Re: How would we know Herbert Dingle was right or wrong?

[Pentcho Valev]

On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> On 1/24/12 1/24/12 8:01 PM, train wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is valid.
> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because of the
> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>
> Tom Roberts

"Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a
debate, Honest Roberts. Let us concentrate on the crucial one:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Tom Honest Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was
intended to measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the
“lumeniferous aether” which was at the time presumed to carry
electromagnetic phenomena. The failure of it and the other early
experiments to actually observe the Earth's motion through the aether
became significant in promoting the acceptance of Einstein's theory of
Special Relativity, as it was appreciated from early on that
Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was more elegant and parsimonious
of assumptions than were other approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell,
Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz, Ritz, and Abraham)."

Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary
with the speed of the light source, as predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source, which was to become
Einstein's second postulate (the light postulate) in 1905. Einstein's
"elegant and parsimonious of assumptions" approach involved, as Banesh
Hoffmann put it, "recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light
consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.fr/James-Smith-Introduction-relativit%C3%A9-EIntroduction/dp/B0014P9USI
James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité": "Si la lumière était un
flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il
n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de
l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une
fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur
et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la
lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport
à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la
vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement
ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se
propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel
elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à
leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND
EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE
CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/25/12 1/25/12 1:10 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:

>> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is valid.
>> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because of the
>> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>

> "Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a
> debate,

Your problem, not mine. And this is not really a debate.

> Let us concentrate on the crucial one:

> The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) [...]

>
> Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
> confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary

> with the speed of the light source, [...]

This is NOT any sort of "truth". The MMX did no such thing.

The MMX showed that for their interferometer, no significant fringe shift is
seen. That is ALL THAT IT DID, and this has been confirmed in many repetitions.
That result is in agreement with the prediction of SR, and with the predictions
of several other theories, including emission and ballistic theories such as
Newton's. So this is not a "crucial" experiment at all, because by itself it is
insufficient to distinguish among many different theories -- you MUST look at
multiple experiments.

[When one looks at all of the experiments, SR remains unrefuted
within its domain, as does an infinite class of theories
in which the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in
every inertial frame. No emission or ballistic theory of light
is among them.]

None of your quotations are actually relevant. You REALLY need to learn how to
read, and to understand what you read.


Tom Roberts

[Androcles]

"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0qSdnQtdA_w...@giganews.com...

| On 1/25/12 1/25/12 1:10 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
| > sci.physics.relativity:
| >> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR is
valid.
| >> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid, because
of the
| >> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
| >>
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
| >> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
| >
| > "Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a
| > debate,
|
| Your problem, not mine. And this is not really a debate.
|
|
| > Let us concentrate on the crucial one:
| > The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) [...]
| >
| > Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
| > confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary
| > with the speed of the light source, [...]
|
| This is NOT any sort of "truth". The MMX did no such thing.
|
| The MMX showed that for their interferometer, no significant fringe shift
is
| seen. That is ALL THAT IT DID,

Lying bastard, it showed that no significant fringe shift is seen while
hurtling through the supposed aether at 18.5 miles/second.

[Pentcho Valev]

The irrelevant quotations (according to Tom Honest Roberts):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

If the above quotations are irrelevant, Honest Roberts, then I will
have to accept the fundamental truth discovered by you and Jean-Marc
Lévy-Leblond: Even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected" and "today's foundations of
modern physics would not be threatened":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/bup.pdf
Jean-Marc LÉVY-LEBLOND: "Maintenant il s'agit de savoir si le photon a
vraiment une masse nulle. Pour un physicien, il est absolument
impossible d'affirmer qu'une grandeur, quelle qu'elle soit, a
rigoureusement la valeur zéro, pas plus d'ailleurs que n'importe
quelle autre valeur. Tout ce que je sais de la masse du photon, c'est
ce que disent mes collègues expérimentateurs : "Elle est très faible !
Inférieure, selon nos mesures actuelles, à 10^(-50)kg". Mais si
demain, on découvre que cette masse est non-nulle, alors, le photon ne
va pas à la vitesse de la lumière... Certes, il irait presque toujours
à une vitesse tellement proche de la vitesse limite que nous ne
verrions que difficilement la différence, mais conceptuellement, il
pourrait exister des photons immobiles, et la différence est
essentielle. Or, nous ne saurons évidemment jamais si la masse est
rigoureusement nulle ; nous pourrons diminuer la borne supérieure,
mais jamais l'annuler. Acceptons donc l'idée que la masse du photon
est nulle, et que les photons vont à la vitesse limite, mais
n'oublions pas que ce n'est pas une nécessité. Cela est important pour
la raison suivante. Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit
capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a
pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa
masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse
de la lumière". Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les
journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est
trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien
contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité ! Einstein a certe
construit sa théorie en analysant des échanges de signaux lumineux
propagés à la vitesse limite. Si on trouve que le photon a une masse
non-nulle, ce sera que cette vitesse n'est pas la vitesse limite, et
la démonstration initiale s'effondre donc. Mais ce n'est pas parce
qu'une démonstration est erronée que son résultat est faux ! Quand
vous avez une table à plusieurs pieds, vous pouvez en couper un, elle
continue à tenir debout. Et heureusement, la théorie de la relativité
a plusieurs pieds."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Uwe Hayek]

On 1/25/2012 4:19 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/25/12 1/25/12 1:10 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> sci.physics.relativity:
>>> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR
>>> is valid.
>>> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid,
>>> because of the
>>> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>>> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>>
>> "Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a
>> debate,
>
> Your problem, not mine. And this is not really a debate.

The typical problem of the typical SR-ian being blind and saying it is
you who are blind.

>
>
>> Let us concentrate on the crucial one:
>> The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) [...]
>>
>> Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
>> confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary
>> with the speed of the light source, [...]
>
> This is NOT any sort of "truth". The MMX did no such thing.
>
> The MMX showed that for their interferometer, no significant fringe
> shift is seen. That is ALL THAT IT DID, and this has been confirmed in
> many repetitions. That result is in agreement with the prediction of SR,
> and with the predictions of several other theories, including emission
> and ballistic theories such as Newton's. So this is not a "crucial"
> experiment at all, because by itself it is insufficient to distinguish
> among many different theories -- you MUST look at multiple experiments.
>
> [When one looks at all of the experiments, SR remains unrefuted
> within its domain, as does an infinite class of theories
> in which the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in
> every inertial frame. No emission or ballistic theory of light
> is among them.]
>
> None of your quotations are actually relevant. You REALLY need to learn
> how to read, and to understand what you read.

It will only get solved if you learn to understand what you preach.

You are not equally guilty, just very slightly less. But guilty
nevertheless.

To the engineer it might not be relevant, he can calculate in his moving
lab and use Einstein. But a physicist is not just a formula provider for
engineers. The public expects from physicists to explain them how the
universe works. If you doubt that, then see the success Hawking and
others have with their publications.

Uwe Hayek.

[train]

> http://www.amazon.fr/James-Smith-Introduction-relativit%C3%A9-EIntrod...

> James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité": "Si la lumière était un
> flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il
> n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de
> l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une
> fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur
> et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la
> lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport
> à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la
> vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement
> ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se
> propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel
> elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à
> leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND
> EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE
> CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Well obviously the MMX was the equivalent of playing a game of
billiards and seeing if the path of the balls was affected by an ether
wind. Nothing happenned. Therefore the ballistic theory of billiard
games would hold, and ether would be disproved.

I agree that the MMX was not sufficient to prove the second postulate,
however, it did away with the ether. And AE referred to it in the 1920
book:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html

"
Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed
relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists
were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at
the earth’s surface. 6
In one of the most notable of these attempts Michelson devised a
method which appears as though it must be decisive.
"

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 24, 6:01 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Annals of Relativistic Criticism will not be complete without the
> name Herbert Dingle. Made famous for his articles in Nature magazine,
> and the subsequent heated arguments subsequent, he is still regarded
> as either a crank or a genius who pioneered the fight against the
> error of Relativity and perhaps Relativism.

Those who call Dingle wrong are ignorant what these transforms are all
about. They do not even understand the very basic Galilean
transform. <shrug>

Under the Galilean transform, there are always 2 observers and 1
observed (target). The transformation describes the relationship
between how each observer observes the same observed (same target).
For a simple mathematical reasoning, if there are 2 observed (2
targets), the application must call out for 2 transformations. It
should not be confused as a single transformation written with its
reciprocal form. The Lorentz transform is no different. <shrug>

Say the observers are #1 and #2, and the observed are #3 and #4.
Then, the time transformations of the Lorentz transform are found
below. Oh, PD, the college profession, is claiming these are not the
Lorentz transform.

1) dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

2) dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s14] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** dt1 = time flow rate of 1
** [v12] = velocity of 2 as observed by 1
** [s13] = displacement vector of 3 as observed by 1
** ‘*’ = dot product of 2 vectors
** All others self-explanatory

In the scenario of the twins’ paradox, each observer is observing the
other observer. Thus, in this system, there are 2 observers and 2
observed (2 targets). 2 sets of the Lorentz transforms must be
utilized just like the ones described above. In doing so, the above
transformations can be reduced to the following where #3 merges with
#2 in equation 1) (#2 is observing itself) and #4 merges with #1 in 2)
(#1 is observing itself). <shrug>

3) dt1 = dt2 / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

4) dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

Where

** d[s22] = d[s11] = 0

Thus, Dingle was right after all. <shrug>

The mistake among the self-styled physicists is to use the same
transformation with its reciprocal form. In this case, the same
transformation with its reciprocal form is the following where there
only 2 observers and 1 observed.

5) dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

6) dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s13] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

The next step is to merge #3 with either #2 or #1 to obtain the
following.

7) dt1 = dt2 sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

Or

7) dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

The self-styled physicists ought to be ashamed themselves. Sooner or
later, they have to acknowledge their embarrassing mistake. The
longer it waits, the bigger the embarrassment is to come. <shrug>

[Roger Onslow]

Shame you just don't understand the math you are writing .. you're
rather like fellow crackpot Dono.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 26, 6:56 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:

What gave it away? Can you point out which equations are Lorentz
transforms and which are not? Specifically, what are you bitching
about? Just for the sake of bitching about things you don’t
understand? Typical Einstein Dingleberry. <shrug>

> you're rather like fellow crackpot Dono.

Dono is a zealous Einstein Dingleberry. The idiot worships Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Apparently, you have no
idea what you are talking about. Go back eating your buddy Tonico
out. <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

> you're rather like fellow crackpot Dono.

Dono is a zealous Einstein Dingleberry. The idiot worships Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Apparently, you have no
idea what you are talking about. Go back eating your buddy Tonico
out. <shrug>

_______________________________________________
Typical crank response. Just because you don't understand Relativity doesn't
mean it is wrong; it just means you are lazy and/or stupid.

HTH

[Koobee Wublee]

"Peter Webb" the wrote:

> > Dono is a zealous Einstein Dingleberry. The idiot worships Einstein
> > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Apparently, you have no
> > idea what you are talking about. Go back eating your buddy Tonico
> > out. <shrug>
>

> Typical crank response. Just because you don't understand Relativity doesn't
> mean it is wrong; it just means you are lazy and/or stupid.

Typical bigotry response. If one does not agree with you, just attack
his personality. After all, peter webb has demonstrated that he does
not understand the Lorentz transform. So, voicing his useless opinion
makes him a male prostitute paying lip service for self-styled
physicists. Oh, self-styled physicists have plenty of these
prostitutes who don’t understand the issues at hand but mouthing their
mouths off about something they are not capable of understanding.
peter webb is an example. <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e61ba2c-a209-420a...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

"Peter Webb" the wrote:

> > Dono is a zealous Einstein Dingleberry. The idiot worships Einstein
> > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Apparently, you have no
> > idea what you are talking about. Go back eating your buddy Tonico
> > out. <shrug>
>
> Typical crank response. Just because you don't understand Relativity
> doesn't
> mean it is wrong; it just means you are lazy and/or stupid.

Typical bigotry response.

_________________________
I don't think you know what the word "bigot" means.

If one does not agree with you, just attack
his personality.

______________________________
Like what you do, hence your words "idiot", "nitwit", "plagiarist", and
"eating out your buddy Tonico". lets add hypocricy to the list.

After all, peter webb has demonstrated that he does
not understand the Lorentz transform.

___________________________________
No, lets add the word "liar", unless you can produce evidence.

So, voicing his useless opinion
makes him a male prostitute paying lip service for self-styled
physicists. Oh, self-styled physicists have plenty of these
prostitutes who don’t understand the issues at hand but mouthing their
mouths off about something they are not capable of understanding.
peter webb is an example. <shrug>

___________________________________
So from your previous post we have accumulated evidence that you are lazy
and/or stupid, from this one we have evidence you are a hypocrite and a
liar.

You mouth off that Relativity is wrong, but you never say where or what is
wrong. This is because you don't understand the theory well enough to find
fault, and you know this is true so you avoid answering any questions about
physics.

For example, I have asked you this simple question many times before, and
you never answer.

In the so called twin paradox, in your opinion, does the travelling twin
return younger, older, or the same age as the stay at home twin.

You are always very careful to *not* discuss physics, as you know nothing
about it and realise that you will just end up looking even more foolish
than you do already. So inevitably when asked questions about physics, you
avoid the question and talk instaed about homosexual oral sex (or some other
subject which you are more knowledgable about).

The sad thing is that your rejection of Relativity comes from deep seated
anti-semitism; it doesn't take much for you to launch into an attack on
Jews, and its clear that your rejection of Relativity is not based upon
physics, but rather your hatred of Jews.

I personally find this extremely distasteful; abusing physics to try and
abuse Jews is perverse on several levels.

Why don't you prove me wrong? Why don't you tell us exactly what equations
or predictions of SR that you consider incorrect, and we shall see if you
have any knowledge of physics or substance whatsoever, or if you are simply
an anti-semite obsessed with homosexual intercourse.

You could start by answering the following simple question: "In the so
called twin paradox, in your opinion, does the travelling twin return
younger, older, or the same age as the stay at home twin.".

When we see your answer, if it actually addresses the question, I will then
ask you some questions about some specific experiments and see if your
answer is consistent with experimental results.

Of course, if you instead answer the question with discussion about oral
homosexual intercourse (as you normally do), I will point out that you
(again) know shit about physics, and are just a repulsive little racist who
gets his rocks off by spewing profanity in public.

[Koobee Wublee]

peter webb the relativity prostitute wrote:

> [lying garbage snipped]

peter webb and tonico are just relativity prostitutes and liars doing
the disruptive works for Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

In the meantime, allow Him to repeat what he wrote in case if others
have missed it.

[train]

How would you apply the above to the train and platform experiment?

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 29, 8:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/29/12 1/29/12 5:52 PM, train wrote:

> > What I mean to say is that if a physicist suddenly wakes up one
> > morning and starts saying SRT is inconsistent and so on - there goes
> > his livelihood.
>
> Sure, And justifiably so if he JUST "wakes up" and starts spewing nonsense like
> that.

The mathematical inconsistencies in SR are very real. Only idiots who
continue to cling on to their failed religion would utter the nonsense
you just did. <shrug>

> > Not if he can prove what he is saying?
>
> This depends on what he is saying. If, as you say, he claims SR is inconsistent,
> then this putative physicist has an INCREDIBLY difficult task, because the
> mathematics underlying SR has been proven to be as self-consistent as is
> Euclidean geometry, and also as is real analysis.

He agrees with you that this physicist would have an incredibly
difficult task to go forward after pointing out the inconsistencies in
the mathematics of SR. However, the reason is drastically different
from yours. You have maintained SR’s integrity just because you
personally BELIEVE IN as so. You were told by your teachers that SR
is infallible, and you chose to believe in that nonsense than
investigating yourself. That unscientific approach remains your
personal failure. <shrug>

> So a major part of this task
> would be to either a) show that Euclidean geometry is internally inconsistent,
> or

That is rather silly to do. The flaw of SR does not lie in the
Euclidean geometry. Who are you kidding? Yourself? <shrug>

> b) display a flaw in each of the proofs of Minkowskian geometry's
> consistency.

Here we go.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/14d60f5e154ef31c

> Either of those would be at a level worthy of a Fields medal.
>
> If, on the other hand, a physicist came up with an experiment that is within
> SR's domain but does not agree with SR's predictions, he would become famous,
> and be a good candidate for a Nobel prize.

How about a physicist who points out the fallacy in the mathematics of
SR? Would he win a Nobel prize? <shrug>

> Certainly the OPERA experimenters
> could find themselves in this situation, for what is a tiny part of their
> experiment.

Science will eventually toss SR into the trashcan whether you like it
or not. He does not know when it would happen, but it will. The self-
styled physicists since Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar who had believed in the nonsense of SR will be ridiculed. These
idiots will serve as examples of where science had gone wrong.
<shrug>

[train]

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/14d60f5e154...

>
> > Either of those would be at a level worthy of a Fields medal.
>
> > If, on the other hand, a physicist came up with an experiment that is within
> > SR's domain but does not agree with SR's predictions, he would become famous,
> > and be a good candidate for a Nobel prize.
>
> How about a physicist who points out the fallacy in the mathematics of
> SR?  Would he win a Nobel prize?  <shrug>
>
> > Certainly the OPERA experimenters
> > could find themselves in this situation, for what is a tiny part of their
> > experiment.
>
> Science will eventually toss SR into the trashcan whether you like it
> or not.  He does not know when it would happen, but it will.  The self-
> styled physicists since Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> liar who had believed in the nonsense of SR will be ridiculed.  These
> idiots will serve as examples of where science had gone wrong.
> <shrug>

"> If, on the other hand, a physicist came up with an experiment that
is within
> SR's domain but does not agree with SR's predictions, he would become famous,
> and be a good candidate for a Nobel prize"

Absolutely not! One of the automated functions of the current
scientific establishment would be to churn out a standard response to
any such experiment - it will be classed as an anomaly, and a complex
response involving mathematics would suffocate it or at least paralyse
it.

Science has a self protection mechanism, it is true, an immune system,
and when you graft a new idea it resists.

What about the Faster Than Light experiments that we hear of so often?
It would appear that the assumption that 'nothing can travel faster
than light' (relative to what I might ask) has been proved wrong.

Maybe Dingle did not simply get the message, that although he may be
right, there was no way his views could be incorporated into the
system.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 30, 12:13 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" the sperm lover wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:12 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:01 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:
> On 30.01.2012 20:44, Rafael Valls wrote:

> > What elementary algebra shows is that the inverse transform is NOT
> > equal to the direct one, because v is NOT equal to –v. You have no
> > right at all to change v by –v, either mathematically or physically.
>
> [gross confusion among the Einstein Dingleberries snipped]

The velocity transformation of the most general form of Larmor’s
transform can be written as follows. How did He derive that? Ho!
Ho! Ho! <shrug>

** [B12] = (sqrt(1 – B01^2) [B02] – (1 – [B01] * [B02] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B01^2))) [B01]) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])

And

** [B21] = (sqrt(1 – B02^2) [B01] – (1 – [B02] * [B01] / (1 + sqrt(1
– B02^2))) [B02]) / (1 – [B02] * [B01])


Where

** [B12] c = Velocity (vector) of #2 as observed by #1
** [B01] c = Absolute velocity of #1
** [B02] c = Absolute velocity of #2
** * = Dot product of two vectors

On a side note, if both #1 and #2 are moving in parallel, the result
is the velocity transformation for the Lorentz transform.

** dx12/dt1 = (B02 – B01 c) / (1 – B01 B02)
** dy12/dt1 = 0
** dz12/dt1 = 0

And

** dx21/dt2 = (B01 – B02 c) / (1 – B02 B01)
** dy21/dt2 = 0
** dz21/dt2 = 0

Where

** [B01] * [B02] = B01 B02
** [B01] c = dx01/dt0
** [B02] c = dx02/dt0

Clearly in the special case of Larmor’s transform (the Lorentz
transform),

** dx12/dt1 = - dx21/dt2

Or

** B12 = - B21

Now back to the more general case, clearly the following is true that
[B12] is not (– [B21]).

** [B12] != [B21]

However, the motion identity of both Larmor’s and the Lorentz
transforms are identical as described below.

** 1 – B12^2 = (1 – B01^2) (1 – B02^2) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])^2

The Lorentz transform is not mathematically consistent in the more
general case. Thus, Mr. Valls is indeed correct, and the Einstein
Dingleberries are just wrong as usual. <shrug>

[Roger Onslow]

On Jan 31, 1:19 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 12:13 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" the sperm lover wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:12 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> On Jan 30, 3:01 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:
>
> > On 30.01.2012 20:44, Rafael Valls wrote:
> > > What elementary algebra shows is that the inverse transform is NOT
> > > equal to the direct one, because v is NOT equal to –v. You have no
> > > right at all to change v by –v, either mathematically or physically.
>
> > [gross confusion among the Einstein Dingleberries snipped]

None at all

[snip irrelevance]

Nothing left

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e5f23b98-6151-47ee...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

peter webb the relativity prostitute wrote:

> [lying garbage snipped]

peter webb and tonico are just relativity prostitutes and liars doing
the disruptive works for Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

__________________________________________
Of course, the fact that you chose to snip what I actually said rather
implies straight away that you cannot fault it.

In the meantime, allow Him to repeat what he wrote in case if others
have missed it.

Those who call Dingle wrong are ignorant what these transforms are all
about. They do not even understand the very basic Galilean
transform. <shrug>

___________________________________________
Hmm, so you have no answer to what I said, and in crank style just chnage
the topic?

Under the Galilean transform, there are always 2 observers and 1
observed (target). The transformation describes the relationship
between how each observer observes the same observed (same target).
For a simple mathematical reasoning, if there are 2 observed (2
targets), the application must call out for 2 transformations. It
should not be confused as a single transformation written with its
reciprocal form. The Lorentz transform is no different. <shrug>

________________________________________
Perhaps if you were to identify a single experimental prediction of SR which
you consider wrong? You seem to be claiming that it is, but don't provide a
single example.

____________________________________________
So, rather than explaining your understanding of SR, why don't you tell us
what experimental predictions it makes that you consider wrong?

The mistake among the self-styled physicists is to use the same
transformation with its reciprocal form. In this case, the same
transformation with its reciprocal form is the following where there
only 2 observers and 1 observed.

5) dt1 = (dt2 + [v12] * d[s23] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

And

6) dt2 = (dt1 + [v21] * d[s13] / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

The next step is to merge #3 with either #2 or #1 to obtain the
following.

7) dt1 = dt2 sqrt(1 – v12^2 / c^2)

Or

7) dt2 = dt1 / sqrt(1 – v21^2 / c^2)

The self-styled physicists ought to be ashamed themselves. Sooner or
later, they have to acknowledge their embarrassing mistake. The
longer it waits, the bigger the embarrassment is to come. <shrug>

______________________________________________
So far, all you have done is explain your understanding of SR. If I was
interested in an explanation of SR, you would be the last person I would
look to. If you consider that SR is a wrong theory, you have to point to an
experiment where it makes incorrect predictions. This is how the scientific
method works. You have not done this; you have not identified a single
experiment where you think SR makes incorrect predictions. As far as I can
tell, you think all of the predictions of SR are correct. Is this the case?
Do you believe that SR correctly predicts the outcome of all experiments
within its domain of applicability? If so, you must therefore think SR is a
correct theory; if not, tell us the experiment.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 30, 7:48 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> [snipped garbled nonsense]

The prostitute, peter webb, is out again patrolling the forum. The
prostitute does not even have the courtesy of quoting who said what.
<shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 30, 6:27 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:

Koobee Wublee actually meant the following instead.

** [B12] != -[B21]

> > However, the motion identity of both Larmor’s and the Lorentz
> > transforms are identical as described below.
>
> > ** 1 – B12^2 = (1 – B01^2) (1 – B02^2) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])^2
>
> > The Lorentz transform is not mathematically consistent in the more
> > general case. Thus, Mr. Valls is indeed correct, and the Einstein
> > Dingleberries are just wrong as usual. <shrug>
>

> None at all
>
> [snip irrelevance]
>
> Nothing left

Another Einstein Dingleberry and a prostitute who has no balls in
discussing the fallacy of relativity. What else is new? Fvcking sad
as usual. <shrug>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

of course, the Twins' pedagogical paradox only needs
to have those two observers, observing each-other (although
they would mayhap use Sun as a referent
for the stay-at-Eaaarth's shift).

it may be that you have uncovered a problem
in the usual, Einsteinian gedankenspiel,
whereby there "really is" no difference,
in terms of "observed Doppler-Fizeau shifts,"
between teh accelerated & gallilean identical,
fraternal, or just dress-alike twins.

but, you are such a pedant,
you will never bother to check this out;
will you, with the simple quadratic equations
of relativity?... nah;
stick with the linear gallilean ****, dood!

thus:
I strongly doubt that it is not apparent in Diamond's article,
that such results would be deemed (in part) a result
of regs. for instance,
the massive, voluntary market in CO2 credits,
administered by ICE (Atlanta) and CCX (Chicago -- and
Senator Obama).

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 30, 10:01 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/30/12 1/30/12 10:03 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:

> > Clocks in relative motion run at different intrinsic
> > rates.
>
> So you claim. But they do not do so as modeled by relativity. Relativity has
> LOTS of experimental support, while you have nothing.

All the experimental supports for relativity have the following
analogy. Let’s say a hypothesis calls out for flying pigs to exist.
Finding pigs in farms does not prove flying pigs, but in the case of
relativity, flying pigs do exist because pigs do exist. Tom, you can
only fool morons which mean all Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

Granted you have listed a bunch of experimental supports for SR in the
past, but going through them one by one is rather unfair for Him. So,
if you really do believe in SR, you should present the best case, and
watch Him rip it apart. Come on, Tom. What do you have to lose? Oh,
your faith. <shrug>

> > This is illustrated by the GPS. The GPS run at a faster
> > intrinsics rate than the ground clock.
>
> As I have told you many times, this is simply not true. The INTRINSIC rate of
> the Cs oscillator in GPS satellites oscillates at the same INTRINSIC rate as an
> identical one on earth.

There is just no experiment to verify this. Has any experiment on the
speed of light being done in space stations? Probably yes, and the
result would falsify the religion of SR. Thus, the church of SR would
not allow such results to be published. <shrug>

> If this were not true, then the GR model used in the GPS
> simply would not work.

Actually, this is just not true. According to GR, the LOCAL speed of
light is always measured to be the same for the local guy. However,
this speed if compared with other “local guys” can be different. This
is the only way how gravitational time dilation can enter the
picture. However, in doing so, there is a fatal flaw. Please stay
tuned. <shrug>

> Yes, there are gravitational and velocity effects that
> require the GPS satellite clocks to use a non-standard divider in order to
> implement the required coordinate clocks of the ECI coordinates used in the GPS
> -- this is well modeled by GR, in which the intrinsic rate of a clock's
> oscillator does not vary.

Well, what is the center of the earth so special as a frame of
reference? Oh, is it that inertial thing again where any ordinary
frame of reference can become that absolute frame of reference by a
waving of a magic wand? After all, SR and thus GR have tabooed the
absolute frame of reference already. <shrug>

> Exercise for setoken: What is the difference between a standard
> clock and a coordinate clock?

It would help if you also specify proper clock, local clock, and
intrinsic clock. You are just playing word salad games to further
your faith. <shrug>

> > To correct this condition the
> > GPS second is redefined [...]
>
> This is also complete nonsense. GPS time is REQUIRED to be within 1 microsecond
> of UTC modulo leap seconds, so the GPS second MUST be equal to that of UTC, with
> quite stringent accuracy.

What is that? Notice He did not ask if this requirement is in the
application note. If you cannot justify for this, you have no right
to propel this nonsense. <shrug>

> Exercise for setoken: what accuracy in the GPS and UTC definitions
> of a second is required to keep them in agreement to within 1 us
> over 20 years? How does that compare to the divergence between a
> standard clock in GPS satellite orbit and a standard clock on the
> geoid? How does that compare to the accuracy of a Cs atomic clock?
> Do you even know what the geoid is and why it is important here?

Hint: Think a software solution. If a clock is accumulating a
counter by n counts too fast in T period, just subtract n counts from
the counter in T period. Just how difficult can this be? Can self-
styled physicist understand a simple software solution? <shrug>

> You CLEARLY do not understand any of this, including the meanings of the words
> you use. So don't expect me to respond any further.
>
> I will respond if you make a reasonable attempt to do the exercises.

Well, Tom has the right to remain silent, and anything Tom utters can
be used against him and other self-styled physicists. <shrgu>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

atoms have (internal) angular momenta,
that must be accounted for "relativistically," and
this could be the problem with Einstein's gedankenspiel,
viz eyesight;
dig it, Koobee-doo?

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/30/12 1/30/12 5:38 PM, train wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 8:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> If, on the other hand, a physicist came up with an experiment that
>> is within
>> SR's domain but does not agree with SR's predictions, he would become famous,
>> and be a good candidate for a Nobel prize"
>
> Absolutely not! One of the automated functions of the current
> scientific establishment would be to churn out a standard response to
> any such experiment - it will be classed as an anomaly, and a complex
> response involving mathematics would suffocate it or at least paralyse
> it.

You OBVIOUSLY do not know how science actually works.

I am a professional physicist, am a member of the physics faculty at IIT, and I
work at Fermilab, the premier laboratory for high energy physics in the U.S.A. I
have given colloquia and seminars on the experimental tests of SR, and on
numerous other physics topics for which I am an expert.

There have been several seminars on efforts to reproduce and verify OPERA's
result [*], which is PRECISELY what I said: an experiment within SR's domain
that does not agree with its predictions. Their result has not been ignored, or
dismissed as "an anomaly", or "suffocated or paralysed [sic]".

It has not yet been accepted, either. This is how science works,
and their anomalous result is going to be verified by at least
two other groups. If their result is reproduced, it will usher
in a profound revolution in the foundations of physics....
If that happens, the OPERA team will certainly be considered for
a Nobel prize (though the number of people might disqualify them).
If it is confirmed, it will be VERY exciting; but of the hundred or
so physicists I know and work with, NONE have indicated that they
expect the OPERA superluminal neutrino result to hold up. Yes,
this has been a very common subject at lunch and in hallways,
and some lucky people who have a chance to make a measurement are
actively working on it (I am not a member of any of those groups,
but I know people who are).

[*] There was one today, at the All Experimenter's Meeting at
Fermilab; unfortunately I was unable to attend.

> What about the Faster Than Light experiments that we hear of so often?
> It would appear that the assumption that 'nothing can travel faster
> than light' (relative to what I might ask) has been proved wrong.

What "experiments" are these? References, please. But be sure that the
experiments actually send signals faster than the speed of light (e.g. all
quantum tunneling and EPR experiments do not actually do that).

The OPERA result is the only experiment that at present has
any hope of refuting SR's prediction that nothing can travel
faster than the vacuum speed of light.

> Maybe Dingle did not simply get the message, that although he may be
> right, there was no way his views could be incorporated into the
> system.

Yes, there is no way his "views" could be incorporated, because he was wrong.
His claims about SR are just plain not true. and I mean that literally: his
claims were about an internal inconsistency in THE MATHEMATICS of SR that we
KNOW is not present, because it has been proven to be as consistent as is
Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. So this is not about "getting a
message", it is about his lack of very basic understanding of the mathematical
structure of the theory; Dingle did not "get" that. And, apparently, neither do
you. You, at least, could study and overcome your ignorance and errors....


Tom Roberts

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f2374ff0-d0ed-41f9...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

On the contrary, I removed nothing from the post.

You have again snipped what I said.

And in particular, the question I asked you.

Do you believe that SR correctly predicts experimental outcomes within its
domain of applicability ?

If not, which experimental predictions do you consider false?

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c0d251f5-1759-4df8...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

________________________________________
So in the so called twins paradox, do you believe the travelling twin would
return younger, older or the same age as the stay at home twin?

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2749654b-3f50-4356...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 30, 10:01 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/30/12 1/30/12 10:03 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:

> > Clocks in relative motion run at different intrinsic
> > rates.
>
> So you claim. But they do not do so as modeled by relativity. Relativity
> has
> LOTS of experimental support, while you have nothing.

All the experimental supports for relativity have the following
analogy. Let’s say a hypothesis calls out for flying pigs to exist.
Finding pigs in farms does not prove flying pigs, but in the case of
relativity, flying pigs do exist because pigs do exist. Tom, you can
only fool morons which mean all Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

__________________________________________
So, your claim is that *all* of the experimental support for Relativity is
of this nature?

OK, you may be aware that there are dozens of particle accelerators in the
world that accelerate particles to relativistic speeds. In all of them,
particles are observed to obey the relativistic equations, not Newtownian
mechanics. For example, muons accelerated to near light speed decay more
slowly than those at rest.

So, explain to us how this experiment is supposedly similar to your flying
pig analogy.

Thanks in advance,


Peter Webb

[Roger Onslow]

you sure are a sad case <shrug>

[Shmuel Metz]

In <r7SdnWyfBsX...@giganews.com>, on 01/31/2012

at 01:08 AM, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> said:

>If their result is reproduced, it will usher
> in a profound revolution in the foundations of physics....

Why? SR does not preclude the OPERA observation, it merely says that
you can't accelerate from subluminal to transluminal or vice versa.
Admittedly there are issues with quantization, but fundamental?

>SR's prediction that nothing can travel
> faster than the vacuum speed of light.

ITYM physicists' assumptions and philosophical issues.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Koobee Wublee]

> > ** [B12] != - [B21]
>
> > However, the motion identity of both Larmor’s and the Lorentz
> > transforms are identical as described below.
>
> > ** 1 – B12^2 = (1 – B01^2) (1 – B02^2) / (1 – [B01] * [B02])^2
>
> > The Lorentz transform is not mathematically consistent in the more
> > general case. Thus, Mr. Valls is indeed correct, and the Einstein
> > Dingleberries are just wrong as usual. <shrug>
>

> The same is true of the Galilean transform:
>
> x' = x - vt
> t' = t
>
> The inverse:
>
> x = x' + vt'
> t = t'

In vector form, the Galileam transform shows:

** [B12] = [B02] - [B01]

And

** [B21] = [B01] - [B02]

Thus,

** [B12] = - [B21]

The above relationship, describing the Galilean transform, does not
hold for Larmor’s or the Lorentz transform except in the very special
case where both #1 and #2 are traveling in parallel as observed by #0
(see the quoted literature above). <shrug>

Furthermore, all the transformations that satisfy the null results of
the MMX and isotropic speed of light do not themselves satisfy the
principle of relativity since ([B12] != -[B21]). <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 30, 7:38 pm, extreme crank shuba wrote:

> Time dilation results from comparing elapsed coordinate time and
> elapsed proper time.

Referencing the following equation where there is one observer and on
observed,

** dTau^2 = u_00 dt^2 – SUM(SUM(u_ij g_ij dq^i dq^j)) / c^2

Where

** i = 1 to 3, j = 1 to 3

** t, q^1, q^2, q^3 = Observer’s coordinate system

** Tau = Local time at the observed

** SUM(SUM(g_ij dq^i dq^j)) = Segment of flat space as observed by
the observer

** u_00 = Time flow rate scale factor of the observed relative to the
observer

** SUM(SUM(u_ij g_ij dq^i dq^j)) = Local curved space at the observed
if using the observer’s coordinate system to describe it

Thus, your definition of the proper time is only the time flow at the
observed, and your coordinate time is the observer’s own rate of time
flow. For instance, if u_00 < 1, the local time flow rate at the
observed is slower than the one observing it. If you don’t agree,
where do you not agree? <shrug>

> If you had the slightest idea how to apply
> "simple maths" to simple physics, you wouldn't have to wonder.

Let’s see if timid shuba does. <shrug>

> The mathematics and physics are analogous to rotations in a plane.
> Imagine a stick along the x-axis, project its length onto an
> arbitrary x'-axis given by a rotation from the x-axis, and compare
> the projected length with the original length. Then write relevant
> equations in standard trigonometric form, including the y and y'
> axes and the rotation angle.

This issue is not about projection of rulers. According to the
mathematics, it is about comparing in a relative sense of different
time flow rate. <shrug>

> [rest of gross ignorance snipped]

Timid shuba needs to learn better physics instead of relying on
occult. Here is another score for the Orwellian concept of
relativity. <shrug>

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

[Lofty Goat]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:08:03 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> ... SR's prediction that nothing can travel faster than the vacuum
> speed of light....

Doesn't SR predicted only that one can't accelerate anything up to the
speed of light?

--
RLW

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/31/12 1/31/12 7:27 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In<r7SdnWyfBsX...@giganews.com>, on 01/31/2012
> at 01:08 AM, Tom Roberts<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> said:

>> If [the OPERA] result is reproduced, it will usher

>> in a profound revolution in the foundations of physics....
>
> Why? SR does not preclude the OPERA observation, it merely says that
> you can't accelerate from subluminal to transluminal or vice versa.

SR also says that 4-momentum is conserved. 4-momentum conservation prevents a
normal particle (pion) from decaying into another normal particle (muon) plus a
tachyon.

> Admittedly there are issues with quantization, but fundamental?

4-momentum conservation seems pretty "fundamental" to me.

If the signals OPERA sees are not due to neutrinos from pi -> nu + mu [#], that
would be a different but equally profound revolution in the foundations of physics.

[#] Plus a small admixture from muon decay. While the muon decays
into 3 bodies, and is therefore not as constrained as the pion
decay, the relative fraction of those neutrinos is too small to
account for their result.


Tom Roberts

[Peter Webb]

"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wLmdnSlKP5P...@giganews.com...

Yeah, tachyons are given way too much significance in popular expositions of
Relativity. Yes, there are ways of manipulating SR equations to produce
pretty much a mirror image world where c is a lower rather than an upper
limit. But they cannot interact with our world, as any interactions between
particles in different worlds would break the equations in one of them. As I
see it, there is no known way that you could even detect the existence of
this "other world" or the particles within it, which makes it useless for
explaining experimental results in our world.

There is nothing in the biological sciences to preclude the existence of
Unicorns, but that doesn't mean you can invoke them to explain what's eating
the grass in your back paddock.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 30, 11:08 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

> I am a professional physicist, am a member of the physics faculty at IIT, and I
> work at Fermilab, the premier laboratory for high energy physics in the U.S.A. I
> have given colloquia and seminars on the experimental tests of SR, and on
> numerous other physics topics for which I am an expert.

Oh, yes, Tom. We all know about you.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0731631/

Oops! Wrong actor! Try

http://www.iit.edu/csl/phy/faculty/roberts_tom.shtml

Earlier, you were a failure at Lucent Technologies who squandered all
that wealth that Lucent had inherited from the old AT&T to pursue
something totally useless and wrong. Do you know how much money He
had lost on Lucent stock? Never again, He would listen to someone who
claimed to be an expert in the field. No matter how impressive his
resume is. After all, after your failed career at Lucent, you are
pursuing your spiritual need to further your faith in SR. That is not
what science is all about. <shrug>

Oh, whatever happened to your <shrug>? He kind of likes it when you
were so prolific of doing so. <shrug>

> There have been several seminars on efforts to reproduce and verify OPERA's
> result [*], which is PRECISELY what I said: an experiment within SR's domain
> that does not agree with its predictions.

Oh, like what you were saying when you were a supposed-to-be top notch
experimental physicist at Lucent? <shrug>

> Their result has not been ignored, or
> dismissed as "an anomaly", or "suffocated or paralysed [sic]".

But, it will be. <shrug>

> It has not yet been accepted, either.

Obviously. <shrug>

> This is how science works,
> and their anomalous result is going to be verified by at least
> two other groups.

Provided there two independent groups are competent. Going back to
the example of predicting flying pigs, if two independent groups of
morons have decided to claim that flying pigs do exist by discovering
pigs, that does not make the so-called verification valid. <shrug>

> If their result is reproduced, it will usher
> in a profound revolution in the foundations of physics....

The question is that if you would divorce yourself from your faith in
SR. <shrug>

> If that happens, the OPERA team will certainly be considered for
> a Nobel prize (though the number of people might disqualify them).

Nobel Prize awards appear to be random. The team that discovered the
absolute frame of reference through the Doppler shift in CMBR was
completely ignored. <shrug>

> If it is confirmed, it will be VERY exciting;

Come on, Tom. You are just claiming that for the media. Deep down,
please tell us how you would feel when your faith is shattered.
<shrug>

> but of the hundred or
> so physicists I know and work with, NONE have indicated that they
> expect the OPERA superluminal neutrino result to hold up.

That is indeed how a committee would decide what science should be.
<shrug>

> Yes,
> this has been a very common subject at lunch and in hallways,
> and some lucky people who have a chance to make a measurement are
> actively working on it (I am not a member of any of those groups,
> but I know people who are).

He bets that you are not exaggerating about how much time wasted on
chit chatting. Just for curiosity, did these guys in Joliette ever
talk about the Bears much? Growing up in Chicago, He is still a fan,
but we had a glorious year with Ditka in 1985, didn’t we? <shrug>

> [*] There was one today, at the All Experimenter's Meeting at
> Fermilab; unfortunately I was unable to attend.

Were you reciting through the scriptures of SR instead of attending
more important meetings? <shrug>

> His claims [Dingle’s] about SR are just plain not true. And

> I mean that literally: his
> claims were about an internal inconsistency in THE MATHEMATICS of SR that we
> KNOW is not present, because it has been proven to be as consistent as is
> Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis.

Boy, you are so cocky. Dingle was actually right. His failure in
educating the Einstein Dingleberries was not to use the universal
langue of mathematics to justify his argument. During his time, the
faith in SR had sunk in ever so deeply, and today it is even deeper.
In fact, Einstein Dingleberries would have a hard time to follow the
very simple mathematics that discredits SR today. <shrug>

> So this is not about "getting a
> message", it is about his lack of very basic understanding of the mathematical
> structure of the theory; Dingle did not "get" that. And, apparently, neither do
> you.

No, it is about perpetuating the faith in SR and GR. <shrug>

> You, at least, could study and overcome your ignorance and errors....

You need to follow your own great advice for a change. <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

Provided there two independent groups are competent. Going back to
the example of predicting flying pigs, if two independent groups of
morons have decided to claim that flying pigs do exist by discovering
pigs, that does not make the so-called verification valid. <shrug>

_________________________________
Yeah, lets go back to that. You claimed that *all* experimental proofs of SR
adhered to some ridiculous flying pig analogy that you created and continue
to use.

I asked you how the experimental verification of SR's predictions in the
countless particle accelerators around the world that can accelerate
particles to relativistic speeds was supposed to conform to your "flying
pig" analogy, and in particular the measurements of muon decay rates.

No answer from you.

Are you going to justify your claim, or admit it was wrong, or change the
subject, or (again) not reply?

Well?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

You are trying to have a conversation with an autist.
That doesn't work.
You are just wasting his time.

Dirk Vdm

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/31/12 1/31/12 - 11:32 PM, Peter Webb wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

>> SR also says that 4-momentum is conserved. 4-momentum conservation prevents a
>> normal particle (pion) from decaying into another normal particle (muon) plus
>> a tachyon.
>

> Yeah, tachyons are given way too much significance in popular expositions of
> Relativity. Yes, there are ways of manipulating SR equations to produce pretty
> much a mirror image world where c is a lower rather than an upper limit. But
> they cannot interact with our world, as any interactions between particles in
> different worlds would break the equations in one of them. As I see it, there is
> no known way that you could even detect the existence of this "other world" or
> the particles within it, which makes it useless for explaining experimental
> results in our world.

And, of course, there have been LOTS of experimental searches for tachyons, none
of which found any.

Theoretically, the existence of tachyons that interact with normal matter
implies that no manifold of GR can be globally hyperbolic, or even have such a
region, which basically means one cannot solve the Cauchy problem in GR. That
means there is no determinism in GR. All this is contrary to observations.

As you say, if tachyons "exist" but do not interact with normal matter
(including light), then they are outside the realm of science.


Tom Roberts

[Shmuel Metz]

In <wLmdnSlKP5P...@giganews.com>, on 01/31/2012

at 11:01 PM, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> said:

>4-momentum conservation prevents a normal particle (pion) from
>decaying into another normal particle (muon) plus a tachyon.

How so?

[Thomas Heger]

The ideas:

- particle
- light
- space

Are all linked together. The connection is time.

Time is actually a 'filter', that 'sieves' a bunch of phenomena into
categories and our world is a 'time-domain'.

Observers filter, too. If the observer can't find something, it cannot
be there.
But actually 'observer' comes from 'to observe', what means 'to see
something'.

If we can't see it, it can't exist!

But we can generate an invisible world, by turning the filter time into
a different direction. We could make a day VERY short or VERY long.
If in such a world the postulate of relativity is valid, the observed
phenomena are sieved into different categories.

Sound could be light, if we make time slower and photons would be
tachyons then. What is a wave for us would be a material object there.
That is still a valid world, but not ours. And we can't see it (possibly
hear).

TH

[Roger Onslow]

On Feb 6, 5:15 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 01.02.2012 18:46, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/31/12 1/31/12 - 11:32 PM, Peter Webb wrote:

> >> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

What a load of philosophical bulldust

[Koobee Wublee]

On Feb 5, 6:31 pm, Roger Onslow wrote:
> On Feb 6, 11:37 am, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > At the start, all the clocks show the same time.
>
> Given
>
> > At the end of the experiment, since spaceships 1 and 2 have moved
> > relative to the space city,
>
> > Spaceship 1's clock is slower than the space city clock.
>
> > Spaceship 2's clock is slower than the space city clock
>
> Yes .. and both by the same amount, so they show the same time

Say the time elapsed in spaceship 1 is A, and spaceship 2 is B, and
city is C.

According to the brilliant mathematical deduction of onslow,

** if (A < C) and (B < C), then (A = B).

So, this is the logic of Einstein Dingleberries. It sounds totally
fvcked up, no? <shrug>

> > Since Spaceship 1 has moved relative to spaceship 2:
>
> > Spaceships 1's clock is slower than spaceship 2's clock
>
> You can only say that while it was moving inertially
>
> > Spaceship 2's clock is slower than spaceship 1's clock
>
> You can only say that while it was moving inertially

The laws of physics must be obeyed by any frames of references
regardless inertial or not. Under either the Galilean or the Lorentz
transform, there is no hinted indication of what constitutes as the
inertial frame and what does not. Inertial frames are invented by
Einstein Dingleberries to cover the fallacies in the mathematics of
the Lorentz transform that they embrace as a scripture to their
religion. <shrug>

> > Acceleration has an effect but it causes time dilation,
>
> No .. velocity "causes" time dilation

So, this turn-around is just bullshit first proposed by Born. Guess
what? The mutual time dilation would just destroy SR. <shrug>

> > not
> > contraction so all effects due to acceleration also causes the clocks
> > to run slow.
>
> See .. you don't understand SRT at all.

The whole episode of SR and GR can be summarized as follows.

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

> Really .. you need to study it and learn what it says.

Take your own advice for a change. Don’t believe but study. Remember
that believing is not learning. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:57 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > A typical Einstein Dingleberry wrote:

> > > train wrote:

> > > > At the end of the experiment, since spaceships 1 and 2
> > > > have moved relative to the space city,
>
> > > > Spaceship 1's clock is slower than the space city clock.
>
> > > > Spaceship 2's clock is slower than the space city clock
>
> > > Yes .. and both by the same amount, so they show the same
> > > time
>
> > Say the time elapsed in spaceship 1 is A, and spaceship 2 is B, and city is C.
>
> > According to the brilliant mathematical deduction of onslow,
>
> > ** if (A < C) and (B < C), then (A = B).
>
> > So, this is the logic of Einstein Dingleberries. It sounds
> > totally fvcked up, no? <shrug>

It looks like PD is conveniently tongue tied again on this triplet’s
paradox that blows his befaithful religion SR out of scientific
realm. It is truly an amazing shit that Einstein Dingleberrism has
lasted for over a century based on total garbage. <shrug>

> > The laws of physics must be obeyed by any frames of references
> > regardless inertial or not.
>

> KW, you're an idiot. Perhaps you'd like to show that the motion of the
> earth is describable in a reference frame whose origin is tied to the
> center of the moon follows the same Newtonian law of gravity that you
> know and love: GMm/r^2 = Mv^2/r. Do the calculation, please, using the
> observed value of r, M, m and v.

It looks like PD does not understand Newtonian law of gravity. That
is a fine example of believing versus learning. He is not here to
educate PD the college professor in physics who has a phd degree. As
He had said before, PD is a failure, and he should go back to the
university that supposed to have graduated this moron and ask for a
complete refund on his lack of education. <shrug>

> > Under either the Galilean or the Lorentz
> > transform, there is no hinted indication of what constitutes as the
> > inertial frame and what does not.
>

> That's right, because the description of the reference frame to which
> those transforms apply lies OUTSIDE the equations themselves.

Therefore, this inertial crap only exists within the scripture of SR
attempting but failing miserably at salvaging the religion from a
rightful demise. What did He tell yah? Please do not try to worship
Him as a Prophet. It is the Einstein Dingleberries who constantly put
their feet in their mouths. <shrug>

> This is why sage advice is given to you frequently that the equations
> of physics are useless to you if you do not know the meaning of the
> terms used in them and the circumstances in which they are claimed to
> apply. You in turn whine that you cannot find these in the equations
> themselves, and the response is given to you: "That's RIGHT, so why
> are you looking for them there?"

What is that ranting all about? You were the one who brought up the
Newtonian equation, and the Lorentz transform does nowhere indicate
which frame of reference is as holy as an inertial one. <shrug>

> > Inertial frames are invented by
> > Einstein Dingleberries to cover the fallacies in the mathematics of
> > the Lorentz transform that they embrace as a scripture to their
> > religion. <shrug>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

since the two (say, twins) observers know,
by how much they have acclerated with respect
to the other, there is no need of "targets 3 and 4," and
that is the essence of the "pedagogical paradox."

of course, if you believe that atoms don't have angular momentum
-- that it is only an abstract momentum, "because
we are reifying the probablities in the Copenhagenskool" --
then, I can't do anything about that!

thus:
this has been mooted for some time,
that several periods in the Holocene were warmer,
than nowsville. also. with regard to models,
GrIS and AnIS have only risen -- according to you-know-whom.

thus: a)
there is no such a thing as a fossilized fuel (TM), and b)
it is always being created.

thus:
I didn't write the name of the journal down, but
it seemed perfectly authoritative, and confirms that
Einstein wouldn't even consider the actual results
of the M&M experiment, along with the rest
of you, Einsteinmaniacs.

> > I actually found the same say-so from Einstein,
> > himself, summarily disputing D.C.Miller's paper
> > on this subject, with Miller's data.
>
> > actually, this was only reported, second-hand,
> > in a journal, by someone who interviewed Einstein,
> > on one of the few ocaissions when he was at his office
> > at Caltech (in Pasadena).

thus:
light has no "corpuscular" qualities, what so ever,
although the phptoelectrical effect is often taken
to be such a ballisitical matter. but, then,
that is what the Nobel cmte. rewarded Einstein, for, and
his mere interpretation of a word, "photon,"
that he happened to have coined,
is of no real importance, any more than "spacetime"
of Minkowski, Feynman et al ad vomitorium.

> LIGHT IS COMPOSED OF TRAINS OF IDENTICAL PHOTONS, ONLY!

thus:
mere nomenclature, the useless relabeling
of *phase space* as "space-time,"
due to Minkowski's silliness.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

in fact, as far as I hath cared to investigate
(aFaihCtI), Fig Newton's theory
of corpuscular light was a)
completely wrong, viz Snell's formula
for refractive indices, and was b)
totally imploded by Young, "the last man,
who knew everything [recent title of biogrpahy],"
one hundred years, later.

however, *my* inertial framework is as holy,
as it gets, at least according to the Copenhagenskool
of Schroedinger's God-am cat:
please, sir, do not open that box!

> Newtonian equation, and the Lorentz transform does nowhere indicate
> which frame of reference is as holy as an inertial one.

> **     HANDWAVING IS REASONING
> <shrug> - Hide quoted text - > - Show quoted text -

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

in advance of nuttin'.

> Thanks in advance,

[Thomas Heger]

It seems you don't like philosophy. Well, your choice, but actually I
didn't write about philosophy, but about a physical concept.

That is my own invention, hence not easy to understand - sorry for that.
But I can actually explain it better - or at least try.

The idea of relativity is the equivalence of inertial frames of
references. In GR the requirement 'inertial' is dropped, so we have to
take GR.

GR claims, that any FoR is equivalent and our view on the world should
be matched by a world seen from a different FoR. Only the world is
different then.

What is seen in such a different world and from a different point of
view, that should be a valid universe, like the one we look at from
Earth. Only it had to be a different one.

GR deals with spacetime and time functions a 'cut'. The observed world
is 'co-moving', as our view on the universe is co-moving with us (of
course).

Since movement in spacetime could be represented as an angle of the
'time axis', this angle could be understood as a filter, about how the
world looks like.

This gives a very nice, but very unusual explanation for the
photo-electric-effect. Matter in this model is kind of 'wrapped up'
light and light unwrapped matter (kind of).

Since c is an angle, too, in such a picture, the space seen from one
point of view must be something like matter in an other point of view.

In case you are interest in how this works, you may read my 'book':
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[Androcles]

"Thomas Heger" <ttt...@web.de> wrote in message
news:9pvt3...@mid.individual.net...

| It seems you don't like philosophy. Well, your choice, but actually I
| didn't write about philosophy, but about a physical concept.
|
| That is my own invention, hence not easy to understand - sorry for that.
| But I can actually explain it better - or at least try.
|
| The idea of relativity is the equivalence of inertial frames of
| references.

You are a liar and an idiot, Heger. Einstein wrote his relativistic shit
and never said "inertial" once, you mad imbecile.

[Thomas Heger]

Well, it doesn't matter at all, what Einstein has written.
The prerequisites to apply SRT is the absence of acceleration. This
'absence of acceleration' is called 'inertial'.

This makes SRT quite unusual, but SRT is a good approximation. (That's
why I prefer GR and a Minkowski type of spacetime.)


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.02.2012 04:00, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 14.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Androcles:
>> "Thomas Heger"<ttt...@web.de> wrote in message
>> news:9pvt3...@mid.individual.net...
>> | It seems you don't like philosophy. Well, your choice, but actually I
>> | didn't write about philosophy, but about a physical concept.
>> |
>> | That is my own invention, hence not easy to understand - sorry for
>> that.
>> | But I can actually explain it better - or at least try.
>> |
>> | The idea of relativity is the equivalence of inertial frames of
>> | references.
>>
>> You are a liar and an idiot, Heger. Einstein wrote his relativistic shit
>> and never said "inertial" once, you mad imbecile.
>>
> Well, it doesn't matter at all, what Einstein has written.
> The prerequisites to apply SRT is the absence of acceleration. This
> 'absence of acceleration' is called 'inertial'.
>
> This makes SRT quite unusual,

Sorry, I mean of course 'unusable'!

SRT is quite contradictiv in itself and misses important points.

Worst point to criticize is, that SRT describes a parallel lateral
movement along the same axis.
But that is a VERY silly restriction, because movements should be
relative along all possible directions.

SRT speaks of an absolute space and an absolute time, because the
quotient length divided by time (to measure the speed of light) requires
a measure of space and time first, prior to the measurement of c. This
is particularly strange in a theory about relativity.

The formula E=m*c² is in my eyes wrong, because of the same error. The
terms E and m are meant absolute, what gives the wrong idea of energy
having mass - or energy is kind of a substance.

The meaning is, that mass is reduced, if energy is released. The signs
are wrong in this formula, because the energy released is accompanied
with a reduction of mass, hence there should be a minus and deltas.


TH

[Androcles]

"Thomas Heger" <ttt...@web.de> wrote in message

news:9q0le3...@mid.individual.net...

| Am 14.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Androcles:
| > "Thomas Heger"<ttt...@web.de> wrote in message
| > news:9pvt3...@mid.individual.net...
| > | It seems you don't like philosophy. Well, your choice, but actually I
| > | didn't write about philosophy, but about a physical concept.
| > |
| > | That is my own invention, hence not easy to understand - sorry for
that.
| > | But I can actually explain it better - or at least try.
| > |
| > | The idea of relativity is the equivalence of inertial frames of
| > | references.
| >
| > You are a liar and an idiot, Heger. Einstein wrote his relativistic shit
| > and never said "inertial" once, you mad imbecile.
| >
| Well, it doesn't matter at all, what Einstein has written.

Tell any lies you want, Heger, anyone with a brain knows your
idiotic ranting isn't philosophy or physics.
Whether you like it or not, "relativity" means Einstein's relativity, not
Heger's inert references; Einstein wrote "If we assume that the result
proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line...
" which isn't inertial by any stretch of the imagination and neither did
Einstein intend it to be.

Well, it doesn't matter at all, what Heger has written, what Heger writes
are lies, Heger is STOOOPID.

[Androcles]

"Thomas Heger" <ttt...@web.de> wrote in message

news:9q0mme...@mid.individual.net...

| Am 15.02.2012 04:00, schrieb Thomas Heger:
| > Am 14.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Androcles:
| >> "Thomas Heger"<ttt...@web.de> wrote in message
| >> news:9pvt3...@mid.individual.net...
| >> | It seems you don't like philosophy. Well, your choice, but actually I
| >> | didn't write about philosophy, but about a physical concept.
| >> |
| >> | That is my own invention, hence not easy to understand - sorry for
| >> that.
| >> | But I can actually explain it better - or at least try.
| >> |
| >> | The idea of relativity is the equivalence of inertial frames of
| >> | references.
| >>
| >> You are a liar and an idiot, Heger. Einstein wrote his relativistic
shit
| >> and never said "inertial" once, you mad imbecile.
| >>
| > Well, it doesn't matter at all, what Einstein has written.

Well, it doesn't matter at all, what Heger has written. Heger is a LIAR.
Einstein wrote
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
and he wrote:
"indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
(translation:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.")
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
(§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity)

What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same and invent time dilation?

[train]

On Feb 15, 9:17 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_...@web.de> wrote in message

>
> news:9q0mme...@mid.individual.net...
> | Am 15.02.2012 04:00, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> | > Am 14.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Androcles:

> | >> "Thomas Heger"<ttt_...@web.de> wrote in message

If A and B are stationary, it seems reasonable - actually, it is,
reasonable.

A and B are points on a moving rod. To use the equation above some
assumptions have been made, no doubt. The first is there is no ether.
The second is that light propagates between two points A and B, it
does not travel at c, but at c-v.

The length of the rod is assumed to be AB and also AB' where AB" = ct
+vt. Or is it ct?

[Androcles]

"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9de22d2-164a-4094...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

===========================================
In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"

You like your stationary speed v to be reasonable, do you?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

both of the *soi-dissant* twins have a standard-
frequency "candle," say the cyan midspectrum
of normal human vision;
taht is all taht is needed, assumimg that
one of them stays in the "inertial frame"
of the orbitiing "home" planet,
draggin its *soi-dissant* so-called aether
of space alonmg with it, some small torr of atmsphere.

> > Newtonian equation, and the Lorentz transform does nowhere indicate
> > which frame of reference is as holy as an inertial one.

> > **     HANDWAVING IS ... one of the osunds,
of one hand, clapping.

thus:
yes, totally insignificant, because
AnIS and GrIS have apparentyl only been increasing,
since we started to monitor the poles via Sputnik
et al ad the first bipolar year (the IGY, '57-9) , and
I got frostbite from a chemtrail --
trying to inhale it with a gigantic "coke spoon. Actually,
an air-sitar, as reported previously by the Assoicated Press TM."

> Some media responses include interviews of involved glaciologists such as
> "Bristol University glaciologist Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the
> research team, told the Guardian that such a level of melting was
> practically insignificant."

thus:
what is the calcuilation of load, if
massive householdry are charging their cars,
across -- what, four time-zones USA?

thus:
formally known as "the three Rs,"
"'rithmetic, readin' & 'ritin;," or
"the trivium of logic, grammer & rhetoric,"
the organic totality of ordinary linguage acquisition,
normally achienved at about heh age of eleven-years-old,
around puberty (witn no special effort required ... but,
totally dependent upon the literacy and/or intention
of the assembled parental unit(s).

> >> 84th percentile. In the core studies (reading, language and math), the

thus:
what, the Holocene -- is it over, already?

thus:
it is quite clear that our alteration of the biosphere
is rapidly changing the rate & kind of "evapotranspiration,"
notably through urban heat-islanding -- I am a verb! -- and
deforestation.

however, note that these only appear to *increase* the rate
of snowfall on GrIS and AnIS,
the vast bulk of terrestrial ice, as shown
in the slides of the Man from NOAA, Swiss govt. affiliate.