complaint to be that nobody is
> discussing the comments made by the OP regarding what constitutes fraud
> in science.
>
> That is a much more interesting topic than what most of the other posts
> in this thread involve.
>
> Fraud is intentional misrepresentation, e.g. when one reports
> experimental observations that one did not actually see. (Which seems
> to be the situation with the recent stem-cell stuff.)
>
> Being wrong is not fraud, even if you are being stupid about it.
If it is pointed out and no redress is taken, it is fraud.
"Professor" John Baez is a fraudulent criminal, accepting money
under false pretenses. He has been so informed on previous occasions.
Baez and his chronies have bullshitted long enough.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/doppler.gif
Baez writes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
(I hasten to add that there are some pitfalls for the unwary: see Section
6.3 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for the fine points.)
I'll add without haste: Baez is attempting a confidence trick and is a lying
rogue.
Those are some pitfalls for the unwary.
Here is the real physics of the situation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/twin-non-paradox.JPG
Everything is symmetrical. Stella is the same age as Terry on return.
SR/GR is garbage, LET is garbage.
Get out of physics and mathematics, Baez, you are an incompetent fraud.
Der alte Hexenmeister.
> This
> makes it kind of hard to see how a theory could be fraudulent (as
> opposed to just stupid or wrong), but I could imagine some situation
> where someone claims that some complicated calculation results in some
> answer, when he knows it actually doesn't.
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton
in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by
Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Einstein came from
Androcles. He begins this accusation by stating clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Androcles, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by Einstein in
the theory of relativity was fabricated, writes:-
Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
>
> I think spevacek's mistake was trying to use relativity as an example,
> this opened the doors to floods of insane people to regurgitate all
> over this thread.
Nonsense, relativity is the biggest fraud of all time.
Der alte Hexenmeister.
Mike
john.s...@aspenresearch.com wrote:
> Could some of the regulars in these groups help me out with
> understanding Mike please?
Mike will help you understand Mike. You wrote"
"So... as much as you wish that the second law is true/false, it isn't.
That we don't know any limitations to it reflects our ignorance, not
our intention to deceive. All of this makes the fraud argument pretty
weak. "
The necessary conditions for the second law (thermodynamics) to be true
include the existence of a closed system. But, nobody can easily prove
that a system is closed. How would you know? It is the same question
Poincare' asked about forces and Newton's first law: "how do we know
that no forces act on a system?"
At the same time, if a system is not closed, you can hypothesize
another boundary that makes it closes. The end result is that the
second law is really an axiom on which a theory is founded. It is
similar to the use of the speed of light constancy in SR. You can't
prove it the way the theory is set up (can't measure one way speed of
light in relatively moving reference frame) but the theory is built on
that axiom.
The fraud is the use of unverifiable axioms to devise theories:
AXIOMS of SR:
Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- falis
verification.
Axiom 2. Space-time is a 4-D continuum -- falis verification.
Axiom 3. POR -- fails verification, how could anyone verify an
epistemological principle? Actually it is a matter of belief only.
Axiom 4. Constancy of the speed of light -- fails verifiction.
Conclusion: SR is founded on unverifiable postulates.
That is really fraud. You want to see more fraud?
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm
More fraudelent assertions bazsed on misconceptions and mathematical
manipulations:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node6a.html
> I understand the coarse language and ad homium attacks that for
I am the first one do make an ad homium attack. I concede.
> whatever reason seems to be part-and-parcel for some newsgroups (I've
> got a thick skin and know better than to take it personally), but it
> doesn't seem like he is arguing at all with the point that I was making
> regarding the OP. Instead, he's going on about the various
> NM/QM/GR/... models which were not the point, rather they were
> analogies.
What is wrong about making analogies? Did you fail the SAT test?
> He's also seems to be arguing with things that I didn't say
> or imply, and bringing in statements that could only be made to fit
> with a well lubricated shoehorn and massive pressure.
>
> Is this common behavior for Mike, or am I really missing something?
You are misisng a lot.
Mike
"Turing Answers into Question"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Sam Wormley
You will get the point by looking at
http://www.google.com/search?q=eleatis+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Bill Hobba
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1136509732.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That is not what Einstein did.
>
> And all Van Newmann did was assume Lagrangians
> work in computers, and it's not that big of a surprise
> that do.
>
> Since lagrangian is just of way saying that
> Galileo has been through this deja vu universe
> previously.
You obviously have no idea what a lagrangian is. To prove me wrong and give
you a little challenge you can not look up on the internet derive the SR
free particle lagrangain from invariance. I will even give you a
reference - there is a whole chapter on it in A First Course in String
Theory by Barton Zwiebach Another one is Landau - Classical Theory of
Fields. I have even posted the derivation before - simple use goggle to
find it. Nothing could be simpler - except you need to understand what a
lagrangian is.
Bill
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
still source-Doppler shift. Religion is the greatest fraud of all
time. Androcles be the biggest.
The 2LoT is invalidate by the sheer existence of force and forces;
a'working Maxwellian demons exist and are spontaneous and permanent
self-a'pumping heatpumps as I bewraid in the Maxwells_Demon eGroup. I
also wrote a treatise on the free_energy eGroup a'doing away with the
other laws. Loschmidt and I win.
-Aut
Mike
Are you talking about yourself? Everyone who uses the word
"relativity" to make a point should be ready to take heat either way.
Copernicus was put to death, Galileo was placed under house arrest for
the remaining of his life, Newton had many breakdowns trying to solve
the inverse problem posed by Hook, Laplace, Lagrange, Hamilton, Euler,
and myriads of others refined the theories and the math working all
their life and having no fun and suddenly, a crank of major proportions
supported by 'special" interest groups walks in and presents a theory
in which no choice can be made between heliocentric and geocentric
planetary system. Now, this is not the worse of all. The fraud come in
when the crank fails to justify his claims but instead bases his
crackpot theory on four unverifiable axioms:
AXIOMS of SR:
Axiom 1: There are globally inertial reference frames -- falis
verification.
Axiom 2. Space-time is a 4-D continuum -- falis verification.
Axiom 3. POR -- fails verification, how could anyone verify an
epistemological principle? Actually it is a matter of belief only.
Axiom 4. Constancy of the speed of light -- fails verifiction.
The, the fraudelent science is picked up by all sorts of couch
philosophers like Popper, poeple who did not know the difference
betweeen a hammer and a rench, who by using all sorts of insane
sopshism attempt to justify epistemologically such unverifiable
science.
Next, the media picks the story and elevates the fraudelent behavior to
an elegant art and science. Opponenets are termed dissidents, fired
from their jobs, a new style of McArthourism in science.
Some jealous of the success of this fraud attempt a new one called
sting theory. They promise solutuions to everything, from fundamental
particles to God. You ask the questions and by throwing another curled
dimension you get your answer. They hold prominent places now and
receive heavy funding because governemnts are scared who is going to
get the equation sof everything first. The answer is: nobody. No such
equation exists.
The fraud continuous while the only things we can observe are distance
and change we attribute to time (state transistions). Yet, fraudelent
science claims that from these empirical observations they can (at
least) corroborate their crackpot theories.
We mus get back to Logical Positivism. Make it a religion, obey it and
punish those who disobey it because they defraud society.
Mike
Mike
hey phakhead, he will get the point if he asks you to count to 10. You
will have to lick your fingures and maybe kiss uss to get there.
Mike
john.s...@aspenresearch.com
mkne...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I understood john.spevacek's main complaint to be that nobody is
> discussing the comments made by the OP regarding what constitutes fraud
> in science.
Bingo
[snip]
> I think spevacek's mistake was trying to use relativity as an example,
> this opened the doors to floods of insane people to regurgitate all
> over this thread.
Double bingo. Mea culpa. Please forgive me. I will not make this
mistake again.
Autymn D. C.
other laws. Lobachevski and I win.
-Aut
alexsedlex
I've read your discussion...and not completely understood. I beg you
pardon for this but I'm not english mother language and I have never
met expressions like "crap out some place" or "phakhead " in scientific
discussions.....can you explain these idiomatic forms using standard
scientific language ?!? Leaving literature and coming back to science,
I understand John (I'm R&D manager in my factory and the success in my
job depends on knowledge in science and, more, in the scientific way of
thinking).
God didn't give us the physics laws, they are our (men and women)
hypothesis and fit to reality (or better with experimental
observations).
For example Newton seemed to fit perfectly with the reality (at the
beginnning). Now we know FOR SURE (having observed it experimentally)
that in some conditions he doesn't.
The Relativity THEORY (not LAW, THEORY) says that a mass curves the
light. There are EXPERIMENTAL observation of this FACT. Experiments
carried out many times. Have never heard about measures during an
eclipse of near the sun stars? Le light IS curved near the sun. This is
a fact.
Other theories are still theoris because they have no experimental
evidence.
You CAN'T phalsificate an Hypothesis....it is and hypothesis, maybe
true maybe phalse.
Demonster it via experiments, not free words....be a scientist, think
rationally.
And you know......for a scientist there isn't anything more exciting
than demolish a previous theory...maybe substituting with is own. But
this part of the game.
If you see that a theory, and hypothesis, doesn't fit with reality SAYS
where, please, we all are really so much interested in this. REALLY.
(kind) regards to all
Alex
Der alte Hexenmeister
"alexsedlex" <alexs...@hotmail.it> wrote in message
news:1136631591....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
"What is Ockham's Razor?
When a new set of facts requires the creation of a new theory the process
is far from the orderly picture often presented in books. Many hypothses are
proposed, studied, rejected. Researchers discuss their validity (sometimes
quite heatedly) proposing experiments which will determine the validity of
one or the other, exposing flaws in their least favorite ones, etc. Yet,
even when the unfit hypotheses are discarded, several options may remain, in
some cases making the exact same predictions, but having very different
underlying assumptions. In order to choose among these possible theories a
very useful tool is what is called Ockham's razor.
Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the
fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which
translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.
In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'', but in reality the
Razor has a more subtle and interesting meaning. Suppose that you have two
competing theories which describe the same system, if these theories have
different predictions than it is a relatively simple matter to find which
one is better: one does experiments with the required sensitivity and
determines which one give the most accurate predictions. For example, in
Copernicus' theory of the solar system the planets move in circles around
the sun, in Kepler's theory they move in ellipses. By measuring carefully
the path of the planets it was determined that they move on ellipses, and
Copernicus' theory was then replaced by Kepler's.
But there are are theories which have the very same predictions and it is
here that the Razor is useful. Consider for example the following two
theories aimed at describing the motion of the planets around the sun
a.. The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force
between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the
distance.
b.. The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force
between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the
distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.
Since the force between the planets and the sun determines the motion of the
former and both theories posit the same type of force, the predicted motion
of the planets will be identical for both theories. the second theory,
however, has additional baggage (the will of the aliens) which is
unnecessary for the description of the system.
If one accepts the second theory solely on the basis that it predicts
correctly the motion of the planets one has also accepted the existence of
aliens whose will affect the behavior of things, despite the fact that the
presence or absence of such beings is irrelevant to planetary motion (the
only relevant item is the type of force). In this instance Ockham's Razor
would unequivocally reject the second theory."
The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. This
speed law is generated by the will of some powerful aliens. Der alte
Hexenmeister.
Autymn D. C.
media picks..elevates -> media pick..elevate
frauelent -> fraudulent
McArthourism -> MacArthurism
I kill Logical Positivism with analutic constructivism.
Autymn D. C.
laws, they -> laws; they
phalsificate -> falsificate (Latin, not Greek, dumbass)
an Hypothesis -> a Hupothesis (ypsilon -> upsilon; breathe out, Romance
dumbass)
phalse -> false
Demonster -> Demonstrate
demolish -> to demolish (subjunctive -> prospective)
Borek
> Professor Woo Suk Hwang did not do the experiments. He made up the
> results. This type of fraud is difficult to prove but at least it is
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
--
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=pH-calculation&right=pH-scale
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=pH-calculation&right=pH-definition
jgr...@seol.net.au
Not so.
Shapiro (in conjunction with the Russians), made simultaneous
measurements of the distance to venus using radar ranging. When the
data returned showed SR to be FALSE (while his reputation was tied to
it being correct), he BURIED the data.
That is as big a fraud as one can conceive of!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim G
c'=c+v
Der alte Hexenmeister
"jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1136778989.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Fraud by Baez.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/people_v_Baez.htm
Hexenmeister.
Autymn D. C.
(translation):
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate[sic]." -> "Pluralitas non
est ponenda sine necessitate."
"entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" -> "Motlen 'is not'
setten beyond needfulness." -> "Manihood 'is not' seaten without
needsehoodther." ···> "·mAnEhXd 'is not' seAten wiFout
nEydShXdFr·"
Autymn's razor says that liht is not a forethrowred (projectile) nor
sundry (separate) nor thingly (real).
-Aut
alexsedlex
a little more open minded about my writing.
About latin, I have studied it. My language, italian, is born from it.
In italian falsificate is "falsificare" (verify with a computer
translater). Where I'm less sure is about your language that is less
directly bonded with latin.
About Hypotesys - - -- > in English is written Hypotesys -----> in
Greek is pronounced with U. About A or AN....you better know english
than me.........do you say an hotel or a hotel...what does sound
better? (honest question, waiting for reply). The H is mute.
The italian grammar and lexicon are also different...so I can image
than some phrases sound strange (or foreign) because thought in italian
and simply written in english.
In italian doesn't exist for the "infinito" (perspective) the particle
TO....so sometimes I forget it.
In any case I appreciate when someone correct my english; what I don't
appreciate is an unpolished man like (as?) you. Why to say dumb to a
man that admit that english is not his mother language?
Write me in italian your reply if you are able, or in latin if you
prefer (I can read). Or maybe I can read it also in french.
Also, you haven't replied to my previous letter....only insults about
the way I wrote.
How many languages do you know unpolished dumb ass son of a dumb ass?
with no kind regards,
alexsedlex
Mike
I concede you make an excellent spell checker. But that's about it. A
dumb spell checker.
Listen empty head. Logical positivism is grounded on the powerfull
doctrine of verificationism and the rejection of metaphysics. Analytic
constructivism is pure hypothesis, another one of those baring
metaphysical non-verifiable content.
Dig hard, your face is exposed.
Mike
Y.Porat
in a huge accelerator and not at all at its natural location
IE the place it is supposed to be naturally
and with the probability of one to a few billions
and while it was invited by the theory and not found accidentally
before the theory
and the experiment cost a fortune
while the experimentalists are hungry to justify their salary.
than what is experimental fraud if not that??
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
map...@012.net.il
Sam Wormley wrote:
> > >
> > Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my
> > employer.
> >
>
> as the latter is just not applicable to the quantum world.
you cannot take some partial success and make it an insurance policy
that every nonsense finding or any crookish 'finding will become
sacred:
you can't take for instance the W boson that is 90 times bigger than
its mother
found not in the place it should be found but in a huge accelerator
with the probability of one to a few billions
and say 'hurray we have done a great step forward'
while it is nothing than a big nasty fraud
and a big step back wards to th dark ages of established fraud.
by dishonest interests
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
jgr...@seol.net.au
PD wrote:
> jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>
> >
> > Hwang = Shapiro, who's conspiracy with (or direction by) the US Defence
> > Dept,
> > has tried to hide the true situation that c'=c+v as proved beyond
> > reasonable doubt by
> > Bryan Wallace from radar ranging of venus in 1960's
> > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html
> > (see whole site, especially pages 7,8)
> >
>
> try to hide whether c'=c or c'=c+v. Is it because:
> 1. Shapiro is fabulously but secretly wealthy and he's paid off
> politicians to support his position?
Shapiro was trying to prevent his predictions being wrong, thereby
losing reputation,
funding, fraternity membership, and perhaps liberty (if in breach of
Official Secrets Act)
> 2. It's a disinformation campaign to keep the Chinese and the Russians
> wasting their time on instruments improperly designed for c'=c?
Likely/possibly
> 3. The cabal of physicists have threatened to blow up a device if they
> cannot continue to say ridiculous and incorrect things?
Like this?
> 4. It is dangerous to let the common population know the truth that
> c'=c+v, because the correct knowledge could lead to the development of
> all sorts of technology that we are not morally equipped to handle
> responsibly?
This is the US def dept we are talking about! What makes you think they
could possibly imagine anything apart from their narrowest of military
aims?
> 5. The government once bought into c'=c in the development of the
> atomic bomb, and it would be tremendous embarassment to reveal that the
> bomb worked despite the error and we don't really understand at all how
> it works.
I know how an atom bomb works! Put too much U236 in one place, and it
goes "BANG"
(PS: AE had FA to do with the making of theatom bomb, AFAIK)
Jim G
c'=c+v
jgr...@seol.net.au
Sam Wormley wrote:
> jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>
> >
> > Hwang = Shapiro, who's conspiracy with (or direction by) the US Defence
> > Dept,
> > has tried to hide the true situation that c'=c+v as proved beyond
> > reasonable doubt by
> > Bryan Wallace from radar ranging of venus in 1960's
> > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html
> > (see whole site, especially pages 7,8)
> >
>
And venus is in two places at the same instant??????????????
What a wasted life...........
Jim G
c'=c+v
Eric Gisse
That is assuming you can even think in the first place.
It isn't our fault you are so stupid that you feel whining about how
you can't understand something is better than taking the time to
understand it.
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
jgr...@seol.net.au
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@mchsi.com>
> wrote
> on Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:31:25 GMT
> <1bvvf.681802$x96.229438@attbi_s72>:
> > jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hwang = Shapiro, who's conspiracy with (or direction by) the US Defence
> >> Dept,
> >> has tried to hide the true situation that c'=c+v as proved beyond
> >> reasonable doubt by
> >> Bryan Wallace from radar ranging of venus in 1960's
> >> http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html
> >> (see whole site, especially pages 7,8)
> >>
> >
> > c'=c+v is correctly refuted by special relativity... empirically so.
>
> correctly-performed experiments and their results can
> refute theories. One can of course show that SR and c'=c+v
> are inconsistent (this is of course trivial, since c'=c
> is one of SR's hypotheses). A fair number of experiments
> support SR, although they cannot prove it.
>
> I for one don't know why the Russians and the Americans
> got differing results for radar ranging of Venus. I'd have
> to study the matter.
Another who didn't read the articles!
READ THIS
Using radar ranging, the US (say approaching venus due to eartg
rotation), and a base in Russia (leaving venus), agreed to measure the
distance SIMULTANEOUSLY.
When the data was compared, having been analysed per c'=c, a difference
of 500 km was found. When Wallace et al tried to get all the data (US
and Russian), Shapiro and friends LOST IT !!
The funding for this project came from the US def dept, and Shapiro was
under their direction (plus the equiv of Official Secrets Act). ie He
would be out of a job, with egg on his face, if ignoring Dept
directions (plus a highly embarrassed group of luminaries who had
predicted both measurements to come out the same per AE ism)
Wallaces comments ref Russia relying highly on US research seems very
credible, and therefore it was in the interest of US to keep the Reds
thinking that c'=c+v.
Apparently (and unless this was a "reverse" sting), the cover-up has
worked so well, that the western Establishment continued to believe,
and actually increased its acceptence of, BULLSHIT which was protected
to mislead.
Jim G
c'=c+v
alexsedlex
little more open minded.
I've seen you aren't interested in what I have written but in 'how' I
have written it.
Following your passion....
Grammar and lexicon in italian (my language) are different than in
english. As you know, italian is stricly bonded to latin (I have
studied it).
In italian falsificate is "falsificare" with F too, verify. I'm less
sure with your language that is less striclty bonded to latin and full
of saxon and german words.
About Hypotesys; in english is written hypothesys and pronounced (in
greek) with U. About an-a ; the H of hypothesis is mute. How do you say
an hotel -a hotel (honest question, I'd like your reply. English as
told before is not my language).
About the "infinito" (perspective) in italian doesn't exist so I hope
you forgive me if sometimes I forget to write it.
In general I appreciate when someone corrects my english (I learn):
what I don't appreciate is when an unpolished man like (or as?) you
write insults to someone only because, speacking another language, he
doesn't write prefectly.
Reply in italian (also with errors, I'm more generous), or in latin (I
can read it) or, why not, in french about my first letter (I'm not
waiting for replies from this one)
How many languages do you know other than yours, unpolished dumb ass?
with no kind regards
alexsedlex
The Ghost In The Machine
<jgr...@seol.net.au>
wrote
on 8 Jan 2006 19:40:01 -0800
<1136778001.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Hm.
Delta velocity between Venus and Earth: 5 km/s
Delta time required for discrepancy: 100 s (1m40s)
Earth distance: 1.5 * 10^11 m
Venus distance: 1.08 * 10^11 m
Delta velocity between two diametrically opposing points on
the Equator: 930 m/s
Distance between Earth and Venus at 90 degrees: 1.84 * 10^11 m
c'=c+v computed effect because of Earth's rotation: maximum 1.9 milliseconds
[rest, erm, "lost"]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
PD
Two comments
1. Historical correction: AE had very little to do with the atomic bomb
personally, but his work was crucial for those who were involved.
2. Paranoia alert: I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at your "black
helicopters" response to my poking fun at you.
PD
Sam Wormley
You'll never learn Greenfield... mostly because you don't want to.
Sam Wormley
> I know how an atom bomb works! Put too much U236 in one place, and it
> goes "BANG"
> (PS: AE had FA to do with the making of theatom bomb, AFAIK)
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
>
You make bombs sound easy!
Der alte Hexenmeister
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136817014.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Two comments
> 1. Historical correction: AE had very little to do with the atomic bomb
> personally,
Correct.
> but his work was crucial for those who were involved.
Pure fucking hero worship and wishful thinking.
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z
because he did not know how to move sideways or up,
anencephalous cretin.
Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.
Personally I prefer three witches:
Double double, toil and trouble,
Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop!
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics school
for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
Richard Henry
>
> I know how an atom bomb works! Put too much U236 in one place, and it
> goes "BANG"
> (PS: AE had FA to do with the making of theatom bomb, AFAIK)
The hard part is getting U236.
Der alte Hexenmeister
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:42fflkF...@individual.net...
Yeah, what is it? Heavy U235?
--
hanson
> news:1136778568.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> I know how an atom bomb works! Put too much U236 in one place,
>> and it goes "BANG"
>> (PS: AE had FA to do with the making of theatom bomb, AFAIK)
>
> The hard part is getting U236.
>
1 too many or 3 too short, ahaha... and all Albert did was to
sign a letter urging Roosevelt to get the bomb made and then
as soon as it was used Einstein declared himself to be a
pacifist. .... 60 years later Albert's ilk did an encore, when as
far back as the beginning of the Clinton admin Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Rob Loewenberg, David Wurmser
and Meyrav Wurmser and other Neocons (a code word for Jews)
in the Bush admin goaded the prez to go into Iraq. Once that
had taken place & the pressure from Saddam onto Israel was
gone,... promptly those same Jewish factions got luke warm
and then openly anti-war. The Krauts have a proverb for that:
-------- "Für das Gewesene gibt the Jude nichts" ---------
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
jgr...@seol.net.au
Well here is your golden opportunity to "educate" me!
Explain HOW simultaneous distance measurements to venus, taken from
Russia and US, return 500 km DIFFERENCE (when analysed using c=c+v)
Lil' Eric might want to help.
But he won't, because all the squeaking and squealing can't allow
"understanding" of something which is patented and absolute bullshit.
Jim G
c'=c+v
Please note: Typo in previous should read US wanted USSR to continue to
believe
c=c+c
jgr...@seol.net.au
Don't know if your math is correct, but the absolute point is, that SR
posits
NO DIFFERENCE!
ie SR is FALSIFIED
Sam Wormley
Provide me with credible sources and I will sort out your
misunderstanding for you, Jim.
Autymn D. C.
> I concede you make an excellent spell checker. But that's about it. A
> dumb spell checker.
delusional
> Listen empty head. Logical positivism is grounded on the powerfull
> doctrine of verificationism and the rejection of metaphysics. Analytic
> constructivism is pure hypothesis, another one of those baring
> metaphysical non-verifiable content.
powerfull (n.) -> powerful (a.)
ypsilon -> upsilon
> Dig hard, your face is exposed.
Positivism is fallible whereas analusis is not. The former deals with
subjects with flaws and limitate intelligence of interpretation; the
latter deals with objects brouht up by needfulness and from the
brainier crowd. The latter makes well predictions whereas the former
must sit by and wait for those predictions from the latter. Read the
"Hollywood Physics" thread to see how I plow over the gullible claims
that scientists make from their past observation and ersatzly thinking.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
english -> English (Whether or not you grasp English doesn't take away
your grasping of each word. You are not a language!)
latin -> Latin
italian -> Italian
(No, English does /not/ write hypotesys. Stop your lyging.)
you better know english -> you know English better
an hotel -> a hotel
image than -> imagine that
doesn't exist for the.. -> the.. doesn't exist
perspective -> prospective (Linguists tend to be liars who don't
understand English as I do; I pull English grammar from its full
history, from Old English to Middle English. So when they claim that
"to verb" is the infinitive, they are wrong: "verban" is the
infinitive; "to verb" is the prospective. Maniest English verbs have
been corruptate by the illiterate to the subjunctive tense. However,
the retards on Wikipedia didn't believe me and banned me forever for
a'correcting their deaf and dumb rubbish.)
man -> one
Why to say -> Why say
admit -> admits (Whenever foreigners speak English, I find it bothersom
that they can make easy sentences but not get the easiest words. Where
did they learn, TV? But there are Americans, mostly teenagers and
grown hicks, who can't even spell "you're" or "cannot" or "its".. most
likely because they don't read.)
How many -> Whits (I'm neither dumb nor a son. Come back when you get
a clue.)
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
Wallaces -> Wallace's
The Ghost In The Machine
<1136857930....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
I think that there would have to be a deeper look into this delta,
especially since the precise characteristics of the experiment
aren't known.
As for the math -- it's simple. The 1.9 milliseconds
is d/c - d/(c+v), where v is 930 m/s. If you prefer, you
can use d/(c+u-w) - d/(c-u+w), where w = v/2 and u is
Venus's approaching velocity, which is a maximum of 5 m/s
and is probably a bit less than that, with the problem
as I've specified it.
So...1.9 milliseconds? Or 100 seconds?
I'll wait... :-P
The Ghost In The Machine
<1136857754.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
OK, color me confused here. Is the delta:
[1] 1.9 milliseconds, as I computed earlier?
[2] 100 seconds?
[3] 500 km, which is 1.6 milliseconds?
Of the three, [3] is your best bet. Congratulations! Now all you
have to do is show a peer-reviewed experiment.
There's also the little problem of the control center
between the two antennae. Shift it 250 km and one's wiped
out the result.
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
>
> Please note: Typo in previous should read US wanted USSR to continue to
> believe
> c=c+c
Of course we did. The USSR was eeeevil, I tell you, eeeeeevil.
We are the good guys. Any warrantless spying done by the
Executive Branch is for the good of US citizens. Any phone
tapping is to ensure that al Qaeda doesn't do anything naughty.
The Ghost In The Machine
<han...@quick.net>
wrote
on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:12:10 GMT
<_Hxwf.1543$sa4.1443@trnddc07>:
> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:42fflkF...@individual.net...
>> "jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:1136778568.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> I know how an atom bomb works! Put too much U236 in one place,
>>> and it goes "BANG"
>>> (PS: AE had FA to do with the making of theatom bomb, AFAIK)
>>
> [Rich]
>> The hard part is getting U236.
>>
> [hanson]
> 1 too many or 3 too short, ahaha...
1 too many. U238 doesn't fuse, although given enough
neutrons it can be converted into Pu239 or Pu240 -- I
forget which.
U235, however, is great at going bang, if done right.
[rest snipped]
jgr...@seol.net.au
Since you are too lazy to read the link, (or just acting dumb to avoid
the issue),
here is the Russian translation of ref to the experiment as held by
Florida Library.
Ref radar ranging of venus:
"An alalysis of the data presented shows that the difference between
the measured and calculated delay times, have a different dependence on
the time in the different conjunctions
and reach 3500 microseconds, which when converted to the distance from
the earth to venus comprises 500 kilometers".
Do you know what is being discussed here? You seem very confused!
Due to earth rotation, US is approaching venus, while Russia is
leaving.
Simultaneous measurements of distance to venus from both should, were
SR/GR correct, return SAME results.(with corrections for local earth
geography, of course)
The BIG difference means SR/GR......... BIG BULLSHIT
Sapiro therefore shapes as a fraudster and cheat of the first order,
as do those who
rush to his (indefensible) position.
Jim G
c'=c+v
Barb Knox
The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
[snip]
>U238 doesn't fuse, although given enough
>neutrons it can be converted into Pu239 or Pu240 -- I
>forget which.
>
>U235, however, is great at going bang, if done right.
U235 doesn't fuse either, but a critical mass of it will sure fizz.
:-)
>[rest snipped]
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
jgr...@seol.net.au
http:/www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm
such frauds and their accolytes are a greater threat to scientific
advancement than
ever will avian flu be to mankind.
Jim G
c'=c+v
hanson
news:e0kb93-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In sci.physics.relativity, hanson <han...@quick.net>
> on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:12:10 GMT
> <_Hxwf.1543$sa4.1443@trnddc07>:
>> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:42fflkF...@individual.net...
>>> "jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:1136778568.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I know how an atom bomb works! Put too much U236 in one place,
>>>> and it goes "BANG"
>>>> (PS: AE had FA to do with the making of theatom bomb, AFAIK)
>>>
>> [Rich]
>>> The hard part is getting U236.
>>>
>> [hanson]
>> 1 too many or 3 too short, ahaha...
>
> 1 too many. U238 doesn't fuse, although given enough
> neutrons it can be converted into Pu239 or Pu240 -- I
> forget which.
> U235, however, is great at going bang, if done right.
>
1 too many or 3 too short yields and means:
236 - 1 = 235, .... google U235 Little Boy, Hiroshima
236 + 3 = 239, .... google Pu239 Fat Man, Nagasaki
>
>
>> ............. ............and all Albert did was to
jgr...@seol.net.au
Too much "anything" (sic density)
Neutron stars...................
Black holes????????????????
Funny lass, Ma Nature; abhors a vacuum (gravity pulling matter hither
and yon)-
then if TOO much matter crowding one location...kapow!
Jim G
c'=c+v
The Ghost In The Machine
<1136863224.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
No, they should not; the Universe doesn't recognize
"should". The c'=c+v difference can be expressed as 1.9
milliseconds, if they are both at the equator. Since I
don't know the exact position of the two radars I can't
go much farther here. SR and GR predict zero. The observed
result is 100 seconds.
GR is definitely disqualified; however, the question is what
replaces it. c'=c+v has also been disqualified by a number
of experiments, most of them of the particle accelerator
variety.
Therefore, we're looking at an entirely new theory, an amalgamation
of the two, if these results hold up.
(Either that, or experimental error.)
>
> The BIG difference means SR/GR......... BIG BULLSHIT
Correct. We must now reconcile the failure of SR/GR in this case
with the successes in SR/GR in other cases.
Either that, or you need to ask the designers/operators of the Large
Hadron Collider why they are postulating 7 TeV near-lightspeed protons.
In Newtonian theory, a lightspeed proton has 1.5x the energy equivalent
of a proton at rest, which is about 946 MeV. A proton running
at 7 TeV will go at about 121.6 c, in Newtonian theory; this
corresponds to a frequency of about 1.368 MHz. However, the specs
call for only 11.2455 kHz for the beam frequency.
The simplest explanation in Newtonian theory is that we're wasting
a lot of energy (since nothing can push the protons faster than
light if we're using light). However, if that's the case, why build
bigger accelerators? An accelerator running at 1.419 GeV will do
just fine...
> Sapiro therefore shapes as a fraudster and cheat of the first order,
> as do those who
> rush to his (indefensible) position.
Sapiro? SAPIRO?! Try Einstein. After all, he's the one that
postulated SR/GR in the first place.
And all of the physics suckers bought into it. This is apparently
the position Der Alte Androcles has been stating for years.
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
Sam Wormley
If you did the experiments, Greenfield, you would become one
of your own rapist, as SR, GTR and QM correctly model the
universe the way she is... at least so far.
Regardless of what you think, there has never been an
observation of any of the three that refutes any of their
predictions.
You are privileged in that you have the time, and presumably
the ability* to learn. Don't waste your life by not learning,
Greenfield.
*Some question this presumption
Spaceman
> <snipped> An accelerator running at 1.419 GeV will do
> just fine...
How do you think that?
It is still using an (engine) that travels no faster than light to begin
with.
Do you also propose we should be able to make a sound wave go faster
than sound, by using a different sound wave as an engine?
Why do you think such nonsense that a (lightspeed) can make things go
faster than light at all?
You are using a restricted engine. and expecting nothing, because
you should already know it won't do it.
jgr...@seol.net.au
If _I_ did the experiments, when SR/GR showed venus to be in TWO places
at once,
(and with a NON-trivial difference of 500 km), _I_ would publish ALL
THE DATA, and show that Shapiro was a fraud (or coerced), and that
Einsteins theories are inferior entertainment.
_I_ am STILL WAITING for Sam W to respond to Wallace et al, because he
obviously is absolutely stumped by this situation, and can find no way
to _save_ SR/GR
Jim G
c'=c+v
jgr...@seol.net.au
When someone is "proving" an impossibility, Ghost, it is better to
examine the tools used, than to embrace SR/GR magic.
Spaceman (is that James D back?) points out that light can't push
faster than light, which has been discussed some time back (and seems
trivial).
If I need "education" (as per SW), it might be in the operation of the
measuring devices applied to particle accellerators. I suspect that I
would find that c'=c is involved somewhere in the atomic clocks ie,
they only recognise c, and default the change in frequency to the
wavelength being shorter, rather than more waves passing (impinging
upon) the detector (faster photons)
>
> Therefore, we're looking at an entirely new theory, an amalgamation
> of the two, if these results hold up.
>
> (Either that, or experimental error.)
>
> >
> > The BIG difference means SR/GR......... BIG BULLSHIT
>
> Correct. We must now reconcile the failure of SR/GR in this case
> with the successes in SR/GR in other cases.
As above: Was the measuring criteria NOT defaulting to SR/GR
preconceptions in the measuring apparatus?
And the old claim that doppler shift of light is ALWAYS due to the
magical alterring of the wavelength to correspond to the frequency
change
>
> Either that, or you need to ask the designers/operators of the Large
> Hadron Collider why they are postulating 7 TeV near-lightspeed protons.
> In Newtonian theory, a lightspeed proton has 1.5x the energy equivalent
> of a proton at rest, which is about 946 MeV. A proton running
> at 7 TeV will go at about 121.6 c, in Newtonian theory; this
> corresponds to a frequency of about 1.368 MHz. However, the specs
> call for only 11.2455 kHz for the beam frequency.
>
> The simplest explanation in Newtonian theory is that we're wasting
> a lot of energy (since nothing can push the protons faster than
> light if we're using light). However, if that's the case, why build
> bigger accelerators? An accelerator running at 1.419 GeV will do
> just fine...
>
>
> > Sapiro therefore shapes as a fraudster and cheat of the first order,
> > as do those who
> > rush to his (indefensible) position.
>
> Sapiro? SAPIRO?! Try Einstein. After all, he's the one that
> postulated SR/GR in the first place.
>
> And all of the physics suckers bought into it. This is apparently
> the position Der Alte Androcles has been stating for years.
And Andro is correct.
I have been fed this "Shapiro Effect" on many occasions, as a bluff (as
it now turns out).
If Shapiro was NOT a huckster (or coerced by US military), why did he
withhold the data?
I haven't seen anyone claim Wallace to be a liar on this issue.
This thread is regards fraudsters-- he
Shapiro seems to qualify nicely.
Of course Einstein is in another league, but I am not absolutely
convinced that he set out to be so (as per Androcles); he may have
swallowed the Lorentz et al rubbish (math), and then got trapped.
Perhaps his main fault was simple cowardice (unable to admit mistake).
Jim G
c'=c+v
The Ghost In The Machine
<Real...@comcast.not>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:32:15 -0500
<Te2dncHu4qDqTl7e...@comcast.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:l1uc93-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> <snipped> An accelerator running at 1.419 GeV will do
>> just fine...
>
> How do you think that?
Because pouring more energy into a proton already moving at
lightspeed wastes energy, of course.
Even you should be able to understand that. :-P
> It is still using an (engine) that travels no faster than light to begin
> with.
Correct, and it should do so with maximum efficiency.
>
> Do you also propose we should be able to make a sound wave go faster
> than sound, by using a different sound wave as an engine?
I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in the specifications
of the LHC, if one goes by Newtonian theory. Briefly put, if
it can't accelerate a proton faster than the speed of light,
where is the rest of that 7 TeV/proton actually going?
And if it is actually provable that a 7 TeV proton does different
things from a 1.419 GeV proton (which presumably isn't too hard
to set up as an experiment), why is Newtonian theory useful?
>
> Why do you think such nonsense that a (lightspeed) can make things go
> faster than light at all?
But protons do not go faster than lightspeed in the LHC specs.
That's the entire point. Yet the specs also stipulate 7 TeV.
This is a major inconsistency in Newtonian physics.
>
> You are using a restricted engine. and expecting nothing, because
> you should already know it won't do it.
Then why build it? We've got plenty of 100+ GeV proton acceleration
engines already. (In fact one of them is going to be used to
inject protons into this behemoth.)
The Ghost In The Machine
on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:21:08 GMT
<EhQwf.688896$x96.402065@attbi_s72>:
> jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
>> Add Hafele/Keating to the list of physics rapists!
>> http:/www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm
>>
>> such frauds and their accolytes are a greater threat to scientific
>> advancement than
>> ever will avian flu be to mankind.
>>
>> Jim G
>> c'=c+v
>>
>
>
> If you did the experiments, Greenfield, you would become one
> of your own rapist, as SR, GTR and QM correctly model the
> universe the way she is... at least so far.
That is far from clear. Not that c'=c+v does any better,
of course, but there are a couple of anomalies that bother me.
[1] The Pioneer anomaly. That one's just weird, and I for one
can't say what's causing it. Nor has anyone else, as far
as I know.
[2] Dark energy sounds way too phlogistonic [*] for my tastes.
Admittedly, it could be, but to view the Universe through
the prism of GTR is looking at things a bit backwards.
(Then again, viewing it through the very cloudy lens of c'=c+v
will probably just confuse everybody. :-) )
[3] The 100 second US/Russia radar delta. I'm hoping that the
explanation there is reasonably simple; I suspect that
there's an issue with the timing between pulses, or perhaps
the issue was a misinterpretation of the eventual results.
This was, after all, in 1961.
>
> Regardless of what you think, there has never been an
> observation of any of the three that refutes any of their
> predictions.
Whatever theory is out there: Heim, Eotvos, something totally
unexpected -- it should match GTR for various characteristics
we've already measured, at least within experimental error.
(This precludes c'=c+v, of course.)
>
> You are privileged in that you have the time, and presumably
> the ability* to learn. Don't waste your life by not learning,
> Greenfield.
>
> *Some question this presumption
>
[*] a hypothetical substance that was eventually replaced by oxygen,
phlogiston had the unique property of having what turned out to
be negative mass.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
in message news:o9de93-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
...
> [1] The Pioneer anomaly. That one's just weird,
> and I for one can't say what's causing it. Nor
> has anyone else, as far as I know.
Look at the facts: only satellites were involved, they all had
Sunward pointing antennas (think solar sail), they all had
thermopiles as heats sources so were the hottest object around.
Additionally they all had "identified mechanical defects"
according to Anderson. You won't find the mysteries of the
Universe hidden in a construct of Man, when it doesn't also
affect other kinds of bodies.
David A. Smith
Spaceman
> I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in the specifications
> of the LHC, if one goes by Newtonian theory. Briefly put, if
> it can't accelerate a proton faster than the speed of light,
> where is the rest of that 7 TeV/proton actually going?
Maybe to keep the velocity from slowing down because of the corner it takes
the whole time it is moving :)
> And if it is actually provable that a 7 TeV proton does different
> things from a 1.419 GeV proton (which presumably isn't too hard
> to set up as an experiment), why is Newtonian theory useful?
Well, I think finding out where the energy is going would be the first step
the conclusion is not giving a real answer yet. :)
> But protons do not go faster than lightspeed in the LHC specs.
> That's the entire point. Yet the specs also stipulate 7 TeV.
> This is a major inconsistency in Newtonian physics.
No, it is a major inconsistancy with (what is actually happening)
no real explanation has surfaced yet :)
> Then why build it? We've got plenty of 100+ GeV proton acceleration
> engines already. (In fact one of them is going to be used to
> inject protons into this behemoth.)
To waste the taxpayers money of course.. and most of the money does
not even go into the dang thing.. it goes into all the (comforts) of the
workers.
:)
Spaceman
> When someone is "proving" an impossibility, Ghost, it is better to
> examine the tools used, than to embrace SR/GR magic.
> Spaceman (is that James D back?) points out that light can't push
> faster than light, which has been discussed some time back (and seems
> trivial).
Yup, it is I,
James D.
and isn't it still sad, they all just jump on a rubber ruler/time travel
train instead of finding out where and why that train is actually going
there?
Sam Wormley
> Of course Einstein is in another league, but I am not absolutely
> convinced that he set out to be so (as per Androcles); he may have
> swallowed the Lorentz et al rubbish (math), and then got trapped.
> Perhaps his main fault was simple cowardice (unable to admit mistake).
>
Sounds like Greenfield mumbling about himself. You should take
some physics courses at the university, Greenfield, then come
back here and admit your mistakes.
Sam Wormley
> ....there are a couple of anomalies that bother me.
>
> [1] The Pioneer anomaly. That one's just weird, and I for one
> can't say what's causing it. Nor has anyone else, as far
> as I know.
Most likely a Newtonian explanation of leaking gas or
thermal radiation. One think in favor of this explanation is
that we don't see all bodies in the solar system behaving
similarly.
>
> [2] Dark energy sounds way too phlogistonic [*] for my tastes.
> Admittedly, it could be, but to view the Universe through
> the prism of GTR is looking at things a bit backwards.
> (Then again, viewing it through the very cloudy lens of c'=c+v
> will probably just confuse everybody. :-) )
GTR may be incomplete, but it is an excellent too to studying
both dark matter and dark energy. It takes time to sort out
newly discovered phenomena. Progress is being made.
>
> [3] The 100 second US/Russia radar delta. I'm hoping that the
> explanation there is reasonably simple; I suspect that
> there's an issue with the timing between pulses, or perhaps
> the issue was a misinterpretation of the eventual results.
> This was, after all, in 1961.
Who decided there was a discrepancy beyond experimental error?
>
> Whatever theory is out there: Heim, Eotvos, something totally
> unexpected -- it should match GTR for various characteristics
> we've already measured, at least within experimental error.
> (This precludes c'=c+v, of course.)
>
>
hanson
discourse here another real beauty of SR, namely that SR
says that if you were to accelerate a proton to the speed
of light it would take require infinite, meaning all the energy
of the universe to do so... ... Consider some implications:
a) ... in this fantastic endeavor there comes a point where
the relativistic mass of this close to "c" accelerated proton will
be so large that it creates "the tail wagging the dog" (TWG)
syndrome with earth, the earth actually beginning to swirl around
the proton. So, since SR has never failed any experiment (or so
say its disciples) then at what v/c ratio is that TWG tipping point
going to occur?.
b) Now, it doesn't end there, if SR is true, because with all that
relativistic mass crammed into/onto that proton there comes the
point where it no longer cares about its (protective) el charge and
it says to itself: = Fuck that. I have sufficient mass now to become
a black hole= and then, for god's sake, the proton that once was
just wagging the earth is gonna begin to eat it now.... into a black
hole... and... so everything will be gone.. by definition invisible...
only to be whined over in sorrow by the Martians and Spaceman
who wonder about that gravitational anomaly over there....
and it was all Einstein's fault... Einstein has destroyed the earth!
ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
>
>
"jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1136954012.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
hanson
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:eqCdnQyyMZZ...@comcast.com...
>
> "jgree...@seol.net.au" <jgr...@seol.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1136954012.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> When someone is "proving" an impossibility, Ghost, it is better to
>> examine the tools used, than to embrace SR/GR magic.
>> Spaceman (is that James D back?) points out that light can't push
>> faster than light, which has been discussed some time back (and seems
>> trivial).
>
[Spaceman]
> Yup, it is I,
> James D.
> and isn't it still sad, they all just jump on a rubber ruler/time travel
> train instead of finding out where and why that train is actually going there?
>
[hanson]
Yo, Dr. Professor James Driscoll-Fuch, it's good to have you
back. I assure you that during your absence most of your cyber
students, in particular the retirees and the entry level pupils, have
stopped learning the moment you went on your hiatus. So, you
are sorely needed to resume your pedagogic roles if for no other
reason then a belletristic one as the tone of this august 24/7 cyber
party has acquired the feel, during your absence, of a walk thru
a grave yard. Prof. Driscoll, do bring some life back and rile'em up.
In particular, you should stress that any time when someone brings
up that old trite "you should learn" order, just retort that "they" use this
phrase because "they" have been abjectly unsuccessful and miserably
failed characters in their instructional abilities and capabilities: Them
being those BAD TEACHERS who do not know what they are talking about!
So, let the fun resume and let the real spaceman physics continue!
ahahaha... ahahanson
Traveler
>In addition, you guys, you miss/forgot to mention in your
>discourse here another real beauty of SR, namely that SR
>says that if you were to accelerate a proton to the speed
>of light it would take require infinite, meaning all the energy
>of the universe to do so... ... Consider some implications:
>
>a) ... in this fantastic endeavor there comes a point where
>the relativistic mass of this close to "c" accelerated proton will
>be so large that it creates "the tail wagging the dog" (TWG)
>syndrome with earth, the earth actually beginning to swirl around
>the proton. So, since SR has never failed any experiment (or so
>say its disciples) then at what v/c ratio is that TWG tipping point
>going to occur?.
>
>b) Now, it doesn't end there, if SR is true, because with all that
>relativistic mass crammed into/onto that proton there comes the
>point where it no longer cares about its (protective) el charge and
>it says to itself: = Fuck that. I have sufficient mass now to become
>a black hole= and then, for god's sake, the proton that once was
>just wagging the earth is gonna begin to eat it now.... into a black
>hole... and... so everything will be gone.. by definition invisible...
>only to be whined over in sorrow by the Martians and Spaceman
>who wonder about that gravitational anomaly over there....
>and it was all Einstein's fault... Einstein has destroyed the earth!
>ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
ahahahaha... This is priceless, Hanson. ahahaha... Makes my day. I
can always count on you for some quality humor.
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Der alte Hexenmeister
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:bqaxf.9642$Lh1.4001@trnddc01...
> In addition, you guys, you miss/forgot to mention in your
> discourse here another real beauty of SR, namely that SR
> says that if you were to accelerate a proton to the speed
> of light it would take require infinite, meaning all the energy
> of the universe to do so... ... Consider some implications:
>
> a) ... in this fantastic endeavor there comes a point where
> the relativistic mass of this close to "c" accelerated proton will
> be so large that it creates "the tail wagging the dog" (TWG)
> syndrome with earth, the earth actually beginning to swirl around
> the proton. So, since SR has never failed any experiment (or so
> say its disciples) then at what v/c ratio is that TWG tipping point
> going to occur?.
>
> b) Now, it doesn't end there, if SR is true, because with all that
> relativistic mass crammed into/onto that proton there comes the
> point where it no longer cares about its (protective) el charge and
> it says to itself: = Fuck that. I have sufficient mass now to become
> a black hole= and then, for god's sake, the proton that once was
> just wagging the earth is gonna begin to eat it now.... into a black
> hole... and... so everything will be gone.. by definition invisible...
> only to be whined over in sorrow by the Martians and Spaceman
> who wonder about that gravitational anomaly over there....
> and it was all Einstein's fault... Einstein has destroyed the earth!
> ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
By gott! Das ist it! Der genius Hanson has maked der discovery!
Vhen asked if New Yorks stops at dis train, dis train is traveling
so vast dat it outveighs New Yorks, which ist vhy New Yorks ist
heavier.
--
"Man schließt daraus, daß eine am Erdäquator befindliche Unruhuhr
um einen sehr kleinen Betrag langsamer laufen muß als eine genau
gleich beschaffene, sonst gleichen Bedingungen unterworfene, an
einem Erdpole befindliche Uhr." -- Einstein
Thence we conclude that a sundial at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar sundial
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.
Thence we conclude that delta-t integrates daily.
Thence we conclude that after 1,000,000,000 years the pole
leads the equator by 3 months.
Thence we conclude that after 4,000,000,000 years the pole
leads the equator by 1 year.
Thence we conclude that the Earth has stretched into a disk
around the sun.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Clockgain.JPG
Thence we conclude that Einstein was a member of the Flat Earth
Society.
Thence we conclude that Einstein was a crank.
Thence we conclude that his disciples are all cranks.
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
"Einstein does not play dice" -- God
jgr...@seol.net.au
I nearly didn't recognise "twin" Jim!
He looks so much younger, he must have been on a fast journey, eh?
Jim G
c'=c+v
jgr...@seol.net.au
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@mchsi.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:21:08 GMT
> <EhQwf.688896$x96.402065@attbi_s72>:
> > jgree...@seol.net.au wrote:
> >> Add Hafele/Keating to the list of physics rapists!
> >> http:/www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm
> >>
> >> such frauds and their accolytes are a greater threat to scientific
> >> advancement than
> >> ever will avian flu be to mankind.
> >>
> >> Jim G
> >> c'=c+v
> >>
> >
> >
> > If you did the experiments, Greenfield, you would become one
> > of your own rapist, as SR, GTR and QM correctly model the
> > universe the way she is... at least so far.
>
> That is far from clear. Not that c'=c+v does any better,
> of course, but there are a couple of anomalies that bother me.
>
> [1] The Pioneer anomaly. That one's just weird, and I for one
> can't say what's causing it. Nor has anyone else, as far
> as I know.
emr particles are "massive"; therefore either impinging upon Pioneer,
or expelled by it (recoil) will act on the velocity/direction of the
craft's trajectory
probable/possible/likely ????????????
>
> [2] Dark energy sounds way too phlogistonic [*] for my tastes.
> Admittedly, it could be, but to view the Universe through
> the prism of GTR is looking at things a bit backwards.
> (Then again, viewing it through the very cloudy lens of c'=c+v
> will probably just confuse everybody. :-) )
I asked elsewhere, for clarification on "dark matter".
In the context of GR "needing it", is it unseen (not
emitting/reflecting any emr),
or "unseeable" (invisible).
AFAIK, "dark matter" is a necessary invention of DHR's, brought about
by unexplainable anomilies (read contradictions of) GR in astronomical
observations.
>
> [3] The 100 second US/Russia radar delta. I'm hoping that the
> explanation there is reasonably simple; I suspect that
> there's an issue with the timing between pulses, or perhaps
> the issue was a misinterpretation of the eventual results.
> This was, after all, in 1961.
H&K didn't mind using these degrees of accuracy (claimed) in 1971.
The smelly rat (unless Wallace lied), is in Shapiro ONLY releasing to
Wallace data
which was taken when venus was at "noon" position (radars having only
lateral motion)
>
> >
> > Regardless of what you think, there has never been an
> > observation of any of the three that refutes any of their
> > predictions.
>
> Whatever theory is out there: Heim, Eotvos, something totally
> unexpected -- it should match GTR for various characteristics
> we've already measured, at least within experimental error.
> (This precludes c'=c+v, of course.)
And the measurements came up with venus at two places SIMULTANEOUSLY.
We can either
a) accept that venus IS magical
b) accept SR/GR fully FALSIFIED, and chuck it in the bin
Jim G
c'=c+v
Spaceman
> I nearly didn't recognise "twin" Jim!
> He looks so much younger, he must have been on a fast journey, eh?
I traveled 50 times FTL,
now I am 3 and 1/2 years old.
and there are still poopy heads posting their time travel bologna.
:)
lol
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:bqaxf.9642$Lh1.4001@trnddc01...
...
> a) ... in this fantastic endeavor there comes a point
> where the relativistic mass of this close to "c"
> accelerated proton will be so large that it creates
> "the tail wagging the dog" (TWG) syndrome with
> earth, the earth actually beginning to swirl around
> the proton. So, since SR has never failed any
> experiment (or so say its disciples) then at what
> v/c ratio is that TWG tipping point going to occur?.
Relativistic mass =/= gravitational mass
... so it won't ever happen. "Relativistic mass" is the whore
that abuses so many.
> b) Now, it doesn't end there, if SR is true, because
> with all that relativistic mass crammed into/onto
> that proton there comes the point where it no longer
> cares about its (protective) el charge and it says to
> itself: = Fuck that. I have sufficient mass now to
> become a black hole= and then, for god's sake,
> the proton that once was just wagging the earth is
> gonna begin to eat it now.... into a black hole...
Again, relativistic mass =/= gravitational mass. Also "dual to
black holes" have been made with two smashed gold nucleii, and
they simply evaporated (Hawking radiation). Were a black hole to
evaporate to the point that it only contained the mass of a
proton and the charge of a proton, it would simply evaporate
completely at some very high temperature.
Consider that were you to approach a solar system at some very
high rate of speed, the period of the orbits would not change
(once you factored out your gamma), nor would the transverse axes
be altered at all. This couldn't happen if "relativistic mass"
were anything but someone's inability to remember the correct
formula for total energy:
E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc*2)^2
David A. Smith
hanson
wrote in message news:gPhxf.8684$jR.5442@fed1read01...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote to JimG, Ghost and Sam
in message news:bqaxf.9642$Lh1.4001@trnddc01...
>>In addition, you guys, you miss/forgot to mention in your
>>discourse here another real beauty of SR, namely that SR
>>says that if you were to accelerate a proton to the speed
>>of light it would take require infinite, meaning all the energy
>>of the universe to do so... ... Consider some implications
>
>> where the relativistic mass of this close to "c"
>> accelerated proton will be so large that it creates
>> "the tail wagging the dog" (TWG) syndrome with
>> earth, the earth actually beginning to swirl around
>> the proton. So, since SR has never failed any
>> experiment (or so say its disciples) then at what
>> v/c ratio is that TWG tipping point going to occur?.
>
> Relativistic mass =/= gravitational mass
> ... so it won't ever happen. "Relativistic mass" is the whore that abuses so
> many.
>
>> b) Now, it doesn't end there, if SR is true, because
>> with all that relativistic mass crammed into/onto
>> that proton there comes the point where it no longer
>> cares about its (protective) el charge and it says to
>> itself: = Fuck that. I have sufficient mass now to
>> become a black hole= and then, for god's sake,
>> the proton that once was just wagging the earth is
>> gonna begin to eat it now.... into a black hole...
>
> Again, relativistic mass =/= gravitational mass. Also "dual to black holes" have
> been made with two smashed gold nucleii, and they simply evaporated (Hawking
> radiation). Were a black hole to evaporate to the point that it only contained
> the mass of a proton and the charge of a proton, it would simply evaporate
> completely at some very high temperature.
>
> Consider that were you to approach a solar system at some very high rate of speed,
> the period of the orbits would not change (once you factored out your gamma), nor
> would the transverse axes be altered at all. This couldn't happen if
> "relativistic mass" were anything but someone's inability to remember the correct
> formula for total energy: E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc*2)^2
> David A. Smith
>
Smitty, I don't care how many adjustments, re-explanations and
evasion tactics relativists do use to justify their perceived and
pathologically over-sold Einstein theory. SR/GR like any other
theory is simply a fucking story (well I am so sure about the
fucking) that TRIES to describe events and processes of/in
nature after the fact and maybe, maybe under carefully crafted
conditions does agree with an experimental setup... maybe.
Old Galilean/Newtonian relativity and mechanics achieve the
very same if you add correction factors/terms that describe
the actual side-effects. And with evermore computer power at
hand such theories may become a thing of the past anyway.
It is not for no reason that academia and industry is using
these days REL (SR/GR) in the following way and fashion,
saying that anybody who works in
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu & for R-grants......................"does need REL, - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies............. "loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as their cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
Furthermore, it is of no wonder that the Bavarians have made
GR/SR courses NOT mandatory any longer in their Univs physics
curriculum since/in 1996 and just a few months ago I glanced at a
post from a US student who wondered what book to study about
GR since it was no longer offered at his University in the US... !!!!.
Androcles posted on 12-05 that even the conservative Royal Society
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
has now voted Einstein OUT also... and yet in these NG's there are
these loud fanatical disciples infected with Einsteinitis & some even
claim that "attacks" are motivated by "anti-semitism" and jealously.
The facts are clear: Such hung-up and stuck up disciples are jealous
that the world has moved on since 1905/1916 and that the evolution
of physics, and science in general, does continue... with the exception
of these left-behind relativity fans who came to the Usenet, to a 24/7
cyber party, where they represent glaringly that they are the notorious
prodigies that failed in real life and now have come to these NGs to die....
Smitty, you can of course relish in your REL studies and marvel in
& at their greatness to your delight. That is cool by me and you may
persue preaching it if that is what makes your heart pace faster...
I myself prefer to read the thoughts of the new thinkers [1], the
ones who are not excusing, advocating, parroting and parakeeting
Albertism, but those brave souls who heeded Einstein's REAL
advice of 1954, in a letter to Besso, Albert writing to her remorsefully:
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Even somewhere in the early 1920, when Einstein's star was rising,
he said to his disciples something to the effects for them "NOT to
search at the same, now well lit places, where he had been working".
(Does anybody have the exact quote and reference of this?)
So, Smitty AFAIC, the handwriting is on the wall and ironically it all
started to go down hill for Albert when Speicher, the fool, was fanatically
posting and over-honoring the good deeds of Einstein... and now
maybe the "crushing hand of fate" is doing its job, relatively speaking,
like it does on a parallel track to/with the Bible-beaters, Wall-bobbers
and Assventers as they are proselytizing their Bible/Torah and Koran
each supposedly being better than the other ones.... Don't laugh, don't
pout... for like them, in the final analysis even physics is just another
social enterprise, like religion... ahahahaha.... Good talking to you, Smitty.
ahahahaha...ahahanson
[1] The new thinkers' maxim: It doesn't matter how many times they
are wrong. They have to be right only ONE SINGLE time so that
physics can take a step forward. The-left behind rela fans OTOH, ....
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
donsto...@hotmail.com
(cybernetics is much more important) but it is needed at large
velocites/masses/densities), yes?
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:wskxf.31547$Tn6.7506@trnddc04...
...
> Don't laugh, don't
> pout... for like them, in the final analysis even physics
> is just another social enterprise, like religion...
> ahahahaha.... Good talking to you, Smitty.
Actually, you don't get to test the "boundaries of sin", while
you're supposed to push the limits in science. So there are some
significant differences.
Glad I gave you a chance to vent. You've been so quiet lately.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137038539.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It is needed to describe magnetism (if you are interested in more
depth) and in the chemical behaviors of some of the heavier
elements (if you are interested in more depth). But if you are
only interested in "plug and chug", no, you don't need it.
David A. Smith
PD
Spaceman wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:rvce93-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> > I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in the specifications
> > of the LHC, if one goes by Newtonian theory. Briefly put, if
> > it can't accelerate a proton faster than the speed of light,
> > where is the rest of that 7 TeV/proton actually going?
>
> Maybe to keep the velocity from slowing down because of the corner it takes
> the whole time it is moving :)
Really? And does the moon slow down because of the corner it takes the
whole time it is moving around the Earth?
>
> > And if it is actually provable that a 7 TeV proton does different
> > things from a 1.419 GeV proton (which presumably isn't too hard
> > to set up as an experiment), why is Newtonian theory useful?
>
> Well, I think finding out where the energy is going would be the first step
> the conclusion is not giving a real answer yet. :)
But we already know the energy isn't "going" anywhere. When we collide
those protons into things, all the energy is right there for the
looking.
>
> > But protons do not go faster than lightspeed in the LHC specs.
> > That's the entire point. Yet the specs also stipulate 7 TeV.
> > This is a major inconsistency in Newtonian physics.
>
> No, it is a major inconsistancy with (what is actually happening)
> no real explanation has surfaced yet :)
Well, I'd say that's major head-into-sand insertion. Theory says A will
happen. We look and indeed A happens. Spaceman says, "Well, that sure
as heck doesn't make sense. A can't be right. I don't know what's going
on when we see A, but it sure as heck isn't A."
>
> > Then why build it? We've got plenty of 100+ GeV proton acceleration
> > engines already. (In fact one of them is going to be used to
> > inject protons into this behemoth.)
>
> To waste the taxpayers money of course.. and most of the money does
> not even go into the dang thing.. it goes into all the (comforts) of the
> workers.
You OBVIOUSLY have not worked at a particle accelerator. You try taking
data throughout the night in a trailer with metal floors in January in
northern Illinois, where the only heat in the room is provided by the
electronics. You have no idea what you're talking about.
PD
Spaceman
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137079224.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Spaceman wrote:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> message
>> news:rvce93-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> > I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in the specifications
>> > of the LHC, if one goes by Newtonian theory. Briefly put, if
>> > it can't accelerate a proton faster than the speed of light,
>> > where is the rest of that 7 TeV/proton actually going?
>>
>> Maybe to keep the velocity from slowing down because of the corner it
>> takes
>> the whole time it is moving :)
>
> Really? And does the moon slow down because of the corner it takes the
> whole time it is moving around the Earth?
Yes,
Or it is speeding up and flying away.
Is it getting closer or flying away?
hmm?
do you know?
>> > And if it is actually provable that a 7 TeV proton does different
>> > things from a 1.419 GeV proton (which presumably isn't too hard
>> > to set up as an experiment), why is Newtonian theory useful?
>>
>> Well, I think finding out where the energy is going would be the first
>> step
>> the conclusion is not giving a real answer yet. :)
>
> But we already know the energy isn't "going" anywhere. When we collide
> those protons into things, all the energy is right there for the
> looking.
No,
there is, and still has been missing energy.
I think you should read up more about such.
>> > But protons do not go faster than lightspeed in the LHC specs.
>> > That's the entire point. Yet the specs also stipulate 7 TeV.
>> > This is a major inconsistency in Newtonian physics.
>>
>> No, it is a major inconsistancy with (what is actually happening)
>> no real explanation has surfaced yet :)
>
> Well, I'd say that's major head-into-sand insertion. Theory says A will
> happen. We look and indeed A happens. Spaceman says, "Well, that sure
> as heck doesn't make sense. A can't be right. I don't know what's going
> on when we see A, but it sure as heck isn't A."
You are the "head in sand" type.
I actually wish to find the problem instead of just
coming up with crap for a "cause".
>> > Then why build it? We've got plenty of 100+ GeV proton acceleration
>> > engines already. (In fact one of them is going to be used to
>> > inject protons into this behemoth.)
>>
>> To waste the taxpayers money of course.. and most of the money does
>> not even go into the dang thing.. it goes into all the (comforts) of the
>> workers.
>
> You OBVIOUSLY have not worked at a particle accelerator. You try taking
> data throughout the night in a trailer with metal floors in January in
> northern Illinois, where the only heat in the room is provided by the
> electronics. You have no idea what you're talking about.
LOL
Nice insultation physics..
too bad you can't actually do some real physics.
PD
Spaceman wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137079224.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Spaceman wrote:
> >> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:rvce93-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> >> > I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in the specifications
> >> > of the LHC, if one goes by Newtonian theory. Briefly put, if
> >> > it can't accelerate a proton faster than the speed of light,
> >> > where is the rest of that 7 TeV/proton actually going?
> >>
> >> Maybe to keep the velocity from slowing down because of the corner it
> >> takes
> >> the whole time it is moving :)
> >
> > Really? And does the moon slow down because of the corner it takes the
> > whole time it is moving around the Earth?
>
> Yes,
> Or it is speeding up and flying away.
> Is it getting closer or flying away?
> hmm?
> do you know?
The moon slows down? Are the months getting longer and longer? Hmm? Do
you know?
>
> >> > And if it is actually provable that a 7 TeV proton does different
> >> > things from a 1.419 GeV proton (which presumably isn't too hard
> >> > to set up as an experiment), why is Newtonian theory useful?
> >>
> >> Well, I think finding out where the energy is going would be the first
> >> step
> >> the conclusion is not giving a real answer yet. :)
> >
> > But we already know the energy isn't "going" anywhere. When we collide
> > those protons into things, all the energy is right there for the
> > looking.
>
> No,
> there is, and still has been missing energy.
> I think you should read up more about such.
You might want to elaborate on that missing energy, spaceman. Cite some
references please. I agree that reading is good, but there's no
substitute for being there and making the measurements oneself. :>)
Too bad you can only look in from the outside and stick your tongue out
at the people doing the real work.
PD
Spaceman
> You might want to elaborate on that missing energy, spaceman. Cite some
> references please. I agree that reading is good, but there's no
> substitute for being there and making the measurements oneself. :>)
You actually think that 100% of the energy is being accounted for?
If so, why keep doing it?
It is done..
The End..
:)
lol
> Too bad you can only look in from the outside and stick your tongue out
> at the people doing the real work.
You work on a particle accelerator?
Where?
PD
Spaceman wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137080365.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > You might want to elaborate on that missing energy, spaceman. Cite some
> > references please. I agree that reading is good, but there's no
> > substitute for being there and making the measurements oneself. :>)
>
> You actually think that 100% of the energy is being accounted for?
> If so, why keep doing it?
Because there's more to learn than just energy conservation.
> It is done..
> The End..
> :)
> lol
>
> > Too bad you can only look in from the outside and stick your tongue out
> > at the people doing the real work.
>
> You work on a particle accelerator?
Did, yes. Don't assume you're trading witticisms with the equally
uninformed.
> Where?
Several places. I mentioned one to you.
PD
Spaceman
> Because there's more to learn than just energy conservation.
Is that where you say the "missing" energy has gone?
Or are you saying the the "missing energy does not exist and
it went somewhere other than energy conservation?
Spaceman
>
> Spaceman wrote:
>> You work on a particle accelerator?
>
> Did, yes. Don't assume you're trading witticisms with the equally
> uninformed.
>
>> Where?
>
> Several places. I mentioned one to you.
BTW:
You never mentioned such to me that i recall
please repeat the one you mentioned.