The Cockamamie World of Einstein / Brad Guth
1 view
Skip to first unread message
BradGuth
Oct 7, 2010, 3:48:56 PM10/7/10
to Guth Usenet (public but censored)
It looks like I crashed the Google Groups version of Usenet/
newsgroups, as of directly after I’d replied to this one. So, I’ll
try to reconstruct my original thoughts and give it another shot in
the dark, so to speak.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/08a2421e14e95a37?hl=en&scoring=d&
On Oct 6, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:00 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 9:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 10:23 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 5, 6:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 4, 6:23 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 4, 7:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 3, 3:34 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 12:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 10/3/10 9:29 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > And your objective measurement of "Length Contraction" without
> > > > > > > > > > involving gravity is?
>
> > > > > > > > > Many "cosmic ray" initiators are protons moving up to 0.999999999 c
> > > > > > > > > when striking nitrogen or oxygen in the earth atmosphere. The
> > > > > > > > > particle showers can involve billions of particles, many of which
> > > > > > > > > are muons with a mean life of 2.2 µs.
>
> > > > > > > > > How far does light mean make it in 2.2 µs -- lest than 2200 feet!
> > > > > > > > > However, many muons make it to ground detectors because of
> > > > > > > > > relativistic length contraction. From the perspective of the muon
> > > > > > > > > the distance to the ground is foreshortened.
>
> > > > > > > > > See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Time_dilation_and_len...
>
> > > > > > > > Does that mean that I have to give the parrot a cracker?
>
> > > > > > > > Anyone can parrot the mainstream status quo. If that status quo
> > > > > > > > insisted that you must jump off a thousand foot cliff in order to
> > > > > > > > prove that you are worthy, would you comply?
>
> > > > > > > > Relative to something, we are moving at 99.5% the speed of light, and
> > > > > > > > yet nothing here or anywhere else is objectively observed as the least
> > > > > > > > bit disk like or otherwise distorted. Why is that?
>
> > > > > > > Because the contraction is only measurable in the frame in which we
> > > > > > > are moving. In our frame, we are at rest, and there is no contraction.
>
> > > > > > > Contraction is not a *frame-independent* phenomenon.
>
> > > > > > > To you, this means that it is not "objectively real".
>
> > > > > > > However, as I've pointed out, there are lots of properties in physics
> > > > > > > that are not frame-independent: even as basic as whether an object is
> > > > > > > moving or not (which is what Galileo realized).
>
> > > > > > Will that's just silly, because you can not objectively prove or
> > > > > > utilize GR/SR without excluding all other possible interpretations.
>
> > > > > First of all, GR/SR does not need to be proven to be utilized.
> > > > > Second, theories in science are NEVER proven, nor is it an objective
> > > > > to try to prove them.
> > > > > Third, science never tries to exclude all other possible theories or
> > > > > models, except through experimental evidence, and even there, it's a
> > > > > matter of picking them off one by one.
>
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > like this game, and I'd like it even better if I too could become
> > > > > > publicly funded to carry on.
>
> > > > That's always good to know, that another trillion spent, decades lost
> > > > and we'll still be where we are today.
>
> > > Billions, not trillions -- don't get carried away.
> > > And what I've described about science is the way science has operated
> > > for 400 years -- no proofs, no exclusion of all other possible
> > > theories. If you consider that a loss, then you really aren't
> > > interested in what science actually does. As for lack of progress,
> > > note that your typing and seeing your responses on the internet is all
> > > the result of science done in the last 80 years or so.
>
> > And how exactly has this 400 years of related science or the 80 year
> > old GR/SR put any grain of food on my table, or any other table?
>
> If you're unaware of the impact of the last 400 years of science for
> food on your table, then you are singularly oblivious. Perhaps you do
> not know that 95% of the technology we use now is based on and
> dependent on our mastery of the electromagnetic interaction, which
> wasn't at all understood until about 150 years ago.
You know damn well exactly what I mean. We’re talking GR/SR related
matters, but then you bring in the all-inclusive scope of science like
another mainstream fart in a crowded elevator, and as always in total
denial of the spendy stink that you’ve contributed.
>
> As for GR/SR, no, it doesn't put food on your table, but it has helped
> cure patients of cancer. Proton therapy machines are particle
> accelerators whose principles hinge on relativity, for example.
Utter horse pucky.
Since you’ve never cared about the safety or well-being of any coal or
mineral miner, or for that matter about any Big Energy hydrocarbon,
petrochemical or industrial chemical related injuries or deaths
(including those of downwind and groundwater contaminated or outright
having been killed by their horrific blowouts and other careless for-
profit actions), therefore don’t start suggesting the selected few
that get whatever experimental particle accelerator derived proton
therapy makes it all worth while, because by most interpretations
that’s not even derived from GR/SR theory as you claim.
>
> But more to the point, FUNDAMENTAL research in science is done
> EXPLICITLY NOT with the aim of improvement of daily life, though
> invariably it works its way to improving daily life. Most fundamental
> physics is done just to understand how nature works, period.
> Certainly, when Newton came up with his universal law of gravity, he
> had *no* idea how that law could be used for improvement of everyday
> life, nor was there any reason for him to need to. The same goes for
> quantum mechanics -- no applications foreseen at the time of the
> hottest work on it in the 1920's and 1930's, but it sure plays an
> important role in our everyday lives now.
GR/SR is not an objective science, it’s a very spendy and resource
hungry theory that’s subjective and doesn’t actually apply to
terrestrial science or bring about any better quality of life as we
know it. Science is supposed to benefit us, whereas thus far GR/SR
doesn’t.
>
> > In other words, how did humanity and our planet ever manage to survive
> > before you Einstein wizards ever having come up with such GR/SR
> > theories?
>
> You could ask the same thing about how we survived before
> understanding genetics, or how we survived before we understood
> chemistry, or how we survived before we controlled electricity.
There are existing villages or if you like sizable communities of
experienced natives in a number of countries that have been surviving
perfectly fine and dandy as is, functioning pretty much exactly as
they did a thousand years ago (meaning without electricity, natural
gas or indoor plumbing), and if it wasn’t for your kind of GR/SR
wizards wasting precious time, as well as having diverted our public-
funded expertise and resources, perhaps they and millions of others
would be a whole lot better off (including our environment and its
badly depleted biodiversity that your type pretty much cares less
about whatever pillaging and polluting).
>
> > Don't give us any of that GPS crap, because our moon is continually
> > modulating us in addition to what the sun modulates our planet by such
> > an extent that we can't ever tell for absolute certain exactly where
> > we're at, not to mention our planet shrinkage from old age and its
> > loss of mass.
>
> > It seems to me you've got theories about theories up your mainstream
> > wazoo. How about my theory of you smart and mostly public-funded guys
> > offering us village idiots a little payback?
>
> What did you have in mind in the way of payback?
How about your spendy GR/SR theory telling us the best available
truths about our moon, such as the matter of fact that because Earth
is getting continually modulated by the moon and our sun, and
subsequently flexing its fluid shape, is perhaps why we can’t really
objectively tell if that moon is moving away or towards us. Since
Earth has been losing roughly a tonne/sec (perhaps <90% human caused)
might tend to suggest that it should be moving away.
Otherwise, how about your GR/SR collective expertise accomplishing a
minimal 1%/year payback on our all-inclusive public investments. Do
you think they could accomplish this rather minimal rate, say starting
within a decade or century? (how about along with compounded interest
from the past 8+ decades of mostly public-funded investments in your
Einstein GR/SR)
Perhaps all of you devout GR/SR Einstein lovers can muster up the
necessary loot in order to start paying us back, or at least showing
us objective results that actually matter to anyone on Earth that
isn’t employed and/or contracted by GR/SR to begin with.
~ BG
newsgroups, as of directly after I’d replied to this one. So, I’ll
try to reconstruct my original thoughts and give it another shot in
the dark, so to speak.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/08a2421e14e95a37?hl=en&scoring=d&
On Oct 6, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:00 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 9:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 10:23 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 5, 6:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 4, 6:23 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 4, 7:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 3, 3:34 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 12:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 10/3/10 9:29 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > And your objective measurement of "Length Contraction" without
> > > > > > > > > > involving gravity is?
>
> > > > > > > > > Many "cosmic ray" initiators are protons moving up to 0.999999999 c
> > > > > > > > > when striking nitrogen or oxygen in the earth atmosphere. The
> > > > > > > > > particle showers can involve billions of particles, many of which
> > > > > > > > > are muons with a mean life of 2.2 µs.
>
> > > > > > > > > How far does light mean make it in 2.2 µs -- lest than 2200 feet!
> > > > > > > > > However, many muons make it to ground detectors because of
> > > > > > > > > relativistic length contraction. From the perspective of the muon
> > > > > > > > > the distance to the ground is foreshortened.
>
> > > > > > > > > See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Time_dilation_and_len...
>
> > > > > > > > Does that mean that I have to give the parrot a cracker?
>
> > > > > > > > Anyone can parrot the mainstream status quo. If that status quo
> > > > > > > > insisted that you must jump off a thousand foot cliff in order to
> > > > > > > > prove that you are worthy, would you comply?
>
> > > > > > > > Relative to something, we are moving at 99.5% the speed of light, and
> > > > > > > > yet nothing here or anywhere else is objectively observed as the least
> > > > > > > > bit disk like or otherwise distorted. Why is that?
>
> > > > > > > Because the contraction is only measurable in the frame in which we
> > > > > > > are moving. In our frame, we are at rest, and there is no contraction.
>
> > > > > > > Contraction is not a *frame-independent* phenomenon.
>
> > > > > > > To you, this means that it is not "objectively real".
>
> > > > > > > However, as I've pointed out, there are lots of properties in physics
> > > > > > > that are not frame-independent: even as basic as whether an object is
> > > > > > > moving or not (which is what Galileo realized).
>
> > > > > > Will that's just silly, because you can not objectively prove or
> > > > > > utilize GR/SR without excluding all other possible interpretations.
>
> > > > > First of all, GR/SR does not need to be proven to be utilized.
> > > > > Second, theories in science are NEVER proven, nor is it an objective
> > > > > to try to prove them.
> > > > > Third, science never tries to exclude all other possible theories or
> > > > > models, except through experimental evidence, and even there, it's a
> > > > > matter of picking them off one by one.
>
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > like this game, and I'd like it even better if I too could become
> > > > > > publicly funded to carry on.
>
> > > > That's always good to know, that another trillion spent, decades lost
> > > > and we'll still be where we are today.
>
> > > Billions, not trillions -- don't get carried away.
> > > And what I've described about science is the way science has operated
> > > for 400 years -- no proofs, no exclusion of all other possible
> > > theories. If you consider that a loss, then you really aren't
> > > interested in what science actually does. As for lack of progress,
> > > note that your typing and seeing your responses on the internet is all
> > > the result of science done in the last 80 years or so.
>
> > And how exactly has this 400 years of related science or the 80 year
> > old GR/SR put any grain of food on my table, or any other table?
>
> If you're unaware of the impact of the last 400 years of science for
> food on your table, then you are singularly oblivious. Perhaps you do
> not know that 95% of the technology we use now is based on and
> dependent on our mastery of the electromagnetic interaction, which
> wasn't at all understood until about 150 years ago.
You know damn well exactly what I mean. We’re talking GR/SR related
matters, but then you bring in the all-inclusive scope of science like
another mainstream fart in a crowded elevator, and as always in total
denial of the spendy stink that you’ve contributed.
>
> As for GR/SR, no, it doesn't put food on your table, but it has helped
> cure patients of cancer. Proton therapy machines are particle
> accelerators whose principles hinge on relativity, for example.
Utter horse pucky.
Since you’ve never cared about the safety or well-being of any coal or
mineral miner, or for that matter about any Big Energy hydrocarbon,
petrochemical or industrial chemical related injuries or deaths
(including those of downwind and groundwater contaminated or outright
having been killed by their horrific blowouts and other careless for-
profit actions), therefore don’t start suggesting the selected few
that get whatever experimental particle accelerator derived proton
therapy makes it all worth while, because by most interpretations
that’s not even derived from GR/SR theory as you claim.
>
> But more to the point, FUNDAMENTAL research in science is done
> EXPLICITLY NOT with the aim of improvement of daily life, though
> invariably it works its way to improving daily life. Most fundamental
> physics is done just to understand how nature works, period.
> Certainly, when Newton came up with his universal law of gravity, he
> had *no* idea how that law could be used for improvement of everyday
> life, nor was there any reason for him to need to. The same goes for
> quantum mechanics -- no applications foreseen at the time of the
> hottest work on it in the 1920's and 1930's, but it sure plays an
> important role in our everyday lives now.
GR/SR is not an objective science, it’s a very spendy and resource
hungry theory that’s subjective and doesn’t actually apply to
terrestrial science or bring about any better quality of life as we
know it. Science is supposed to benefit us, whereas thus far GR/SR
doesn’t.
>
> > In other words, how did humanity and our planet ever manage to survive
> > before you Einstein wizards ever having come up with such GR/SR
> > theories?
>
> You could ask the same thing about how we survived before
> understanding genetics, or how we survived before we understood
> chemistry, or how we survived before we controlled electricity.
There are existing villages or if you like sizable communities of
experienced natives in a number of countries that have been surviving
perfectly fine and dandy as is, functioning pretty much exactly as
they did a thousand years ago (meaning without electricity, natural
gas or indoor plumbing), and if it wasn’t for your kind of GR/SR
wizards wasting precious time, as well as having diverted our public-
funded expertise and resources, perhaps they and millions of others
would be a whole lot better off (including our environment and its
badly depleted biodiversity that your type pretty much cares less
about whatever pillaging and polluting).
>
> > Don't give us any of that GPS crap, because our moon is continually
> > modulating us in addition to what the sun modulates our planet by such
> > an extent that we can't ever tell for absolute certain exactly where
> > we're at, not to mention our planet shrinkage from old age and its
> > loss of mass.
>
> > It seems to me you've got theories about theories up your mainstream
> > wazoo. How about my theory of you smart and mostly public-funded guys
> > offering us village idiots a little payback?
>
> What did you have in mind in the way of payback?
How about your spendy GR/SR theory telling us the best available
truths about our moon, such as the matter of fact that because Earth
is getting continually modulated by the moon and our sun, and
subsequently flexing its fluid shape, is perhaps why we can’t really
objectively tell if that moon is moving away or towards us. Since
Earth has been losing roughly a tonne/sec (perhaps <90% human caused)
might tend to suggest that it should be moving away.
Otherwise, how about your GR/SR collective expertise accomplishing a
minimal 1%/year payback on our all-inclusive public investments. Do
you think they could accomplish this rather minimal rate, say starting
within a decade or century? (how about along with compounded interest
from the past 8+ decades of mostly public-funded investments in your
Einstein GR/SR)
Perhaps all of you devout GR/SR Einstein lovers can muster up the
necessary loot in order to start paying us back, or at least showing
us objective results that actually matter to anyone on Earth that
isn’t employed and/or contracted by GR/SR to begin with.
~ BG
BradGuth
Oct 7, 2010, 3:51:40 PM10/7/10
to Guth Usenet (public but censored)
Did I just break our Google Groups version of Usenet/newsgroups?
Google Groups version of Usenet seems rather broken or dead, as having
been accepting our contributions but then it’s not updating itself in
order to display our replies, as though it has turned into a somewhat
dysfunctional Usenet/newsgroup black hole.
Since my “Guth Usenet” account is still up and working like a charm
and public accessible for anyone to contribute and read whatever
updates, must mean that those individuals or special interest groups
(usually faith-based and redneck ZNR/GOP types) in charge of whatever
the general public and media get to read of Usenet/newsgroups, is
being intentionally terminated or simply as having been diverted or
hacked to death in order to accomplish the task of mainstream damage-
control.
Obviously it’s not any local problem with my computer or that of its
DSL provider, and obviously it’s not any Google Groups glitch if my
personal stuff and “Guth Usenet” is still working while all of other
public and moderated newsgroup stuff isn’t. Clearly Google Groups
version of Usenet/newsgroups has been compromised and/or is being
intentionally hacked to death.
I had only recently replaced the “uk.media.newspapers” newsgroup with
“sci.astro.ccd-imaging”, so perhaps that’s where things got all
screwed up, because that newsgroup has summarily died with my topic
being stuck at the top of its newsgroup page. Otherwise it’s not my
fault that my Google Groups account has been showing 37000+ views of
my topics and replies per week should be causing such problems, unless
my topic and other replies were causing too much drain on the local
server bandwidth. Apparently we’ve gotten too close to the Google
Usenet event horizon, because we’re sucked into its black hole where
our stuff goes in, but then noting comes back out.
alt.astronomy, uk.media.newspapers, alt.news-media,
alt.planets.venus, alt.journalism
-
alt.astronomy, sci.astro.ccd-imaging, alt.news-media,
alt.planets.venus, alt.journalism
“Guth Venus / Brad Guth and the hot planet 2.02”
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.ccd-imaging/browse_frm/thread/47eab5a34790be03?hl=en#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth / Blog and Google document pages:
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
On Oct 7, 12:48 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks like I crashed the Google Groups version of Usenet/
> newsgroups, as of directly after I’d replied to this one. So, I’ll
> try to reconstruct my original thoughts and give it another shot in
> the dark, so to speak.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/08a242...
Google Groups version of Usenet seems rather broken or dead, as having
been accepting our contributions but then it’s not updating itself in
order to display our replies, as though it has turned into a somewhat
dysfunctional Usenet/newsgroup black hole.
Since my “Guth Usenet” account is still up and working like a charm
and public accessible for anyone to contribute and read whatever
updates, must mean that those individuals or special interest groups
(usually faith-based and redneck ZNR/GOP types) in charge of whatever
the general public and media get to read of Usenet/newsgroups, is
being intentionally terminated or simply as having been diverted or
hacked to death in order to accomplish the task of mainstream damage-
control.
Obviously it’s not any local problem with my computer or that of its
DSL provider, and obviously it’s not any Google Groups glitch if my
personal stuff and “Guth Usenet” is still working while all of other
public and moderated newsgroup stuff isn’t. Clearly Google Groups
version of Usenet/newsgroups has been compromised and/or is being
intentionally hacked to death.
I had only recently replaced the “uk.media.newspapers” newsgroup with
“sci.astro.ccd-imaging”, so perhaps that’s where things got all
screwed up, because that newsgroup has summarily died with my topic
being stuck at the top of its newsgroup page. Otherwise it’s not my
fault that my Google Groups account has been showing 37000+ views of
my topics and replies per week should be causing such problems, unless
my topic and other replies were causing too much drain on the local
server bandwidth. Apparently we’ve gotten too close to the Google
Usenet event horizon, because we’re sucked into its black hole where
our stuff goes in, but then noting comes back out.
alt.astronomy, uk.media.newspapers, alt.news-media,
alt.planets.venus, alt.journalism
-
alt.astronomy, sci.astro.ccd-imaging, alt.news-media,
alt.planets.venus, alt.journalism
“Guth Venus / Brad Guth and the hot planet 2.02”
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.ccd-imaging/browse_frm/thread/47eab5a34790be03?hl=en#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth / Blog and Google document pages:
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
On Oct 7, 12:48 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks like I crashed the Google Groups version of Usenet/
> newsgroups, as of directly after I’d replied to this one. So, I’ll
> try to reconstruct my original thoughts and give it another shot in
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages