Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong?
Pentcho Valev
Einstein's theory"
http://definefuture.buildtolearn.net/indetail.php?type=a&id=225
Einstein's hypnotists rack their brains over an important thesis:
Einstein's relativity may be wrong but to a small, practically
insignificant, degree. The slogan of the new movement is:
"Relativity can be a little wrong just as someone can be a little
pregnant"
The newest education given by Einstein's hypnotists is here:
http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html
Pentcho Valev
Randy Poe
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Relativity can be a little wrong just as someone can be a little
> pregnant
No, relativity can be a little wrong just as Newtonian physics can
be a little wrong.
For many situations, Newtonian physics is completely accurate
to as much precision as needed. That's why we still use it.
For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
All that has ever meant is that if there is a lack in relativity, it
lies beyond the precision of the existing tests. Nobody has ever
said anything different.
Again you find some 100-year-old view of the scientific method and
think you've made a new discovery.
- Randy
Traveler
>For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
>is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for. Physicists
call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
other voodoo crap. I blame it on the failure of GR and Newtonian
physics.
One cannot talk about experimental precision when most of the universe
disappears from view. How precise do you want to be? Maybe some
powerful aliens used a gigantic cloaking device to keep us from
finding it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Lloyd Parker
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ass kisser) wrote:
>
>>For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
>>is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
>
>ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
>that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
So does every measurement we make. Gravity, acceleration, etc., all say
there's a lot more mass.
>Physicists
>call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
>other voodoo crap. I blame it on the failure of GR and Newtonian
>physics.
You can blame AIDS on fairy dust for all the difference it makes.
>
>One cannot talk about experimental precision when most of the universe
>disappears from view.
It hasn't disappeared; it just doesn't radiate energy and so is not detectable
from a distance.
>How precise do you want to be? Maybe some
>powerful aliens used a gigantic cloaking device to keep us from
>finding it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
>
>Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahaha...
>
>Louis Savain
So is scoffing at your hubris.
Lloyd Parker
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Now that the journal Nature has proclaimed "Testing times for
>Einstein's theory"
>
>http://definefuture.buildtolearn.net/indetail.php?type=a&id=225
>
>Einstein's hypnotists rack their brains over an important thesis:
>Einstein's relativity may be wrong but to a small, practically
>insignificant, degree.
Your opinion.
>The slogan of the new movement is:
>
>"Relativity can be a little wrong just as someone can be a little
>pregnant"
>
Your words. It's easy to make up something and thus make the other side look
bad.
I could say, "Pentcho claims carbon has 7 protons" and make you look bad.
PD
Traveler wrote:
> ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ass kisser) wrote:
>
> >For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
> >is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
>
> ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
> that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for. Physicists
> call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
> other voodoo crap. I blame it on the failure of GR and Newtonian
> physics.
No, this isn't accurate. There is a mismatch between the mass that is
accounted for by GR and the mass that is *visible* or that we can add
up by adding up baryons. This does not mean that the mass is "missing".
It means our list of observed species of mass is not complete.
This is not uncommon in science.
We know that we do not have a complete tally of living species on this
planet -- far from it. This doesn't make zoology voodoo science.
We know that we do not have a complete tally of chemical substances on
this planet -- far from it. This doesn't make chemistry voodoo science.
>
> One cannot talk about experimental precision when most of the universe
> disappears from view. How precise do you want to be?
Do you need to know all organic compounds to be absolutely precise
about metallic hydrides?
Do you need to know all bacterial species to be absolutely precise
about evolution of vertebrates?
Where do you think lack of completeness contributes to lack of
precision? Exactly?
>Maybe some
> powerful aliens used a gigantic cloaking device to keep us from
> finding it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
>
> Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahaha...
Welcome to the Palace for the Easily Amused.
PD
Stamenin
thing are not available for us to be known. Such are the infinity of
the univers, what is a photon,that we can't determine an absolute
system of coordinates etc.To my opinion the Newton theory needs sume
more explanations but the Einstein theory as is said is totally
mistaken.
All these happened because some questions are not explained in Newton
mechanics:
1) Is not clarified that an absolute system of coordinates and relative
system of coordinates
as were defined by Newton are impossible to be thetermined in spite of
the fact that they exist.
2) Is not clarified that the principle of the relativity, is not a law
of the physics but a rule by which we determine a truth about the laws
of the mechanics in a coordinate inertial system
K1 if we know what form they have in a coordinate inertial system K2.
3) Is not clarified that the principle of the relativity is a
consequence of the first law of the mechanics and of the Galilei
transformation.
4) Is not explained properly why the principle of the telativity is
valid in a coordinate system rigidly attached to the horizontal plan at
earth surface.
5) Is not exlained and is not taken in to account the role which play
the inertial and the
gravitational forces in the motion of the planets around the sun, and
the solar system around the center of the galaxy.
All these questions and others are treated in the Tasko's articles
that can be seen in his
group:www.msnusers.com/sci-pfysics-relativity/Documents
Please visit this group and join it.
Randy Poe
Traveler wrote:
> ahahaha... Randy Poe (inveterate ass kisser) wrote:
>
> >For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
> >is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
>
> ahahaha... You're kidding? Both GR and Newtonian mechanics predict
> that most of the mass of the universe is unacounted for.
As a matter of fact, I do have some hopes that things
like "dark energy" may give us the theory that supercedes
GR. It would be very exciting to live through such a
theoretical shift.
But your view of the scientific method here is a little
flawed. Here's what it means when I say "correct to
the limits of experimental precision".
- I make a prediction about the results of a
measurement.
- I do the experiment and get a result with
error bars.
- my prediction falls within the error bars.
> Physicists
> call it missing mass and blame it on undetectable dark matter or some
> other voodoo crap.
Can you describe to us the experiment that gave us
the REAL mass of the universe and its error bars,
so we know the estimates are wrong and by how
much?
If there's no such experimental result, then it's a little
silly to say the prediction disagrees with the (nonexistent)
experiment.
- Randy
Traveler
wrote:
Look. Sir Karl Popper wrote that a scientific theory must be
falsifiable, i.e., its predictions must be testable. Astronomers,
applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search for
dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, as
predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found. Rather than see
it for what it really is (a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame it
instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable esoteric
matter. This is obviously chicken shit politics at play. Yet, on the
basis of the supposed correctness of GR, astronomers have extrapolated
all sorts of voodoo crap, such as the big bang, black holes, universal
expansion, etc... Many are easily fooled but not all of us are so
naive. I, for one, recognize failure when I see it. And a monumental
failure it is. ahahahaha....
Randy Poe
Yes. Hence my call to the test which invalidated what
you say is a prediction.
> Astronomers,
> applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search for
> dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, as
> predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found. Rather than see
> it for what it really is
There it is again, a hint that you have higher empirical
knowledge that the rest of us are not privy to.
> (a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
> accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame it
> instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable esoteric
> matter.
There are two possibilities. One is that there is more
matter than we have been able to detect. Another is
that the mass estimate is correct and the theory of its
effects is wrong.
So far as I know, neither is falsifiable yet. For dark
matter to be falsifiable, it would have to come up with
some observable.
> This is obviously
As you point out, science is falsifiable. "Obvious" is
not a reason for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.
Especially when it is a minority of one who finds
it "obvious", while it is not at all obvious to those
who actually think about and measure such things
for a living.
- Randy
platopes
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/msg/c72eaa89e5f8cc04
"The realm of the CA [creative agent] is not to be confused with the
physical realm.
They both exist separately but in complementary fashion. The CA does
not create physical entities from within its own realm. It cannot
because nothing changes in that realm."
Whereas you produce a "creative agent" out of a hat, ending your
quest for "why?" at a point of your choosing instead of everyone
else's. A creative agent which does not exist in the physical realm,
and which cannot be falsified.
Phooey to yooey, Looey.
Mitch P.
PD
Not "nowhere to be found". It hasn't been found *yet*.
You presume that if it were somewhere to be found, we would have
certainly found it by now. That seems to be a rather lame assumption,
and in fact there are many kinds of things that have been predicted by
a theory and which took some time to uncover experimentally -- that is,
at the time the theory was proposed, there was no evidence whatsoever
that such a beast as suggested by the theory even existed.
I'll mention a few:
In chemistry: the missing elements that were predicted by Mendeleev's
periodic table
In physics: the neutrino and upsilon meson
In molecular biology: mRNA
In astronomy: Neptune
In fact, a theory that explains only what we have already observed is
rather useless as a theory. It's only when a theory predicts something
that has not yet been seen that it becomes interesting.
PD
Hexenmeister
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145048913....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Ignorant arsehole. Bright green flying elephants haven't been found yet.
| You presume that if it were somewhere to be found, we would have
| certainly found it by now.
That seems to be a rather lame assumption,
You are the one that is lame, searching for something that doesn't exist.
| and in fact there are many kinds of things that have been predicted by
| a theory and which took some time to uncover experimentally -- that is,
| at the time the theory was proposed, there was no evidence whatsoever
| that such a beast as suggested by the theory even existed.
|
| I'll mention a few:
| In chemistry: the missing elements that were predicted by Mendeleev's
| periodic table
Classical.
| In physics: the neutrino and upsilon meson
You haven't found those yet. You can't even make up your mind whether
a photon has mass.
| In molecular biology: mRNA
Classical.
| In astronomy: Neptune
Classical.
|
| In fact, a theory that explains only what we have already observed is
| rather useless as a theory.
Idiot. You've obviously never designed a TV, refrigerator or gasoline engine.
| It's only when a theory predicts something
| that has not yet been seen that it becomes interesting.
Does it ever occur to you, shithead, that failure to find something might
mean the fucking theory is crap?
No?
Didn't think so.
Androcles.
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket
Pancho Villa wrote:
> Is Einstein's Relativity a little Wrong?
No, it's a big wrong haw haw haw haw ee-aw ee-aw ee King Midas has
great ass's ears King Midas has this 'ere great ass.
PD
You seem so sure.
>
>
> | and in fact there are many kinds of things that have been predicted by
> | a theory and which took some time to uncover experimentally -- that is,
> | at the time the theory was proposed, there was no evidence whatsoever
> | that such a beast as suggested by the theory even existed.
> |
> | I'll mention a few:
> | In chemistry: the missing elements that were predicted by Mendeleev's
> | periodic table
>
> Classical.
>
> | In physics: the neutrino and upsilon meson
>
> You haven't found those yet. You can't even make up your mind whether
> a photon has mass.
I beg your pardon? Haven't found the neutrino and the upsilon? Where
have you been?
>
>
>
> | In molecular biology: mRNA
>
> Classical.
>
> | In astronomy: Neptune
>
> Classical.
>
>
>
> |
> | In fact, a theory that explains only what we have already observed is
> | rather useless as a theory.
>
> Idiot. You've obviously never designed a TV, refrigerator or gasoline engine.
I fail to see your point. The theory that explains only what has
already been observed is ... what, in the cases that you mention?
>
>
> | It's only when a theory predicts something
> | that has not yet been seen that it becomes interesting.
>
> Does it ever occur to you, shithead, that failure to find something might
> mean the fucking theory is crap?
Of course it occurs to me. And if this turns out to be the case, then
fun will abound.
However, it hasn't been put to the test. Moreover, there's a historical
discouragement against impatience. There were some years between the
hypothesis and the experimental confirmation of the neutrino, of
Neptune, of quarks, of mRNA, of W and Z bosons, etc.
I understand that since time is short for you, you might be impatient.
However, science need not accomodate your schedule for revelation.
PD
T Wake
Saturday 15 April 2006 01:06, Hexenmeister (vanq...@broom.Mickey_b) had a
brainstorm and wrote:
>
> Does it ever occur to you, shithead, that failure to find something might
> mean the fucking theory is crap?
> No?
> Didn't think so.
>
> Androcles.
Stop changing your email address so I can keep you in my kill file. Your
posts are beyond pointless.
--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
Traveler
>Traveler wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2006 11:35:40 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
[]>
>> Look. Sir Karl Popper wrote that a scientific theory must be
>> falsifiable, i.e., its predictions must be testable.
>
>Yes. Hence my call to the test which invalidated what
>you say is a prediction.
Look asshole, you can take your call and pack it up your ass for all I
care.
>> Astronomers,
>> applying GR and Newtonian physics, determined (do a Google search for
>> dark matter or missing mass) that most of the mass of the universe, as
>> predicted by current theories, is nowhere to be found. Rather than see
>> it for what it really is
>
>There it is again, a hint that you have higher empirical
>knowledge that the rest of us are not privy to.
Don't lump yourself with anybody else. Everybody who has not been dead
the last few years knows what is being talked about here. If you
don't, educate yourself or fuck off.
>> (a failure of GR and Newtonian physics to
>> accurately predict large scale gravitational phenomena), they blame it
>> instead on some undetectable energy/mass or some unobservable esoteric
>> matter.
>
>There are two possibilities. One is that there is more
>matter than we have been able to detect.
That's not it. As per the predictions of current theory, they are
detecting a huge amount of mass by observing its gravitational effect
on visible matter. Problem is, the gravitational mass is all they can
detect. They can detect no other property of this invisible mass. No
spectral signature, no magnetic or electrical effects. Zilch! Nada!
And we are not talking about one or two hypothetical particles here.
We are talking about more than half of the fucking universe, for
crying out loud!
How fucking plausible is that? It is infinitely more plausible that
there is no missing mass and that both GR and Newtonian gravity theory
are wrong when it comes to large scale gravitational attraction. And
why is it more plausible? Simple. Neither Newton nor Einstein (and the
rest of the clueless relativists, ahahaha...) understood jack shit
about the true mechanism of gravity. Their theories are chicken shit,
from my point of view, just engineering equations after the fact.
Spacetime physicists have no idea why their equations work or don't
work. Why? Because they refuse to form a hypothesis in the form of a
physical model. They are all worshipping Newton's dead ass and copying
his "hypotheses non fingo" crap to the letter. Sure, Newton was a
smart mofo but he was not God and he admitted his ignorance. The
physics community is a community of ass kissers, all of them.
ahahaha...
> Another is
>that the mass estimate is correct and the theory of its
>effects is wrong.
>
>So far as I know, neither is falsifiable yet. For dark
>matter to be falsifiable, it would have to come up with
>some observable.
What are you, a fucking moron? How does one come up with something
that is unobservable. What we have here is the lumineferous aether
crap all over again. It's no better than the crap being peddled by the
superstring con artists, you know, the crap about dimensions being
curled up into little fucking balls so tiny that they can never be
observed. It's fucking crackpottery in high places. They get away with
peddling their crap to an unsuspecting public because they can.
Spacetime physics is a fucking racket run by a nerd mafia. You know it
and I know it. Don't you fucking deny it, goddamnit. ahahaha...
>> This is obviously
>
>As you point out, science is falsifiable. "Obvious" is
>not a reason for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis.
>Especially when it is a minority of one who finds
>it "obvious", while it is not at all obvious to those
>who actually think about and measure such things
>for a living.
Of course, it is not obvious to "physicists", especially if he/she is
an ass kisser and his/her livelihood is on the line. I don't have this
problem because the physics community (i.e., the charlatans and
crackpots who hold the purse strings) does not put food on my table.
ahahaha... I am a free man and, as always, I say it like I see it.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Koobee Wublee
news:1145019014....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
> is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
me to explain.
Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
> All that has ever meant is that if there is a lack in relativity, it
> lies beyond the precision of the existing tests. Nobody has ever
> said anything different.
As I said already, you just choose to ignore the obvious by delegating
the problem somewhere else.
> Again you find some 100-year-old view of the scientific method and
> think you've made a new discovery.
I think I certainly have, but you would call me crazy because of your
zealous belief (as in the context of a religious one) in SR despite
your everyday experience indicates to you that SR just cannot be valid
(again quoting from Dr. Roberts).
Eric Gisse
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145019014....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
> > is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
>
> Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
> me to explain.
>
> Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
> both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
> to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
> hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
> forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
> relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
> very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
> body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
> fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
> predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
> experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
> conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
hahahahhaahha
Almost as good as Ken Seto's views on SR, but definetly better than
Henri Wilson's. At least you got me to laugh before I commented on how
fucking stupid you are.
[snip]
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145167456....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145019014....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
> > is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
>
> Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
> me to explain.
>
> Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
> both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
> to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
> hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
> forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
> relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
> very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
> body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
> fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
> predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
> experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
> conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
"The reason why special relativity is bogus":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
Two fundamental reasons in a row. Congratulations.
Dirk Vdm
Hexenmeister
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:xmo0g.375176$Lw4.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| Dirk Vdm
How much the Dork Van de merde knows about special relativity:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/shit.htm
(I'm playing a nasty and unfair game.)
Androcles
Bilge
>news:1145019014....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>> For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
>> is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
>
>Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
>me to explain.
>
>Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
>both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
>to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
>hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
>forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
>relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
>very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
>body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
>fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands.
Do you really believe any of the stuff you post? I find it hard
to imagine how you could have a positive IQ, yet spend so much time
on something as straight forward as special relativity without any
indication of having understood anything at all.
>Since SR's
>predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
>experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
>conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
On the other hand, you are dumber than anyone I ever encounter as
an everyday experience, but despite the fact that such stupidity is
counterintuitive, I am forced to accept its existence based on the
evidence from your posts. Evidently, truth is stranger than fiction.
>> All that has ever meant is that if there is a lack in relativity, it
>> lies beyond the precision of the existing tests. Nobody has ever
>> said anything different.
>
>As I said already, you just choose to ignore the obvious by delegating
>the problem somewhere else.
>
>> Again you find some 100-year-old view of the scientific method and
>> think you've made a new discovery.
>
>I think I certainly have,
Then why don't you post it instead of posting all of the completely
bizarre garbage you post? Do you think stupidity is a form of performance
art or what?
>but you would call me crazy because of your
>zealous belief (as in the context of a religious one) in SR despite
>your everyday experience indicates to you that SR just cannot be valid
>(again quoting from Dr. Roberts).
Actually, I think you are crazy because everything you post tends
to point to that conclusion.
Bilge
>
>"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> =
>wrote in message news:xmo0g.375176$Lw4.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>| "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message =
>news:1145167456....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>| > "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>| > news:1145019014....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>| >
>| > > For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
>| > > is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
>| >
>allow
>| > me to explain.
>| >
>| > Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still =
>have
>| > both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. =
>According
>| > to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
>| > hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
>aging
>| > relative to the other hand. So, if you are able to clap your hands
>your
>| > body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or =
>even
>| > fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
>| > predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
>| > experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
>| > conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
>| "The reason why special relativity is bogus":
>| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
>| Two fundamental reasons in a row. Congratulations.
>"You are playing a nasty and unfair game." -- Dork Vdm
>
>| Dirk Vdm
>
>How much the Dork Van de merde knows about special relativity:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/shit.htm
>(I'm playing a nasty and unfair game.)
That's ok, since no one really cares that you are nasty and unfair
to yourself.
You need to call scotland yard, the fbi and the muppet detective agency
on your shoe phone again, since no one has come around to arrest me for
ridiculing you yet.
Stamenin
transformation is mistaken.
To see this let take an example with the folowing dates:
v=0,002 km/s.
x2=2.838x10^24 km.
t2=10s.
From the Lorenz transformation can have:
t1=1/R(t2+v.x2/c^2)=10s+2000years. (where R is the square root).
The distance betwin the origins of the two coordinate systems if they
were supposed to be at the same point at the t2=0 will be:
O1O2=v.t1=126,144,000km.
If we suppose that the two coordinate systems were attached to two
men being equipped with meters and watches, they both should have
measured 10s and a distance of 20m.
To my opinion this result is an evident mistake and could be
eliminated only if v=0,
or x2=o. but with this is eliminated and the Lorenz transformation and
practically the Einstein theory of the relativity.
what is your opinion?
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> what is your opinion?
1) Euclidian distance is not an invariant in special relativity.
2) Find an error in special relativity, and you have broken real
analysis.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145231393.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
and most of all: linear algebra and analytic geometry.
Dirk Vdm
Lloyd Parker
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1145019014....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>> For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
>> is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
>
>Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
>me to explain.
Your claim is illogical. Please allow yourself to go to school.
>
>Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
>both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands. According
>to SR, each hand would experience the slow down in time of the other
>hand. Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
>forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
>relative to the other hand.
You are totally ignorant.
>So, if you are able to clap your hands
>very fast approaching the speed of light, according to SR any of your
>body parts excluding your hands would be at least in skeleton or even
>fossilized depending on how fast you clap your hands. Since SR's
>predictions are utterly absurd according to your own everyday
>experience, it is safe to say SR is the most bogus concept ever
>conceived by the mankind in the history of science.
>
No, your crackpot idea is far more bogus.
Lloyd Parker
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The Einstein theory is totally mistaken because the Lorenz
>transformation is mistaken.
They're smarter than you. The pathetic thing is, you don't realize it.
That you are (1) ignorant (2) proud of it since you flaunt it.
Hexenmeister
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%CI0g.376806$WM4.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
ahahaha... HAHAHAHAHAHA.... hahahaha...
Linear algebra...
tau(0) = 0
tau(4) = 8
tau(10) = 8
tau(16) = 8
tau(20) = 16
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
If you want to spy, disgusting little cretin, it won't help you if you don't learn.
Androcles.
Eric Gisse
Hexenmeister wrote:
[snip]
> Linear algebra...
[snip]
You have no idea what linear algebra is, nor do you understand that the
Lorentz transformations really are linear with respect to time and
space.
Stamenin
>Finnd an error inspecial relativity,and you have broken real
analysis.
You dosn't see that the result given in my example is an enormous
error?
If you like to see more about the Lorenz transformation Please visit
my group:
www.msnusers.com/sci-physics-relativity and read the articles; The
Lorenz transformation,
and the Euclidean geometry and the Lorenz transformation.
There are given and other articles but the more important is: The
principle of the relativity where you can see more arguments about the
erronate Einstein relativity.
I am sory but Einstein theory of the relativity is complet erronare,
not partially.
Stamenin
>they are smarter then you.
I didn't ofend you. If you are so smarter wy didn't coment the result
from my example. If you like to see how much you are capable to
aprechiate the smartness of somebody go to my
web:www.msnusers.com/sci-physics-relativity an read the article: The
relativity as a method of asking the truth.
Eric Gisse
Stamenin wrote:
> EricGisse wrote:
> >Finnd an error inspecial relativity,and you have broken real
> analysis.
Fix your shitty newsreader, it is not quoting properly nor is it
showing snips.
>
> You dosn't see that the result given in my example is an enormous
> error?
The only error I see is on your end. AGAIN, because you snipped it the
first time, Euclidian [notice the spelling] distance is NOT an
invariant quantity in special relativity.
I repeat - Euclidian distance is not preserved.
> If you like to see more about the Lorenz transformation Please visit
> my group:
> www.msnusers.com/sci-physics-relativity and read the articles; The
> Lorenz transformation,
> and the Euclidean geometry and the Lorenz transformation.
Idiot.
1) L O R E N T Z - not Lorenz.
2) Euclidian geometry has no bearing on special relativity.
,
> There are given and other articles but the more important is: The
> principle of the relativity where you can see more arguments about the
> erronate Einstein relativity.
> I am sory but Einstein theory of the relativity is complet erronare,
> not partially.
The most important point is that you do not understand special
relativity and you are forcing Euclidian geometry on a geometry that is
manifestly not Euclidian.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145327847.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
to wit:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LinearityFight.html
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
To be fair...they are, in fact, smarter than you.
Randy Poe
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1145019014....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > For ALL situations to date in which it has been tested, relativity
> > is correct to the limits of experimental precision.
>
> Your statement is totally absurd in everyday experience. Please allow
> me to explain.
>
> Let's look at the example of you clapping hands assuming you still have
> both hands and not being a mutant with other than two hands.
Ignorant statement number one: There are human beings
one hand and zero hands who are not "mutants".
> According to SR, each hand would experience the slow down
> in time of the other hand.
Which means that if an observer timed two events on
one hand, the same two events measured by the other
observer would have a different time interval.
For hands moving at 3 m/sec, the time dilation factor
gamma is 1 - 5*10^-17. To my knowledge, there is no
instrument today capable of measuring to a precision of
5 parts in 10^17.
> Thus, when the clapping hands do clap again, the event is
> forbidden by SR because of the contradictions of how each hand is aging
> relative to the other hand.
Ignorant statement numbers 2 and 3. First of all, the
difference between the relativistic and non-relativistic
descriptions of this sequence of events is so small
it is undetectable. So my statement "For ALL situations
to date in which it has been tested, relativity
is correct to the limits of experimental precision"
applies because to the limits of experimental precision,
SR and non-SR descriptions are the same.
Second, you are making the basic error many neophytes
do with regard to the twin paradox, that there is a
"fundamental contradiction" in mutual time dilation.
The events marked by the hands meeting occur
in all frames of reference. Even "relativity of simultaneity"
(which might be your next "contradiction") doesn't
apply here. Relativity of simultaneity says that
events which are not at the same spatial location
can not be simultaneous in all frames. But a
collision, which consists of two bodies at the
same point at the same time, is a collision in
all frames.
> > Again you find some 100-year-old view of the scientific method and
> > think you've made a new discovery.
>
> I think I certainly have,
No, you're recycling misunderstandings which are
decades old and have been put forth by others in
this newsgroup as long as it has existed. Your
"new discoveries" aren't even new to sci.physics.relativity.
- Randy
PD
Stamenin wrote:
> The Einstein theory is totally mistaken because the Lorenz
> transformation is mistaken.
> To see this let take an example with the folowing dates:
> v=0,002 km/s.
> x2=2.838x10^24 km.
> t2=10s.
> From the Lorenz transformation can have:
> t1=1/R(t2+v.x2/c^2)=10s+2000years. (where R is the square root).
> The distance betwin the origins of the two coordinate systems if they
> were supposed to be at the same point at the t2=0 will be:
> O1O2=v.t1=126,144,000km.
> If we suppose that the two coordinate systems were attached to two
> men being equipped with meters and watches, they both should have
> measured 10s and a distance of 20m.
> To my opinion this result is an evident mistake
What evident mistake? Why should they both measure 10s and and 20m?
Perhaps you miss the point of "the Einstein theory".
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrot:
> >they are smarter then you.
> I didn't ofend you.
Actually, your type offends all scientists.
>If you are so smarter wy didn't coment the result
>from my example. If you like to see how much you are capable to
>aprechiate the smartness of somebody go to my
>web:www.msnusers.com/sci-physics-relativity an read the article: The
>relativity as a method of asking the truth.
>
Only an pompous ass cites his own web site as evidence.
Hexenmeister
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0v11g.378606$XD4.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
ahahaha... HAHAHAHA... hahaha...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/shit.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/real.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/PartialDerivative.htm
g = 1/g...
ahahaha... HAHAHAHA... hahaha...
Androcles.
PD
And you claim to have a mathematics degree.
If x' = f(x,y), and x=g(x',y')
where did you get the idea that
@x'/@x = 1 / [@x/@x'] ?
Ahahahaha.... HAHAHAHA... hahaha...
Schmuck.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145383886....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
I can see from here on his desktop that he can happily deduce
it by applying the Androfartial chain rule to the inverse negative
square root of the linear closing speed f(x,y) XOR g(x',y').
>
> Ahahahaha.... HAHAHAHA... hahaha...
> Schmuck.
>
> PD
>
heh ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Hexenmeister
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0v11g.378606$XD4.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > |
| > | "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145327847.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| > | >
| > | > Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | >
| > | > [snip]
| > | >
| > | > > Linear algebra...
| > | >
| > | > [snip]
| > | >
| > | > You have no idea what linear algebra is, nor do you understand that the
| > | > Lorentz transformations really are linear with respect to time and
| > | > space.
| > |
| > | to wit:
| > | http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LinearityFight.html
| > |
| > | Dirk Vdm
| >
| > ahahaha... HAHAHAHA... hahaha...
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/shit.htm
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/real.htm
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/PartialDerivative.htm
| >
| > g = 1/g...
| > ahahaha... HAHAHAHA... hahaha...
| > Androcles.
|
| And you claim to have a mathematics degree.
Yes.
|
| If x' = f(x,y), and x=g(x',y')
| where did you get the idea that
| @x'/@x = 1 / [@x/@x'] ?
We are not discussing f(x,y), cunt.
We are discussing tau(x,t).
t, unlike y, doesn't have an additive inverse, cunt.
[snip drool]
Androcles.
Eric Gisse
Hexenmeister wrote:
[snip]
> |
> | And you claim to have a mathematics degree.
>
> Yes.
It obviously went to waste.
>
> |
> | If x' = f(x,y), and x=g(x',y')
> | where did you get the idea that
> | @x'/@x = 1 / [@x/@x'] ?
>
> We are not discussing f(x,y), cunt.
> We are discussing tau(x,t).
> t, unlike y, doesn't have an additive inverse, cunt.
Are you still whining about this? You really have no idea what you are
talking about...
>
> [snip drool]
> Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145407289....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Obvious title:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotFxy.html
:-)
Dirk Vdm
PD
Ah, so even though it can't be proven for the general case f(x,y), you
still have reason to expect it should be true for tau(x,t).
Good strategy.
And you whine about people not sustaining a logical discussion with
you.
Schmuck.
PD
Bilge
>transformation is mistaken.
>To see this let take an example with the folowing dates:
> v=0,002 km/s.
> x2=2.838x10^24 km.
> t2=10s.
> From the Lorenz transformation can have:
> t1=1/R(t2+v.x2/c^2)=10s+2000years. (where R is the square root).
> The distance betwin the origins of the two coordinate systems if they
>were supposed to be at the same point at the t2=0 will be:
> O1O2=v.t1=126,144,000km.
> If we suppose that the two coordinate systems were attached to two
>men being equipped with meters and watches, they both should have
>measured 10s and a distance of 20m.
> To my opinion this result is an evident mistake and could be
>eliminated only if v=0,
>or x2=o. but with this is eliminated and the Lorenz transformation and
>practically the Einstein theory of the relativity.
> what is your opinion?
Your troll needs more work.
Hexenmeister
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145449848.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
I didn't realize v = @x/@y, moron. Perhaps that's one of the partial derivatives
of f(x,y,z) with c = @z/@x.
| Good strategy.
What is? You changing the fucking subject?
| And you whine about people not sustaining a logical discussion with
| you.
I've told you time and again to fuck off, you don't have any logic.
How is that whining?
| Schmuck.
|
| PD
Cunt. Fuck off.
Androcles.
PD
My, my. Grumpy.
Go and kick a tree. You'll feel better, and the tree won't mock you
while you're doing it.
PD
Hexenmeister
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1145473028....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Aww... I thought I was Schmuck. Having a hard time concentrating from
one line to the next?
| Go and kick a tree. You'll feel better, and the tree won't mock you
| while you're doing it.
What's up, cunt? Fucked by math (AGAIN)?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/sloppy.htm
Go and kick a puppy in the spermless balls. You'll feel better, and
the puppy won't mock you while you're doing it, he sucks relativist's
crotches. *Snort* some more cocaine, too.
Androcles
Y.Porat
Einsteins theories is :
The curved space timer--
there is nothing like that ie
just a wrong guess of him
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
Eric Gisse
> The only thing that is wrong(IMHO) with
> Einsteins theories is :
>
> The curved space timer--
> there is nothing like that ie
> just a wrong guess of him
A "wrong guess" gets the answer right every time.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ------------------
Y.Porat
what are the experimental proves until now
for curved space time ??
except the curvature of light passing next to the sun -
that is because:
PHOTONS HAS MASS??
and there is no need for any curvature just gravitation
now if someone will tell me that the
calculated results are 200 percent away
from experimental
i say :
do you know what is a photon made?
iow do you know all th properties
of the photon ??
it is a special unique case
for instance it is the only mass
that can move with the velocity c
which is against all the 'existing theories
so it was not discovered yet
to scratch!!
in such a case even its behavior
in gravitation is a bit different
quantitatively than other
massive particles
2 the curved space time was invented in order to explain
circular movement
'without an external force
yet
surprise
curved peacetime is* not the only*
suggestion that can suggest
circular movement 'without force!!
there are alternative suggestions .
the advantage of those alternatives is
that it does not demand
*any mass* to move in a curved line
and allows particles to move
according Newtons first law
*as well*
iow
it is only some basic particles that move naturally in a circular path
(not all of them !!)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
behaves
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> in addition to the above;
>
> what are the experimental proves until now
> for curved space time ??
> except the curvature of light passing next to the sun -
> that is because:
> PHOTONS HAS MASS??
Here is the difference between *qualitative* and *quantitative*
results, Porat.
Yes, you're right, if the photon had mass, it would also deflect around
the sun, even according to Newtonian physics. It if had mass, the
amount of deflection would be independent of its nonzero mass, in fact,
just like the amount of deflection around the sun is independent of the
satellite's mass for asteroids, comets, or planets, according to
Newtonian physics. Moreover, the *amount* of deflection would be
calculable, according to Newtonian physics.
Likewise, in general relativity, the *amount* of deflection is
calculable, and in general relativity (the curved space model), light
would deflect around the sun whether it has mass or not. What's
interesting is that the *amount* of deflection predicted is different
than what is predicted by Newtonian physics.
And so what was required was simply a measurement -- not just whether a
deflection occured at all, but *how much* deflection. And the
measurement was indeed done, and done with a precision that was good
enough to distinguish between the Newtonian and the general
relativiistic (curved space) predictions. And guess what? The
measurement agreed with general relativity and NOT with Newtonian
physics. Let me underscore this point -- the measurement was precise
enough to clearly *rule out* the Newtonian prediction.
This is a point I've made repeatedly to you, Porat. The way to
distinguish two competing theories is not with what *qualitative* sense
they make. It is how well they *quantitatively* predict what really
happens.
Now, if you say, "Well, what if *both* are wrong? What if curved space
is wrong AND what if Newtonian physics doesn't work for a massive
photon because a photon is made of something else?" Well, that's fine
to guess, I suppose, but until you have a theory that can do what the
curved space model could do -- make a *quantitative prediction* and one
that matches a *quantitative* measurement -- then it is nothing more
than an idle supposition. An idle supposition that does not make any
quantitative predictions is worthless. Harsh scientific reality, Porat.
PD
Lloyd Parker
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>The only thing that is wrong(IMHO) with
>Einsteins theories is :
>
>The curved space timer--
>there is nothing like that ie
>just a wrong guess of him
>
Another moron chimes in.
We know space is curved. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>ATB
>Y.Porat
>------------------
>
Lloyd Parker
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>in addition to the above;
>
>what are the experimental proves until now
>for curved space time ??
>except the curvature of light passing next to the sun -
That's a pretty major one.
>that is because:
>PHOTONS HAS MASS??
Uh, no. Strike one.
> and there is no need for any curvature just gravitation
>now if someone will tell me that the
>calculated results are 200 percent away
>from experimental
>i say :
>do you know what is a photon made?
It's not made of anything.
>iow do you know all th properties
>of the photon ??
Enough of them.
>it is a special unique case
>for instance it is the only mass
It has no mass.
>that can move with the velocity c
>which is against all the 'existing theories
>so it was not discovered yet
>to scratch!!
>
Translate into English please.
>in such a case even its behavior
>in gravitation is a bit different
>quantitatively than other
>massive particles
Other massive is an oxymoron.
>
>2 the curved space time was invented in order to explain
>circular movement
>'without an external force
>yet
>surprise
>
>curved peacetime is* not the only*
>suggestion that can suggest
>circular movement 'without force!!
>there are alternative suggestions .
None that are compatible with observations or don't invoke magic or God.
Y.Porat
a limit case
so cannot be trated as othe r masss
2 i stri\ongly suggest that you will carefully check that
Swatzscield (spelling?) theory and ssystem and calculations
because if i have a good physics intuition
i deeply suspect that the results were 'foddled' to fit the exoeriment
once we are fiddling 'backeared to experiments'
i promise you(99 percent) that i can do it with the 'improved and
adjust ed specisl case'
by the Newtonian physics !!
i suspect that like inothjer cases you give tomuch blind credit
to common paradigm!
3 please give us more examples of experimental verification for
curved space theory !!
even if you will bring some of them
i suspect again that alternative system could do it as well
or may be even better.
4 are there example of refuting that theory?
i ask because i realy didnt invest on it
5 why an i so skeptic about it??
it is because as far as i understand (and i dont pretend tounderstand
every thing - hope you either)--
space is nothing and nothing cannot have any properties!!--
but hosting particles!
we have tolook (acording to me ) for aprticle properties
in the particles themselves!!
(remember the Aether theory??!! and what happned to it ??
it is very similar according the pronciple i brought just above )
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
Y.Porat
ther was not in your response a milligram of pgysics !!
any crook on the market could do it betetr than you!!
since we know you quit long to be of the Shaise entity
ie zero physics and just personal abuse
no wonder because you are a bully moron and the same disturbed drunk
character
than piss of and let human beings like PD do the discussion
i guess that lloyed Parker is not even your real mane !!
you are another zero shit )
Y.P
---------------------------
Y.Porat
Y.P
--------------
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> 1 i showed you that the photon is a special case
> a limit case
> so cannot be trated as othe r masss
This is not something you showed, it is something that you *guessed*.
You *assumed* that both of the following are true:
a) that light has nonzero mass
and
b) that light still travels at the relativistic limit.
Based on assuming *both* of these things, you then guess that the
photon must be special somehow. However, it is not obvious, nor is it
experimentally established that *both* of these things are true. To
wit, if it turns out that (a) is true, then it is not obvious that (b)
is still true. If it turns out that (b) is true, then it is not obvious
that (a) is true.
>
> 2 i stri\ongly suggest that you will carefully check that
> Swatzscield (spelling?) theory and ssystem and calculations
> because if i have a good physics intuition
> i deeply suspect that the results were 'foddled' to fit the exoeriment
This is contrary to historical fact, Porat. Both theoretical results
were available in 1915, and the experimental measurement was performed
in 1919. There was no "foddling" of anything. You are free to look up
the original papers of both the theory and the experiment to check your
suspicions. Of course, if you'd rather just suspect and not do any
checking, then perhaps you could get a job at
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com.
> once we are fiddling 'backeared to experiments'
> i promise you(99 percent) that i can do it with the 'improved and
> adjust ed specisl case'
> by the Newtonian physics !!
Sounds like a campaign promise. There is a European saying that says,
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating." When you show that you can
get the right experimental result *quantitatively* with an "improved
and adjusted special case" of Newtonian physics, then you may be onto
something. Until then, you have an idle supposition, and I've already
told you the value of that.
> i suspect that like inothjer cases you give tomuch blind credit
> to common paradigm!
>
> 3 please give us more examples of experimental verification for
> curved space theory !!
> even if you will bring some of them
> i suspect again that alternative system could do it as well
> or may be even better.
What you suspect is irrelevant. What you *demonstrate* is what's
important.
>
> 4 are there example of refuting that theory?
> i ask because i realy didnt invest on it
Not to date, no.
> 5 why an i so skeptic about it??
> it is because as far as i understand (and i dont pretend tounderstand
> every thing - hope you either)--
>
> space is nothing and nothing cannot have any properties!!--
This does not appear to be the case. Perhaps you are like Seto, who
cannot imagine anything other than a material medium having physical
properties. A lack of imagination is not a sound basis for physical
insight.
PD
Y.Porat
untill now you was hand waving
lets be more specific indetailes:
according the little i know about curved spacetime
space is curving* next to a mass *!! and proportional to the mass
right ??
if so
it is the mass that is the main hero !!
it is the mass who makes the qualitative and quantitative curvature so
??
it is as i said - the properties are in the mass!! ??
2 i guess that the acting and acted masses are making the result
so what happense aat the casse of photon that has no mass ??
ps i suggest you leave aside the chest drumming game
ie some hideen psychlogic war and concentrate
on detailed discussion.
i dont claim e to be an experrt on that issue
i just claim to uderstand the basic of physics quite well.soif you like
to ahve an intresting open mimded dsicussion welcome
if not lets leave it
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> PD
> untill now you was hand waving
>
> lets be more specific indetailes:
>
> according the little i know about curved spacetime
>
> space is curving* next to a mass *!! and proportional to the mass
> right ??
Actually, no, not quite right. The curvature is due to all the
contributions to the stress-energy tensor, which includes a
contribution from mass, but also from pure momentum (sometimes known as
the pressure terms) independent of mass.
I suggest you learn some more about general relativity before being
sure that it must be incorrect and suspecting that Newtonian physics
can make the same predictions.
PD
T Wake
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1145550001.8...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> parker
> ther was not in your response a milligram of pgysics !!
> any crook on the market could do it betetr than you!!
Sadly, this is as decent and coherent a reply as you will ever get out of
Porat. It is a shame because you did provide him with a reasonable, well
thought out set of information - which, was Porat actually sane, would have
helped him learn.
Sadly, as Porat has repeatedly said to me, he is insane.
Eric Gisse
Like the universe, it is an open question as to whether my ass is
finite or infinite in spatial extent.
I await the observations from the last probe sent.
Y.Porat
you claim that the mass of the photon is not zero
i showed you in the other thread that you prefere to igonore
that it is a special case
a do you say that the photon does not move at c??
so how is that c defined??!!
it is defined as the speed of light !!
what is light if not photons ??
so according to you th espeed of light is not the speed of light !!!??
you admitted that the energy of the photon is
mc^2 and hf
what is that m doing there in mc^2??
and if m=zero energy is zero as well how come ??
you youself addmitted that zero o rnot is not yet defined
so how can you say it is sero??
you brought a table of other system to measure photon mass!!and there
are results there that are not zero
and we saw thwre that thwe dispersion of resutls is of the order of at
least
22 ordeers of magnitude!!
and if we take some of theose measurment it fits nicely
th e formula hf/c^2!!
so we ahve not only your qualitative verifications
that you dont stop chest drumming about but the
quanatitative resuls the you dont stop chest drumming (abstarctly0
about !!
2 if we see that the photon moves at c by definition
than according to you its mass must be infinity
because according to you no mass can move at c!!
so what are all your measurments tha show 'some mass' ??
3
lets be specific beside vigogous hand wavings a nd preachings :
lets take the deflection of photons next to the sun
you say that if we take the photon and examne it according to the
Newtonian gravity we get an inaccurate result
so please tell us ;
WHAT IS THE MASS OF THE PHOTON THAT YOU TOOK IN ACCOUNT
TO CALCULATE THE DEVIATION ACCORDING TO nEWTON??
tomeasure photon mass
4
I will be very thankful if you bring us a list of experimental proves
that
space is curved !!
and dont worry we will test them one by one as we tested your
govermental table of photonmass measurements ........
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.Porat
onthat last post if not i appologise...)
so you are not cleave enough even to hide you real identity !!!!
I WAS RESPONDING 'LLOYED PARKER'AND YOU RESPONDED
AS IF LLOYED pARKER IS YOUSELF !!!
it is a methematical prove that you and lloyes parker are the same
thing (i refrain to say personality)
2 you ddint say a single word of science!!
so i suggest you will sitt still aside and folow my discussion with PD
and see * for a change* how civilized people should discuss seroiusly
and scientifically
Y.P
------------------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
[snip]
The stupidity starts from where it left off last.
Randy Poe
Y.Porat wrote:
> 1
> you claim that the mass of the photon is not zero
Who claimed that? I think you're confused by people telling you
that experiments can only set a lower limit. All we know from
experiment is that the photon mass is no larger than 10^-16 eV.
That certainly doesn't rule out zero, and in fact it makes zero
seem likely since this is so many orders of magnitude below
any particle known to have mass.
> i showed you in the other thread that you prefere to igonore
> that it is a special case
> a do you say that the photon does not move at c??
>
> so how is that c defined??!!
As the maximum attainable speed in our universe.
> it is defined as the speed of light !!
No, but we do believe that light moves at that speed in vacuum.
> what is light if not photons ??
> so according to you th espeed of light is not the speed of light !!!??
I can't guess what you're garbling. Who said light doesn't move
at c in vacuum? If light has mass it doesn't, but if light is massless
it does. Our theoretical models say photons are massless, but
obviously we'll never know for sure by experiment since there's
no such thing as an experiment with infinite precision.
> you admitted that the energy of the photon is
>
> mc^2 and hf
> what is that m doing there in mc^2??
I really doubt anyone "admitted that E = mc^2" for a photon.
I know what you're garbling there. You can put forth a hypothesis
that E = mc^2 holds for a photon, then use that to predict
the nonzero value of m you should observe. Then you do an
experiment and find that m is far smaller than this predicted
value. Therefore the hypothesis is false.
Got that? If you hypothesize that E = mc^2, it is easily proven
FALSE.
- Randy
Y.Porat
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> 1
> you claim that the mass of the photon is not zero
> i showed you in the other thread that you prefere to igonore
> that it is a special case
> a do you say that the photon does not move at c??
>
> so how is that c defined??!!
> it is defined as the speed of light !!
> what is light if not photons ??
> so according to you th espeed of light is not the speed of light !!!??
The relativistic speed limit c is physically distinct from the speed of
light. They happen to be the same number IF the photon is massless.
They will not be the same number IF the photon has nonzero mass. What
we know right now is that they do not differ by more than a very small
amount.
>
> you admitted that the energy of the photon is
>
> mc^2 and hf
> what is that m doing there in mc^2??
Actually, I cautioned you against saying that the energy of the photon
is mc^2. I'm surprised that you don't remember that. If mass in a
nuclear reaction is *converted* to photons, then this tells you how
much energy in the photons was obtained from the converted mass in the
nucleus. However, it does NOT tell you how much mass is in the photon.
This is the stuff I also warned you about: you have to understand the
words behind the equation *before* using the equation, rather than
starting with the equation and trying to guess what the words should be
to describe it.
>
> and if m=zero energy is zero as well how come ??
> you youself addmitted that zero o rnot is not yet defined
> so how can you say it is sero??
>
> you brought a table of other system to measure photon mass!!and there
> are results there that are not zero
> and we saw thwre that thwe dispersion of resutls is of the order of at
> least
> 22 ordeers of magnitude!!
You apparently do not understand what an upper limit is.
If you have three experiments that is measuring the size of a bug, and
one experiment using one method says the mass of the bug is definitely
less than 0.15 g, and another experiment using another method says the
mass of the same bug is definitely less than 0.06 g, and another
experiment using another method says the mass of the same bug is
definitely less than 0.040 g, then what can you conclude about the mass
of the bug?
> and if we take some of theose measurment it fits nicely
> th e formula hf/c^2!!
> so we ahve not only your qualitative verifications
> that you dont stop chest drumming about but the
> quanatitative resuls the you dont stop chest drumming (abstarctly0
> about !!
>
> 2 if we see that the photon moves at c by definition
> than according to you its mass must be infinity
> because according to you no mass can move at c!!
> so what are all your measurments tha show 'some mass' ??
> 3
> lets be specific beside vigogous hand wavings a nd preachings :
>
> lets take the deflection of photons next to the sun
>
> you say that if we take the photon and examne it according to the
> Newtonian gravity we get an inaccurate result
>
> so please tell us ;
> WHAT IS THE MASS OF THE PHOTON THAT YOU TOOK IN ACCOUNT
> TO CALCULATE THE DEVIATION ACCORDING TO nEWTON??
This is where your knowledge of Newtonian mechanics is apparently weak.
In Newtonian mechanics, the deviation of an object of mass m that
passes within a distance r of some gravitational source is
*independent* of the mass of that object. That is, you will get the
*same* deviation if the mass is 15 grams or if it 1500 kg. The mass of
the object deflected cancels out from the equation for the deviation.
Thus, the mass used for the deviation of a massive photon in a
Newtonian calculation is irrelevant. However, it predicts the wrong
number.
Note that, because the mass of the object cancels out from the
Newtonian prediction, changing the mass of the photon does *not change*
the incorrect prediction. You still get the same incorrect prediction.
I can't underscore this enough, Porat. Newtonian physics gives *the
wrong answer* for the deviation of the photon, no matter what photon
mass is used. It just gets it wrong. And general relativity gets it
right.
>
>
> tomeasure photon mass
>
> 4
> I will be very thankful if you bring us a list of experimental proves
> that
> space is curved !!
> and dont worry we will test them one by one as we tested your
> govermental table of photonmass measurements ........
You haven't tested that table of photon mass measurements. You've
looked over the table and misinterpreted the numbers. You haven't
looked up a single paper referenced in that table.
There are lots of experiments that show measurements that agree with
the "curved space" theory and that disagree with Newtonian physics. How
many do you need to convince you that Newtonian physics gets the answer
*wrong* where general relativity gets the answer *right*?
PD
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -------------------
Y.Porat
so let me try again shorter than i did before:
even if you claim that c is only in vacum
so ??
if it is in air than the photon does not have mass
in vacum i tmoved with c the maximum speed so according to you
itt smass infaltes tio infinity meaning it has zero mass
but even you say that it might be nonsero (becaus eyou have no other
choice!!)
now there is some shocking news fo ryou;
th eexperiments do not put the upper limit as 10-16!!
there is 10-10 and o-7 as well!!
you ask who admitted that E=mc^2 ??
PD admitted it and he had no choice by to admit it
see the thread ;
i have a theoretical formula for the phootn mass ' (or something like
that
* i fyou folow the Schwartschilld story
you reallize that the main factor there is THE MASS!!
without mass thwere is no Schwartshilld and no Smartzschils!
i tpops all to nothing
it is all abou ttrh egravitatin field thatis cause by ??
surprise ---- mass!!
so may be you don tknow
there i s a new postulate :
NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !!
try to remember it to the rest of your life including the
copyrighter!!
* the upper limits of more than 10-16
fits nicely my formula m photon = hf/c^2
fo r low frequenct photons !!
*
please give us a list of proven experimental data
that will show curvature of space
btw if you say space time you have mass in it again!!
do you know why ?
becaus ewithout mass you have no time and you cant detect or measure
time
NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !! will you remenber it for the rest of your
life ??
Y.Porat
--------------------
Dirk Van de moortel
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message news:1145617142.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
It is a miracle to me how ayone still takes the trouble to
talk to you as if you were a human being.
Dirk Vdm
>
Y.Porat
again :
waht is thjat m in the mc^2 =E
c is known and independant on m
so waht is that m there ??
do you think you can fool around enlessly !!
a secondaty argument:
waht is m in mv^2/2 in macrocosm??
2 you brought a table of upper limits of photon mass
you can pick up there only *what fitd you and ignore the others*
no demagigic mumbling can justify it !!
3
i was asking how do you knoe that the newtonian physics
ios giving a rwon result while you bever tested it
by the newtinian physics !!
how do i know you never did it ??
becasue in order to do it you must know waht ??-
th emass of the photon !!
if you asume apriory zero waht do you expect ??
and if it is zwero the photon willnever curve even according newton!!
but the fact is that it does curve !1
sohow come a zero mass and nonserodeflection according to
newton??
zero mass doe snot fit experiemnts even according to Newton
and .... a big end
you never calcualted it according to Nweton
so how can you say tha trhe Newton calculation is wrong ??
ans you have even the guts to speek about
quantitative differences of the newtonians calculations
while youi never did such a clacualtion!!
*
we spleak about curavture of space ;
i stated to look at the Schwardsshilld theory and i realise again and
again
tha tmy postulate;
no mass no relphysics
become more and more verified !!
you have no schwartxschild theory WITHOUT MASS!!
it is all aroung the garvitational field aroung the mass
whithout the mass you have nothing because
space has no properties except hosting mass !!
thecuravture theere is because of the curvature of the
filels around the mass
and fiels if you stilldidnt got it is also mass inmotion !1
anyay no mass no filds around
fiels are alway ascociated withthe participation of some mass!!
once the mass dis apear the fiels disapear as well
(the mother mass may be hideen somewhere far away but it is alway
thwere .)
*
if you take results from your govermental table
that are say 10-10 EV
it fits nicely to mu formula
m photon = hf/c^ fo rat least low frequencies !!
so you have a qualitiative and quantitative
prove for photon mass !!
ATB
Y.Porat
ps sorry for not spell checking i am tired of fighting all the
recruted parrots
onthe net ... (;-)
-----------
Randy Poe
Y.Porat wrote:
> sorry it seesm that i was pasting somenthing else
> so let me try again shorter than i did before:
I suppose it would be to much to ask you to quote so people
know who you're talking to.
> even if you claim that c is only in vacum
I didn't say "c is only in vacuum". I said that c is the speed of
light in vacuum. You claimed somebody light doesn't move at
c. Prove it. Who said so?
> so ??
> if it is in air than the photon does not have mass
Photons move at c everywhere, if they are massless, which so
far as we know they are.
Light moves at speeds slower than c.
> in vacum i tmoved with c the maximum speed so according to you
> itt smass infaltes tio infinity meaning it has zero mass
Theoretically, zero.
Experimentally, what we can do is establish upper limits.
> but even you say that it might be nonsero (becaus eyou have no other
> choice!!)
Yes, it might be nonzero. There's no experiment that can establish
that it is exactly zero.
> now there is some shocking news fo ryou;
> th eexperiments do not put the upper limit as 10-16!!
Yes, there are experiments that put the upper limit as 10^-16.
> there is 10-10 and o-7 as well!!
Yes, there are less sensitive experiments that put the upper
limit at 10^-10 eV.
Do you think those are inconsistent? So you think a photon
with a mass less than 10^-16 can't also be less than 10^-10?
> you ask who admitted that E=mc^2 ??
Yes, I asked who said that.
> PD admitted it and he had no choice by to admit it
> see the thread ;
I see the thread. He did not say any such thing, where the symbols
are the way you are interpreting them.
- Randy
Y.Porat
i have an equation for th ephootn mas' that anyone can read :
it satrts with my question and then PD answer without the > makrs:
quote :
> so please answer my above simple question
> by say one line answer !!
> here it is again:
> > while a kilogram of mass from nuclear binding
> > is *transformed **completely to radiation energy**
> > WAHT IS THE FURMULA THAT YOU USE FOR
> > FINDING OUT
> > QUALITATIVELY AND QUANTITATIVELY THE ENERGY THAT WAS RELEASED
E=mc^2 *quantitatively*.
*Qualitatively* note what I have already said in response to you about
this.
end of quote from PD
-----------------------------
so you admit here that
a
E=mc^2 is the vadid formula to define *photon energy that was
drived from a well measured qhatity of rest mass m!!
b
you dmitted that it is right 'quantitatively' as well
now since we know exactly waht is c^2
it means that m there fits *quantitatively* to the mass
from which it was transformed !!
(if enery fits and c^2 fits it remains that m as well fits -
simple algebra and mathematics !!)
and just to remind you:
E=mc^2 *is the base to all nuclear physics !!
while E is the eenrgy of the photons that are emmited form mass
transformation.
now if it fits quantitatively to th e (rest!!) mas from which it was
transformed
then what according to you *does not fit *??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Hexenmeister
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:n232g.383978$No2.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
ahahaha... HAHAHAHA... hahahaha..
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/trojan.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/human.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/zeroone.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/falsetrue.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/sloppy.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/badevents.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/closingspeed.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/inertialacc.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/insignificantgravity.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/PartialDerivative.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dork/mumble.htm
Androcles
Y.Porat
its a long time i ddint meet th eold parrot crook!!
are you in pannic that you will be found as a shamte crook parrot ??
it seems like it !!
Y.P
--------------------------
Y.Porat
10 -16 or 10 -10
do you think that you are entitled to pick up only waht fits you ??
waht is your qualification in those experiemnts that makes you the
judge fo rit ??
2 are you aware that the disperssion of resutls ther is of the order of
22 orders of
magnitudes?
does tha t seem relaible to you ?
dont you think it indicated of about some fundamental problem with
those
experiem,nts?
is it possible that experimentalists are biased to pick up only waht is
]
commonly expected by paradigm ??i even suggested that even not some
bias
there is a n objestive problem ie
lack of fitness between the hittiong entities ans hitted entities
iow too much a difference inenergy betwen hitting photons and hitted
fields
for example
a gama photon is may ways mor eenergetic than the magnetic filed
of our earth tha tis mensined there as one of the experiments
it is ( i said )
like a cannon bullet hitting a pilloow of feathes
it blowes and smashes it to peaces making you no wiser!
becaue of the devastating collision result !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> 1
>
> again :
> waht is thjat m in the mc^2 =E
> c is known and independant on m
> so waht is that m there ??
It is not the mass of the photon, that's for sure. In the case of the
nuclear reactions that you fondly quote, it is the mass of the nucleus
that has been *converted* to photons. It is NOT the mass of the
photons.
> do you think you can fool around enlessly !!
> a secondaty argument:
> waht is m in mv^2/2 in macrocosm??
It is the mass of a massive object for which mv^2/2 applies. Note that
even in macrocosm, mv^2/2 does not apply to massless objects, nor does
it apply to objects that are traveling at a significant fraction of the
speed of light. Once again, you are mistakenly assuming that mv^2/2
applies to *everything* and that therefore m applies to *everything*.
It does not. It only applies, even in macrocosm, to a narrowly defined
class of objects. This may come as a surprise to you. You may have been
taught differently when you were younger. You may have been taught,
"The kinetic energy of anything is defined as mv^2/2." If you were,
this was IN ERROR.
>
> 2 you brought a table of upper limits of photon mass
> you can pick up there only *what fitd you and ignore the others*
> no demagigic mumbling can justify it !!
I will repeat myself and ask you a question once more:
You apparently do not understand what an upper limit is.
If you have three experiments that are measuring the size of a bug, and
one experiment using one method says the mass of the bug is definitely
less than 0.15 g, and another experiment using another method says the
mass of the same bug is definitely less than 0.06 g, and another
experiment using another method says the mass of the same bug is
definitely less than 0.040 g, then what can you conclude about the mass
of the bug?
>
> 3
> i was asking how do you knoe that the newtonian physics
> ios giving a rwon result while you bever tested it
> by the newtinian physics !!
> how do i know you never did it ??
The 1919 experiment compared the results measured with both those
calculated by general relativity and those calculated by Newtonian
physics. This calculation and comparison to experimental results have
been recounted in numerous books. You don't have to worry about whether
I've done it personally. All you need to know is whether the
calculation has been done, and where that calculation can be looked up
and checked. Please proceed to the library and look up those
calculations and check them for yourself.
> becasue in order to do it you must know waht ??-
> th emass of the photon !!
> if you asume apriory zero waht do you expect ??
> and if it is zwero the photon willnever curve even according newton!!
> but the fact is that it does curve !1
> sohow come a zero mass and nonserodeflection according to
> newton??
The Newtonian calculation was not done only assuming zero mass light.
It was also done assuming that it had *some* nonzero mass. Since the
actual value of the mass cancels out from the calculation, the
particular value is not important. *Regardless* of the nonzero value
chosen for light, the Newtonian calculation produces the same numerical
prediction, and it is WRONG.
> zero mass doe snot fit experiemnts even according to Newton
> and .... a big end
> you never calcualted it according to Nweton
> so how can you say tha trhe Newton calculation is wrong ??
That is incorrect. The Newtonian calculation HAS been done and for a
nonzero photon mass. You can look that up if you like. To date, you
have not looked up a single reference that has been given to you.
> ans you have even the guts to speek about
> quantitative differences of the newtonians calculations
> while youi never did such a clacualtion!!
>
> *
> we spleak about curavture of space ;
> i stated to look at the Schwardsshilld theory and i realise again and
> again
> tha tmy postulate;
> no mass no relphysics
> become more and more verified !!
>
> you have no schwartxschild theory WITHOUT MASS!!
> it is all aroung the garvitational field aroung the mass
> whithout the mass you have nothing because
> space has no properties except hosting mass !!
I've already told you this is incorrect. The source for gravitational
curvature is not just mass, it is the stress-energy tensor which
includes terms other than mass. If you think that if you take mass
away, then the curvature will go away, then you are incorrect.
> thecuravture theere is because of the curvature of the
> filels around the mass
> and fiels if you stilldidnt got it is also mass inmotion !1
> anyay no mass no filds around
> fiels are alway ascociated withthe participation of some mass!!
> once the mass dis apear the fiels disapear as well
> (the mother mass may be hideen somewhere far away but it is alway
> thwere .)
>
> *
> if you take results from your govermental table
> that are say 10-10 EV
> it fits nicely to mu formula
>
> m photon = hf/c^ fo rat least low frequencies !!
"for at least low frequencies"
So why should it break for high frequencies?
Either it's right for *all* frequencies or it's not right at all, or at
best it is only an approximation that works only at very low
frequencies.
PD
Y.Porat wrote:
> here is a quote from PD in the tread:
> i have an equation for th ephootn mas' that anyone can read :
>
> it satrts with my question and then PD answer without the > makrs:
>
> quote :
> > so please answer my above simple question
> > by say one line answer !!
>
>
> > here it is again:
>
>
> > > while a kilogram of mass from nuclear binding
> > > is *transformed **completely to radiation energy**
>
>
> > > WAHT IS THE FURMULA THAT YOU USE FOR
> > > FINDING OUT
> > > QUALITATIVELY AND QUANTITATIVELY THE ENERGY THAT WAS RELEASED
>
>
>
> E=mc^2 *quantitatively*.
> *Qualitatively* note what I have already said in response to you about
> this.
>
> end of quote from PD
That's right. E is the *energy* of the photons that are released from
the conversion of mass of the *nucleons*.
It is NOT the mass of the photons released.
You are right *quantitatively*, but *qualitatively* you are wrong,
assigning the value of m to the wrong objects.
T Wake
> Hi stoopid (sorry the insult because i am not sure if youinsulted me
> onthat last post if not i appologise...)
Signs of acute paranoia there. You dont know if you were insulted, so you
insult back just to be on the safe side.
Insteresting insight into your mental stability here.
> so you are not cleave enough even to hide you real identity !!!!
>
> I WAS RESPONDING 'LLOYED PARKER'AND YOU RESPONDED
> AS IF LLOYED pARKER IS YOUSELF !!!
The paranoia deepens.
Shame.
T Wake
> Hi stoopid (sorry the insult because i am not sure if youinsulted me
> onthat last post if not i appologise...)
>
> so you are not cleave enough even to hide you real identity !!!!
>
> I WAS RESPONDING 'LLOYED PARKER'AND YOU RESPONDED
> AS IF LLOYED pARKER IS YOUSELF !!!
This sub-thread was mainly between you and PD.
Do you now think every one is the same?
Are we all part of the same conspiracy to ridicule you?
Randy Poe
Y.Porat wrote:
> here is a quote from PD in the tread:
> i have an equation for th ephootn mas' that anyone can read :
>
> it satrts with my question and then PD answer without the > makrs:
>
> quote :
> > so please answer my above simple question
> > by say one line answer !!
>
>
> > here it is again:
>
>
> > > while a kilogram of mass from nuclear binding
> > > is *transformed **completely to radiation energy**
>
>
> > > WAHT IS THE FURMULA THAT YOU USE FOR
> > > FINDING OUT
> > > QUALITATIVELY AND QUANTITATIVELY THE ENERGY THAT WAS RELEASED
>
>
>
> E=mc^2 *quantitatively*.
Where E = energy of photon and m = mass of annihilated
particles.
As I said, PD did not write that with the symbols interpreted
the way you want to interpret them.
> now if it fits quantitatively to th e (rest!!) mas from which it was
> transformed
> then what according to you *does not fit *??
That after m has been converted to E, you can still claim
that m is the mass of the photon as well. If all the original
particle mass is still there as photon mass, where did the photon
energy E come from?
- Randy
Lloyd Parker
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>1 i showed you that the photon is a special case
>a limit case
>so cannot be trated as othe r masss
It can't be treated like any mass, since it's massless.
>
>2 i stri\ongly suggest that you will carefully check that
>Swatzscield (spelling?) theory and ssystem and calculations
>because if i have a good physics intuition
>i deeply suspect that the results were 'foddled' to fit the exoeriment
>once we are fiddling 'backeared to experiments'
We deeply suspect a lot of things about you too.
>i promise you(99 percent) that i can do it with the 'improved and
>adjust ed specisl case'
>
>by the Newtonian physics !!
>i suspect that like inothjer cases you give tomuch blind credit
>to common paradigm!
>
>3 please give us more examples of experimental verification for
>curved space theory !!
>even if you will bring some of them
>i suspect again that alternative system could do it as well
>or may be even better.
>
>4 are there example of refuting that theory?
>i ask because i realy didnt invest on it
>5 why an i so skeptic about it??
>it is because as far as i understand (and i dont pretend tounderstand
>every thing - hope you either)--
>
>space is nothing and nothing cannot have any properties!!--
Lloyd Parker
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>parker
>ther was not in your response a milligram of pgysics !!
>any crook on the market could do it betetr than you!!
>
>ie zero physics and just personal abuse
>no wonder because you are a bully moron and the same disturbed drunk
>character
>than piss of and let human beings like PD do the discussion
>i guess that lloyed Parker is not even your real mane !!
>you are another zero shit )
>Y.P
>---------------------------
>
Please get someone who understands English to post for you.
Lloyd Parker
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>1
>you claim that the mass of the photon is not zero
>i showed you in the other thread that you prefere to igonore
>that it is a special case
>a do you say that the photon does not move at c??
>
Only you seem to say that.
>so how is that c defined??!!
>it is defined as the speed of light !!
>what is light if not photons ??
>so according to you th espeed of light is not the speed of light !!!??
Flunked logic, huh?
>
>you admitted that the energy of the photon is
>
>mc^2 and hf
>what is that m doing there in mc^2??
The energy of a photon created from mass annhilation is mc^2. Once it is a
photon, that formula is irrelevant.
>
>and if m=zero energy is zero as well how come ??
If you have no mass, you cannot create a photon from it.
>you youself addmitted that zero o rnot is not yet defined
>so how can you say it is sero??
>
>you brought a table of other system to measure photon mass!!and there
>are results there that are not zero
You are wrong.
>and we saw thwre that thwe dispersion of resutls is of the order of at
>least
>22 ordeers of magnitude!!
No, you are wrong.
Lloyd Parker
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>sorry it seesm that i was pasting somenthing else
>so let me try again shorter than i did before:
>
>even if you claim that c is only in vacum
>so ??
c is the speed of light in a vacuum. I'd guess most middle school students
know this.
>if it is in air than the photon does not have mass
This has nothing to do with the preceeding definition of c.
>in vacum i tmoved with c the maximum speed so according to you
>itt smass infaltes
"infaltes"?
>tio infinity meaning it has zero mass
>but even you say that it might be nonsero (becaus eyou have no other
>choice!!)
Pigs might fly too.
>
>now there is some shocking news fo ryou;
>th eexperiments do not put the upper limit as 10-16!!
>there is 10-10 and o-7 as well!!
Says who?
>
>you ask who admitted that E=mc^2 ??
>PD admitted it and he had no choice by to admit it
>see the thread ;
>i have a theoretical formula for the phootn mass ' (or something like
>that
>
>* i fyou folow the Schwartschilld story
>you reallize that the main factor there is THE MASS!!
What does this have to do with the speed of light?
>
> without mass thwere is no Schwartshilld and no Smartzschils!
>i tpops all to nothing
>it is all abou ttrh egravitatin field thatis cause by ??
>surprise ---- mass!!
>so may be you don tknow
>there i s a new postulate :
> NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !!
Idiot. What gives you the right to make up postulates? I think your
medication dose needs to be upped.
>
> try to remember it to the rest of your life including the
>copyrighter!!
>* the upper limits of more than 10-16
>fits nicely my formula m photon = hf/c^2
>fo r low frequenct photons !!
>
Your formula can predict pigs flying; it's still garbage.
>*
>please give us a list of proven experimental data
>that will show curvature of space
>btw if you say space time you have mass in it again!!
>do you know why ?
>becaus ewithout mass you have no time and you cant detect or measure
>time
>NO MASS NO REAL PHYSICS !! will you remenber it for the rest of your
>life ??
>Y.Porat
>--------------------
>
Will you shut up?
Lloyd Parker
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>Hi stoopid (sorry the insult because i am not sure if youinsulted me
>onthat last post if not i appologise...)
>
>so you are not cleave enough even to hide you real identity !!!!
>
> I WAS RESPONDING 'LLOYED PARKER'AND YOU RESPONDED
>AS IF LLOYED pARKER IS YOUSELF !!!
>
> it is a methematical prove that you and lloyes parker are the same
>thing (i refrain to say personality)
>
>2 you ddint say a single word of science!!
>
LOL! Your loopy rantings have as much to do with science as the Bible does.
>so i suggest you will sitt still aside and folow my discussion with PD
>and see * for a change* how civilized people should discuss seroiusly
>and scientifically
But first you'd have to learn some science. Posting wild flights of fancy is
not science.
>Y.P
>------------------------
>
Lloyd Parker
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>PD
>untill now you was hand waving
>
>lets be more specific indetailes:
>
>according the little i know about curved spacetime
>
>space is curving* next to a mass *!! and proportional to the mass
>right ??
>if so
>it is the mass that is the main hero !!
"Space tells mass how to move" while "mass tells space how to curve" -- J.A.
Wheeler.
>it is the mass who makes the qualitative and quantitative curvature so
>??
>
>it is as i said - the properties are in the mass!! ??
>
>2 i guess that the acting and acted masses are making the result
>
>so what happense aat the casse of photon that has no mass ??
>
>ps i suggest you leave aside the chest drumming game
>ie some hideen psychlogic war and concentrate
>on detailed discussion.
>i dont claim e to be an experrt on that issue
>i just claim to uderstand the basic of physics quite well.soif you like
>to ahve an intresting open mimded dsicussion welcome
>if not lets leave it
>
>TIA
>Y.Porat
>---------------------
>
>TIA
>Y.Porat
>---------------
>
Lloyd Parker
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote:
>about
>10 -16 or 10 -10
>
>do you think that you are entitled to pick up only waht fits you ??
>waht is your qualification in those experiemnts that makes you the
>judge fo rit ??
>
>2 are you aware that the disperssion of resutls ther is of the order of
>22 orders of
>magnitudes?
Huh? First, where did you get your data? It's quite off.
Secondly, that's not 22 orders of magnitude.
>
>does tha t seem relaible to you ?
>dont you think it indicated of about some fundamental problem with
>those
>experiem,nts?
>
No, I think there's one with your brain.
Y.Porat
Randy Poe wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > here is a quote from PD in the tread:
> > i have an equation for th ephootn mas' that anyone can read :
> >
> > it satrts with my question and then PD answer without the > makrs:
> >
> > quote :
> > > so please answer my above simple question
> > > by say one line answer !!
> >
> >
> > > here it is again:
> >
> >
> > > > while a kilogram of mass from nuclear binding
> > > > is *transformed **completely to radiation energy**
> >
> >
> > > > WAHT IS THE FURMULA THAT YOU USE FOR
> > > > FINDING OUT
> > > > QUALITATIVELY AND QUANTITATIVELY THE ENERGY THAT WAS RELEASED
> >
> >
> >
> > E=mc^2 *quantitatively*.
>
> Where E = energy of photon and m = mass of annihilated
> particles.
and ??
we know exactly waht was the mass that was anihilated
ans it fits exactly the fi\ormula e=MC^2
while you put that m value and insert it into the mc^2 !!
so
energy fits experimentally the energy that was releasthe enery fits
c^2 fits
and ...
m fits !!
--------------
>
> As I said, PD did not write that with the symbols interpreted
so waht is your interpretation toeach of theose symbols
do you think a physics formula is symbolism ??
is there is no physical meaning top each physical entity??
and i ddint mesion untillnow the dimension test !!
(in adition tothe letetrs symbols test .)
----------
> the way you want to interpret them.
so how do you interpret those letetrs
energy defintion just as E is not enough
as you know th emore detailed we are we are more advanced:
you can say that filre is the flame that emmits heat
but once you are more detailed and knows that fire is oxygen and Carbon
that were conbined you are more advanced ist that so ??
allour advance in science is by beingmore detailed isnt that so ??
----------
>
> > now if it fits quantitatively to th e (rest!!) mas from which it was
> > transformed
> > then what according to you *does not fit *??
>
> That after m has been converted to E, you can still claim
> that m is the mass of the photon as well.
but that is exactly waht i claim
does someone have to be agenious in order to understand that ??
If all the original
> particle mass is still there as photon mass, where did the photon
> energy E come from?
some news for you:
it was laways there!!
th eone thung tha tpeople do not get is that even in a particle that
looks
static ans ionj rest
there is always aninside endless movement that cannot be seen
with our eyes
thje chemical process or nuclea process is nor inventing new energy
it just divert it from inside outside !!
it is always mass in movent ie not only the mass is laways there
the c^2 is as well always there !!
now if you willsay that;
WHILE MATTER WAS TRANSFORMED TO ENERGY
IT GOT JUST ANOTHER 'TEXTURE' OF MASS IN MOVEMENT!!
i will tend to agree with yiou
you can have a methaphore :
take a grinding disk that grinds a rock
you see a cloud of dust !!
the mass of the rock is exactly the mass of the dust
but
IN ANOTHER TEXTURE !!
all i said just now is *in addition* to the mathemtical prove of
E photons =mc^2 that no one can deny!!
just in case you didnt folow our previous discussion
we took it from the fusioj process
in which
a well known measured parts of particles (not all of them but only
somepercentage of them!)
was transformed COMPLETELY to photon energy
again we knoe exactlt the qauntity of rst mass that was anihilated
and if we multiply yhtrat quantity by c^2
we get exactly the energy that came out and verified experimentally as
well
E=mc^2 is unquestionableinnuclear physics tro people that think
without too much
smartguyings
and even it was called along time RELATIVISTIC MASS
becuse serious peole could not ignore that m in that mc^2 is mass!!
only smartguys here are manouvering and junglaring dishonestly
mor elike lwawyers than scientists in order to get off the hook
of their being parrots !!
and only becaus eof refusing to digest a very simpe solusion
THE PHOTON IS THE ONLY MASS (EVENIF VERY SMALL)
THAT CAN MOVE AT c !!!
just as simple as that and everything is settled !!
without any need of smatguys junglarings
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
>
> - Randy
Randy Poe
Y.Porat wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > > E=mc^2 *quantitatively*.
> >
> > Where E = energy of photon and m = mass of annihilated
> > particles.
>
> and ??
> we know exactly waht was the mass that was anihilated
> ans it fits exactly the fi\ormula e=MC^2
> while you put that m value and insert it into the mc^2 !!
Yes. Before annihilation it was mass m. Afterward it is
mass 0, and energy E. The amount of energy is equal to
mc^2, but the amount of mass present after that energy is
created is 0.
> so
> energy fits experimentally the energy that was releasthe enery fits
> c^2 fits
> and ...
> m fits !!
That's right. The energy was created exactly corresponds to the
mass that is NO LONGER THERE by mc^2.
> > As I said, PD did not write that with the symbols interpreted
>
> so waht is your interpretation toeach of theose symbols
> do you think a physics formula is symbolism ??
Yes, symbols in a physics formula have specific meaning. You
can't change the meaning and expect the formula still
to be valid.
> is there is no physical meaning top each physical entity??
Yes there is. Hence you can't change the meaning of m from
"mass of annihilated particles before annihilation" to "mass of
photon after annihilation." Because the symbols have specific
physical meaning.
> > That after m has been converted to E, you can still claim
> > that m is the mass of the photon as well.
>
> but that is exactly waht i claim
Right, I just said that. That's what you claim: that after the
mass has been converted to something else, no mass is missing.
However, your claim is wrong and inconsistent with experiment.
Comprende "converted"?
- Randy
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> about
> 10 -16 or 10 -10
>
> do you think that you are entitled to pick up only waht fits you ??
> waht is your qualification in those experiemnts that makes you the
> judge fo rit ??
OH NO!
DIFFERENT EXPERIMENTS HAVE DIFFERENT ERROR BARS!
FRAUD! FRAUD!
>
> 2 are you aware that the disperssion of resutls ther is of the order of
> 22 orders of
> magnitudes?
You just said it had a spread of 6 orders of magnitude.
>
> does tha t seem relaible to you ?
> dont you think it indicated of about some fundamental problem with
> those
> experiem,nts?
The only fundamental problem here is between your ears and behind your
eyes.
>
> is it possible that experimentalists are biased to pick up only waht is
> ]
> commonly expected by paradigm ??i even suggested that even not some
> bias
> there is a n objestive problem ie
> lack of fitness between the hittiong entities ans hitted entities
> iow too much a difference inenergy betwen hitting photons and hitted
> fields
> for example
> a gama photon is may ways mor eenergetic than the magnetic filed
> of our earth tha tis mensined there as one of the experiments
> it is ( i said )
> like a cannon bullet hitting a pilloow of feathes
> it blowes and smashes it to peaces making you no wiser!
> becaue of the devastating collision result !!
Since you never even tried looking up the papers, you really have no
idea what you are talking about.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ----------------
Randy Poe
Y.Porat wrote:
> about
> 10 -16 or 10 -10
So there is an experiment that says the photon mass
is < 10^-16 eV, and there is another experiment that
says the photon mass is < 10^-10 eV.
> do you think that you are entitled to pick up only waht fits you ??
No, I believe both experiments.
Now think: can both statements be true?
x < 10^-16 AND x < 10^-10
Think, think, think.
- Randy
Y.Porat
Einstein was
E=mC^2
he or anyone elsedidnt say it applies only to massive objects
or photons :
just ahve a look a this that took me 10 seconds to find in Google:
------------
Conversion of energy into mass.
The deep connection Einstein discovered between energy and mass is
expressed in the equation E=mc² . Here E represents energy, m
represents mass, and c² is a very large number, the square of the
speed of light. Full confirmation was slow in coming. In Paris in 1933,
Irène and Frédéric Joliot-Curie took a photograph showing the
conversion of energy into mass. A quantum of light, invisible here,
carries energy up from beneath. In the middle it changes into mass --
two freshly created particles which curve away from each other.
Click here for Einstein's voice explaining the formula
-----------------------
not only mass is converted to energy
but energy is converted into massive
particles !!!!
what do you have to sau about it ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------
Y.Porat
may be even more than you (:-)
so how do you expalin that ??
th eexplaantion is that .........
THOSE EXPERIMENTS ARE VERY COURSE!!
and whiloe it is course you cant 'fish in the dirthy water
and to take out of it only your BIASED IDEA DESUTLS !!
if it is raw than we have to rely more on
E=mc^2 =hf
and
m photon =hf/c^2 !!
it is theoretically so as i showed you a quote just below a few minutes
ago
and it fits the course experimental measurments
if you take some of the low frequency photons
now you and PD ask why only some low f ??
than i tell you
1 i have an advantage on you
a because i have the theoretic base that i showed you
that =mc^2 for photonas as well
and photons can be reconverted to mass as well
b
an additional to the above theory- the experiemntal measurmwent
now PD was tryint to teach me that i dont know waht is the
meaning of 'upper limit'
since i am an ignorant i thought that
10-10 electron volts it a highr 'upper limit' than 10-16
do you think different ??
unless you are biased withthe idea that the smaller value of mass or
energy
-the betetr !!!
but i am biased for :
th e bigger - the better
and this discussion even gave me an insight new claim
that the not only those measurments of cross verification of photon
mass-
ARE VERY CLUMSY!
but they have a theretical and paractical objestive handicap!!
IE LACK OF FOITNESS BETWEEN THE MEASURING ENTITY
(SAY A MAGMETIC FIELD OF OUR EARTH
AND THE MEASURED OBJECT ENERGY IE TH EPHOTON MASS!!
iow a too gig difference in enery intensity betwen the above two!!
the gama photons are so agressive that they smash the
measuring field as it was noting !!
i gave the tangible metaphore:
a cannon bullet that hits a pillow of feathers!!
please while you respond respond even to my new insight !!
(that is in addition to all the other arguments of
basic furmula withthe obvious term m'
and the reversibility of mass ansd energy)
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
Josef Goebeless in\mbecil
did *you read * that paper??
ddi you read all the refferences??
the Josef Goebeless syrem was
that basically mose masses of people are lazy dumb and stuipd
sojsut if you pupmp them any lie
many times
and if you appear withthe bigest self confidence
th estupid masses willfolow you
but fucken Shaise
we are in an inteligent society
of people who now something about science
so hey can read the above pater
and see that you dont stop to cheat obfuscate demagiogise etc
they can realise that you are just]
a little piece of hiuman shit
i answer you just for other peope
to know who realy you are
withthe others i will speak SCIENCE.
honest decent scince
not Joesef Goebeless science
i suggest that you will chnge again your name
and come again
not as Varney not as shaisenot as Wake
but a new invented name
but dont worry
it wiil take nomuch time forpeople
to dsicover your real identlty
because a dirthy pigg like
you can be smelled theousands of miles away !!
and it want help you - scince will march on against you and will smash
you !!to littele pieces of shit
Y.P
------------
Y.P
--------------
Eric Gisse
Y.Porat wrote:
> Fucken nazi Shaise
Q: Why do Jews have big noses?
A: Because air is free.
> Josef Goebeless in\mbecil
Q: What happened when the jew walked into the wall with a hard-on?
A: He broke his nose.
>
> did *you read * that paper??
Obviously you did not.
>
> ddi you read all the refferences??
Obviously you did not.
>
> the Josef Goebeless syrem was
Q: Why do Jewish girls like to fuck doggy style?
A: They can't stand to see somebody else have a good time.
> that basically mose masses of people are lazy dumb and stuipd
> sojsut if you pupmp them any lie
> many times
> and if you appear withthe bigest self confidence
> th estupid masses willfolow you
> but fucken Shaise
> we are in an inteligent society
> of people who now something about science
> so hey can read the above pater
> and see that you dont stop to cheat obfuscate demagiogise etc
It must be hard to live a life where you believe everyone and
everything is out to get you.
>
> they can realise that you are just]
> a little piece of hiuman shit
>
> i answer you just for other peope
> to know who realy you are
> withthe others i will speak SCIENCE.
> honest decent scince
> not Joesef Goebeless science
Q: How did the Grand Canyon get there?
A: Two Jews dropped a quarter down a gopher hole.
> i suggest that you will chnge again your name
> and come again
I have used the same name for the past 3 years, paranoid crank.
> not as Varney not as shaisenot as Wake
> but a new invented name
> but dont worry
> it wiil take nomuch time forpeople
> to dsicover your real identlty
> because a dirthy pigg like
> you can be smelled theousands of miles away !!
> and it want help you - scince will march on against you and will smash
> you !!to littele pieces of shit
PORAT SMASH! PORAT SMASH!
RAAAAAAAAH.
>
> Y.P
> ------------
>
>
> Y.P
> --------------
T Wake
sci.physics on Saturday 22 April 2006 07:52, Y.Porat (map...@012.net.il)
had a brainstorm and wrote:
> i suggest that you will chnge again your name
> and come again
> not as Varney not as shaisenot as Wake
You are a semi-literate, retarded, paranoid little shit aren't you?
Obviously it makes you feel better if the people telling you that you are
wrong are all the same person, but sadly for you, we are not.
One day, maybe when you start the lithium, you will realise that you are so
full of nonsense even passing animals are laughing at you.
> but a new invented name
> but dont worry
> it wiil take nomuch time forpeople
> to dsicover your real identlty
> because a dirthy pigg like
> you can be smelled theousands of miles away !!
> and it want help you - scince will march on against you and will smash
> you !!to littele pieces of shit
Are we seeing a genuine breakdown take place here? Brilliant.
--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
Eric Gisse
T Wake wrote:
[snip]
> > but a new invented name
> > but dont worry
> > it wiil take nomuch time forpeople
> > to dsicover your real identlty
> > because a dirthy pigg like
> > you can be smelled theousands of miles away !!
> > and it want help you - scince will march on against you and will smash
> > you !!to littele pieces of shit
>
> Are we seeing a genuine breakdown take place here? Brilliant.
I know I'm doing my part!
I can't quite tell If I should feel bad or not. Then again, every nazi
reference eases the guilt....