Where is the Acceleration That Holds Two Bar Magnets Together?

[Jane]

I cannot see any, can you?


--
-- lover of truth

[Maciej Wozniak]

If You can't see pears on a willow tree and
You know for sure that they should be there -
You can always redefine a pear or redefine
a willlow. Or prove that the willow trees You
see are improper.

[Jane]

That's very good, possibly the most sensible comment you have made....but
I bet you copied it..

[Maciej Wozniak]

You bet and You loose.

[Jane]

Note, no Einstein supporters can answer my question.

[JanPB]

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 10:28:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> I cannot see any, can you?

Classical electrodynamics does not model ferromagnetism.

--
Jan

[Jane]

Irrelevant. Force exists without acceleration.

a = F/M is correct.
F = Ma is mathematically correct but logically wrong and very misleading.

[Richard Hertz]

1) Fix one magnet to a table.
2) Measure the Newtons required to separate the second magnet.

There is your acceleration, which is extremely non-linear and don't have a single analytic expression.

Numerical models involving cubic and cuartic values of distance are involved.

Yet, these models can be applied in F = ma, to model the motion of the free magnet, discarding friction on the table AND
including g.

Better get a good computer for modeling, or for computing real time measurements of the motion.

[Jane]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 17:47:09 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:29:02 PM UTC-3, Jane wrote:
>
>> F = Ma is mathematically correct but logically wrong and very
>> misleading.
>> --
>> -- lover of truth
>
> 1) Fix one magnet to a table.
> 2) Measure the Newtons required to separate the second magnet.
>
> There is your acceleration, which is extremely non-linear and don't have
> a single analytic expression.

Silly fellow. The Newton is a unit of force not acceleration.

> Numerical models involving cubic and cuartic values of distance are
> involved.
>
> Yet, these models can be applied in F = ma, to model the motion of the
> free magnet, discarding friction on the table AND including g.
>
> Better get a good computer for modeling, or for computing real time
> measurements of the motion.

You completely miss the point. A LARGE FORCE is clearly holding the
magnets together. Obviously Forces are not just products of
accelerations, as Einstein and followers seem to believe.
Because of Einstein's clever but completely misleading theory, nobody has
bothered to investigate what force fields are made of.

[Richard Hertz]

You need to learn a lot, in physics and other fields. Read this to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets

You are not so smart as you believe you are. Be clear when asking for "exact" answers. You may find that there are none.

My post point specifically to what you were asking. Now, if you want to shill and troll, go ahead.

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 4:29:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 16:17:35 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 10:28:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> I cannot see any, can you?
> >
> > Classical electrodynamics does not model ferromagnetism.
> Irrelevant. Force exists without acceleration.

Reread what I wrote.

Don't run back to the keyboard before you actually understand:
reread your original question and then my answer. Think it
through.

--
Jan

[Jane]

I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.

[Jane]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 20:09:40 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:40:07 PM UTC-3, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 17:47:09 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:29:02 PM UTC-3, Jane wrote:
>> >
>> >> F = Ma is mathematically correct but logically wrong and very
>> >> misleading.
>
>

> You need to learn a lot, in physics and other fields. Read this to
> start:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets
>
> You are not so smart as you believe you are. Be clear when asking for
> "exact" answers. You may find that there are none.
>
> My post point specifically to what you were asking. Now, if you want to
> shill and troll, go ahead.

All it says is that if you add a lot of vary small magnetic dipoles you
get one big one. there is no acceleration involved.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/4/23 12:28 AM, Jane wrote:
> I cannot see any, can you?

No. If you attempt to pull two bar magnets apart but fail, their
acceleration is zero, and the TOTAL force on each magnet is also zero.
It OUGHT to be obvious that the force you apply in an attempt to pull
them apart is exactly canceled by an opposing force exerted by the other
magnet on the one you are pulling.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Tom Roberts

[Jane]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 23:49:13 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/4/23 12:28 AM, Jane wrote:
>> I cannot see any, can you?
>
> No. If you attempt to pull two bar magnets apart but fail, their
> acceleration is zero, and the TOTAL force on each magnet is also zero.

Do you have a drinking problem? I gather you mean when your pull exactly
matches the attracting force between the magnets there is no resultant
force on either.

> It OUGHT to be obvious that the force you apply in an attempt to pull
> them apart is exactly canceled by an opposing force exerted by the other
> magnet on the one you are pulling.

There is a force holding them together whether or not I try to pull them
apart. Are you trying to say that such a force only exists when somebody
tries to pull them apart? Surely you are not that silly.

> You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Young Tommy, you're losing it.... The force exists for reasons unknown.
It is not associated with any d2x/dt2 and nothing else is holding the
magnets together.

> Tom Roberts

[JanPB]

Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general
relativity into the discussion all of a sudden?

You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 6:26:27 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:21:40 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

<snip>

.
> > I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
> > Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.
> Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general
> relativity into the discussion all of a sudden?
>
> You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
> applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.

Why do you behave like a fucking retarded? And what is this fascist "End of discussion"? What are you, the ruler of this forum?

Jane made a legit question, trying to connect Newton (the force guy) with Maxwell and Einstein (the field guys).

Forces are EVERYWHERE. Ask about it to a civil engineer, or a mechanical engineer.

The entire civilization, since ancient Babylonian and even 200,000 years before them, was BUILT UNDER THE CONCEPT OF
FORCES AND WEIGHTS. Try to make a bridge or a building without using the mathematics of the five fundamental loads:
compression, tension, shear, bending and torsion, and tell me how much do you last in the development before a collapse.

With Newton and his three laws of motion, came the second one, perfected by Euler 80 years after: F = m.a.

When this formula was applied to gravity, at ground level, intuitively appeared immediately (1757+) that F = m.a = G.M.m/r²,
and it came that a = g = G.M/r². And this has been for 266 years, and will keep being true FOREVER.

And if you don't accept this, because you are an imbecile relativist, explain why in a controlled demolition, the FALL verify
a FREE FALL.

Any FORCE has a LATENT ACCELERATION embedded into any system with coupled parts. They just hold because of the
resistance of materials used. If materials used can't hold the LOAD, they break down in different forms.

That the force between magnets can't have an analytical expression, and require several complex formulae to be applied
(mostly developed empirically), doesn't mean that NEWTON can be disregarded in this particular application.

If one magnet is fixed into a table with very low friction (or disregarding it), a second magnet will move following a = F/m,
and will stay attached to the fixed one with such value of LATENT ACCELERATION.

This is because the mathematics used for this experiment are known for centuries, and are newtonian (in the motion) and
maxwellian in the stage where motion ceases and the magnets are attached one to each other.

It's the SAME as when a person feels attached to the ground: FORCE called WEIGHT, and even have unit: NEWTONS.

I don't know of any unit called EINSTEIN to justify the stupid general relativity, here on Earth or in outer space.

Because GR and SR are fucking FAIRY TALES.

Get over it, or move to a forum where bitches complain and cry foul because Newton is supreme, and Einstein a worthless parasite.

[Jane]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 14:26:25 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:21:40 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 20:47:32 -0700, JanPB wrote:

>> > Don't run back to the keyboard before you actually understand: reread
>> > your original question and then my answer. Think it through.
>> I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
>> Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.
>
> Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general relativity
> into the discussion all of a sudden?

For obvious reasons that your misguided brain would be too terrified to
even contemplate.

> You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
> applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.

Einstein's whole GR depends on forces being an illusion caused by
accelerations. I have given an example of a force that has no associated
acceleration.
F = Ma stinks.
a = F/M prevails.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:10:48 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 14:26:25 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:21:40 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 20:47:32 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> >> > Don't run back to the keyboard before you actually understand: reread
> >> > your original question and then my answer. Think it through.
> >> I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
> >> Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.
> >
> > Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general relativity
> > into the discussion all of a sudden?
>
> For obvious reasons that your misguided brain would be too terrified to
> even contemplate.

What kind of answer is that? You asked about ferromagnets and I said
classical electrodynamics did not model that.

> > You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
> > applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.
> Einstein's whole GR

Again: what does GR have to do with your question?

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 6:26:27 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:21:40 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> <snip>
> .
> > > I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
> > > Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.
> > Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general
> > relativity into the discussion all of a sudden?
> >
> > You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
> > applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.
> Why do you behave like a fucking retarded? And what is this fascist "End of discussion"? What are you, the ruler of this forum?
>
> Jane made a legit question, trying to connect Newton (the force guy) with Maxwell and Einstein (the field guys).
>
> Forces are EVERYWHERE. Ask about it to a civil engineer, or a mechanical engineer.
>
> The entire civilization, since ancient Babylonian and even 200,000 years before them, was BUILT UNDER THE CONCEPT OF
> FORCES AND WEIGHTS. Try to make a bridge or a building without using the mathematics of the five fundamental loads:
> compression, tension, shear, bending and torsion, and tell me how much do you last in the development before a collapse.
>
> With Newton and his three laws of motion, came the second one, perfected by Euler 80 years after: F = m.a.
>
> When this formula was applied to gravity, at ground level, intuitively appeared immediately (1757+) that F = m.a = G.M.m/r²,
> and it came that a = g = G.M/r². And this has been for 266 years, and will keep being true FOREVER.

And so shall relativity.

> And if you don't accept this, because you are an imbecile relativist, explain why in a controlled demolition, the FALL verify
> a FREE FALL.

Not even wrong. You are a mental case, you don't use reason the moment
the name "Einstein" is brought up or the word "relativity". Your brain just
shuts off at that instant.

> Any FORCE has a LATENT ACCELERATION embedded into any system with coupled parts. They just hold because of the
> resistance of materials used. If materials used can't hold the LOAD, they break down in different forms.
>
> That the force between magnets can't have an analytical expression, and require several complex formulae to be applied
> (mostly developed empirically), doesn't mean that NEWTON can be disregarded in this particular application.

Irrelevant.

> I don't know of any unit called EINSTEIN to justify the stupid general relativity, here on Earth or in outer space.
>
> Because GR and SR are fucking FAIRY TALES.

No, it's an excellent and a very successful theory of gravity. And
there is nothing you can do about it. Forever.

--
Jan

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

That is where you are always wrong. Even Einstein did not believe
his theory would the final.
The Sun's gravity space curve meets the Moon's center
but what is it doing to its motion curve? The Moon is
not responding to the Sun's immediate curve in space.
Einstein never handled it. He overlooked this point
where his space curve does not curve motion...

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> --
> Jan

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:22:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

'
<snip>

> > I don't know of any unit called EINSTEIN to justify the stupid general relativity, here on Earth or in outer space.
> >
> > Because GR and SR are fucking FAIRY TALES.

> No, it's an excellent and a very successful theory of gravity. And there is nothing you can do about it. Forever.

Your stupid general relativity theory consists in a HUGE LOT of non linear partial derivative equations that can't even describe
the motion of the ball in a roulette. Much less the behavior of the Solar System.

Such heretic violation of riemannian geometry, adopting time as a pseudo fourth dimension, can't provide a single exact solution
even for the basic 2-body problem, so the few approximations (Schwartschild-Hilbert is one) can only be applied to a universe
void of mass and energy, except for ONE MASS and a point-like massless test particle.

As a show of IMPOTENCE, PPN has linearized the GR complex set of non linear equations to obtain a new framework that is
ONLY USEFUL with very restricted boundaries. The errors of PPN increase big time as soon the application try to cover more
than the unrealistic APPROXIMATIONS of spacetime, with strong limitations of applicability.

It's like the linear model of bipolar transistors, derived from the Ebers-Moll BJT. Try to use the linearized model with a 5 volts pp
applied to the base-emitter of a BJT, and we'll see what you obtain as the output. The linearized model is restricted to 0.75 V max.

PPN suffers the same problems, only that a scale 100 times more complex than the above example.

So, very few things remain from GR in the PPN model, which is a fucking joke.

Relativity itself (both) is a joke even greater. But, as I always say: 99.99% of the people are mostly gullible imbeciles, with a small
percentage (0.01%) of cretins that profit from such huge consumer mass.

Don't know where do you belong? Not to the 0.01%, imbecile.

You are the Homer Simpson of relativity.

[JanPB]

I'm not saying it's final. Reread what I wrote. I'm simply saying that
Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).

They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 8:06:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:22:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> '
> <snip>
> > > I don't know of any unit called EINSTEIN to justify the stupid general relativity, here on Earth or in outer space.
> > >
> > > Because GR and SR are fucking FAIRY TALES.
>
> > No, it's an excellent and a very successful theory of gravity. And there is nothing you can do about it. Forever.
>
> Your stupid general relativity theory consists in a HUGE LOT of non linear partial derivative equations that can't even describe
> the motion of the ball in a roulette. Much less the behavior of the Solar System.

Neither can Newtonian mechanics (look up "the three-body problem" and
"chaotic systems"). And Einstein's, Maxwell's, and Newton's theories
will never go away.

> Such heretic violation of riemannian geometry, adopting time as a pseudo fourth dimension, can't provide a single exact solution

Not even wrong.

> even for the basic 2-body problem, so the few approximations (Schwartschild-

The name is "Schwarzschild".

> Hilbert is one) can only be applied to a universe
> void of mass and energy, except for ONE MASS and a point-like massless test particle.

Yeah, yeah, dream on.

> As a show of IMPOTENCE, PPN has linearized the GR complex set of non linear equations to obtain a new framework that is
> ONLY USEFUL with very restricted boundaries. The errors of PPN increase big time as soon the application try to cover more

Oh stop it already. Gobbledygook. You'll never get anywhere with
this by fantasising idiocies and pretending they are true.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/5/23 1:04 AM, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 23:49:13 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> If you attempt to pull two bar magnets apart but fail, their
>> acceleration is zero, and the TOTAL force on each magnet is also
>> zero.
>

> I gather you mean when your pull exactly matches the attracting
> force between the magnets there is no resultant force on either.

In that case, yes. But also if I pull with less than the magnetic force
between them the total force on the magnet remains zero. If you think
real hard you might be able to figure out where the force comes from to
exactly equal the magnetic force.

> There is a force holding them together whether or not I try to pull
> them apart.

Sure. Now think real hard why it is that the magnets do not accelerate
even though there is a strong magnetic force of attraction between them.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/5/23 6:10 PM, Jane wrote:
> Einstein's whole GR depends on forces being an illusion caused by
> accelerations.

That is one of the stupidest and incorrectest statements I have seen
around here. You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

> I have given an example of a force that has no associated
> acceleration.

No you didn't. Since two bar magnets stuck together are not moving,
their acceleration is zero. If you think real hard, you might be able to
figure out what supplies the force that cancels the force of their
magnetic attraction.

Tom Roberts

[Richard Hertz]

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 1:19:43 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

> No you didn't. Since two bar magnets stuck together are not moving,
> their acceleration is zero. If you think real hard, you might be able to
> figure out what supplies the force that cancels the force of their
> magnetic attraction.

With the above paragraph, single-handedly, you managed to destroy 300 years of physics.

The magnetic force that keep magnets stuck together is ANALOG to the gravitational force that keep you glued to the ground.

In both cases, two bodies attract one to each other, with net axial motion zero.

Yet, in the case of Newton, scientists agreed for centuries that such force is called WEIGHT. Civil engineers call it LOAD.

A simple scale, analog or digital, show your weight in Kg instead of Newtons. But for laymen, Newton unit is confusing.

The scale measures F = ma = mg, at ground level.

How come g = 0, according to your stupid assertion?

With magnets, the force involved follows the same newtonian expression, unless YOU WANT TO INVENT ANOTHER UNIT.

I told you several times: You suck patronizing, being that you claim to be such a big shot in physics, and even that taught basic physics
(where?), and wrote a book (which one? Link or it didn't happen).

Tom, keep talking about your muons. You are a fail on basic concepts of physics.

At your age and indoctrination level, there is no cure for you.

[JanPB]

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 1:19:43 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > No you didn't. Since two bar magnets stuck together are not moving,
> > their acceleration is zero. If you think real hard, you might be able to
> > figure out what supplies the force that cancels the force of their
> > magnetic attraction.
> With the above paragraph, single-handedly, you managed to destroy 300 years of physics.
>
> The magnetic force that keep magnets stuck together is ANALOG to the gravitational force that keep you glued to the ground.

Not in the GR and classical electrodynamics models.

> In both cases, two bodies attract one to each other, with net axial motion zero.

"Axial motion"?

> Yet, in the case of Newton, scientists agreed for centuries that such force is called WEIGHT. Civil engineers call it LOAD.

This is a discussion of two magnets held by their magnetic force.
There is no gravity or weight under the discussion. Why don't you
read the posts you are answering?

--
Jan

[Richard Hertz]

ANALOGY OF FORCES EXERTED IN DIFFERENT REALMS, IMBECILE. ANALOGY!

And ONLY F = m.a PREVAILS to explain the effect, either by gravity, electricity and magnetism. FORCES!

Asshole.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

No. You cannot have it both ways jan. You claimed no one
can change it... forever... according to you.
And someone has.

> Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
> Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).
>
> They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.

Einstein said they would get transcended to something better in
the future. Only the dinosaur like you holds onto the past.

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> --
> Jan

[JanPB]

No, you used this "analogy" as a proof that he was wrong.

> And ONLY F = m.a PREVAILS to explain the effect, either by gravity, electricity and magnetism. FORCES!

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

What I said, again, was that relativity, Maxwell's and Newton's theories
will never go away despite being (the latter two) falsified by experiment.
This is because the domain within which they are correct is simply
phenomenally applicable to many oractical situations.

I won't repeat it again on thus thread.

> > Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
> > Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).
> >
> > They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.
>
> Einstein said they would get transcended to something better in
> the future. Only the dinosaur like you holds onto the past.

You keep misunderstanding what I say. What I said was not that
relativity won't be transcended (it will be) but that its practical
relevance is such that it will never go away, just like Maxwell and
Newton which have been falsified by experiment to boot.

Just read more carefully what you respond to.

--
Jan

[Jane]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 12:27:29 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com

>> No. You cannot have it both ways jan. You claimed no one can change
>> it... forever... according to you.
>
> What I said, again, was that relativity, Maxwell's and Newton's theories
> will never go away despite being (the latter two) falsified by
> experiment. This is because the domain within which they are correct is
> simply phenomenally applicable to many oractical situations.
>
> I won't repeat it again on thus thread.
>
>> > Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
>> > Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).
>> >
>> > They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.
>>
>> Einstein said they would get transcended to something better in the
>> future. Only the dinosaur like you holds onto the past.
>
> You keep misunderstanding what I say. What I said was not that
> relativity won't be transcended (it will be) but that its practical
> relevance is such that it will never go away, just like Maxwell and
> Newton which have been falsified by experiment to boot.

Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is measured.
that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works if
an absolute frame exists. Since there is none, Einstein's theories will
definitely go away...right away as far as possible. Einstein was a
disaster for Physics.

Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong. Ther
will always be a Newtonian explanation of any physical process.

> Just read more carefully what you respond to.

Just look more carefully at the nonsense you write!

[Richard Hachel]

Le 07/04/2023 à 01:11, Jane a écrit :


> Einstein was a disaster for Physics.

I agree.

Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) who
intervened to counter the French school led by Langevin, Poincaré,
Becquerel, etc...

It has deflected the current of thought more than it has carried it
further.

We have exactly the same thing with Saint Paul who will create
Christianity, but by deforming in a very significant way the original
doctrine of grace by the love of the world, by grace by faith in the blood
of Christ, who died for all the bastards who will accept that another man
(son of God in addition) dies for them, and the rejection of the world.
LOL.

R.H.

[Jane]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 11:19:30 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/5/23 6:10 PM, Jane wrote:
>> Einstein's whole GR depends on forces being an illusion caused by
>> accelerations.
>
> That is one of the stupidest and incorrectest statements I have seen
> around here. You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Anyone who uses 'F = Ma' to define force is totally ignorant of the
facts.
'a' is the dependent variable. 'a' will never occur without a force.
Forces, on the other hand exist for reasons that Physics has never
bothered to investigate because (a) they are invisible and (b) because
the smartarse Einstein intervened with his plagiarized version of Lorentz
and Poincare Ether theories and became a folk hero overnight.

>> I have given an example of a force that has no associated acceleration.
>
> No you didn't. Since two bar magnets stuck together are not moving,
> their acceleration is zero.

Gawd! That's whole point.

> If you think real hard, you might be able to
> figure out what supplies the force that cancels the force of their
> magnetic attraction.

So you accept that the force exists even though it is balanced by the
compression of the material in the magnets.
For both magnets, dv/dt=0

Your gravitational FORCE is also balanced by the compression of the
ground on which you stand. Both exist without acceleration.

You are improving, young Tommy.

> Tom Roberts

[Jane]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 11:18:25 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/5/23 1:04 AM, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 23:49:13 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> If you attempt to pull two bar magnets apart but fail, their
>>> acceleration is zero, and the TOTAL force on each magnet is also zero.
>>
>> I gather you mean when your pull exactly matches the attracting force
>> between the magnets there is no resultant force on either.
>
> In that case, yes. But also if I pull with less than the magnetic force
> between them the total force on the magnet remains zero. If you think
> real hard you might be able to figure out where the force comes from to
> exactly equal the magnetic force.

Young Tommy, you should either read a few more elementary Physics texts
or give away any idea of becoming a physicist.

You are just digging the hole deeper for yourself... and Einstein.
We originally had only four forces that existed without any acceleration.
Now we have at least ten...and still no dv/dt.

>> There is a force holding them together whether or not I try to pull
>> them apart.
>
> Sure. Now think real hard why it is that the magnets do not accelerate
> even though there is a strong magnetic force of attraction between them.

That's the easy one Tommy. The hard one is to work out why the forces
exist at all, when none of Einstein's 'essential accelerations' are to be
found.

[Jane]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 23:36:45 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 07/04/2023 à 01:11, Jane a écrit :
>
>
>> Einstein was a disaster for Physics.
>
> I agree.
>
> Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) who
> intervened to counter the French school led by Langevin, Poincaré,
> Becquerel, etc...
>
> It has deflected the current of thought more than it has carried it
> further.

Precisely. It was a terrible distraction.

> We have exactly the same thing with Saint Paul who will create
> Christianity, but by deforming in a very significant way the original
> doctrine of grace by the love of the world, by grace by faith in the
> blood of Christ, who died for all the bastards who will accept that
> another man (son of God in addition) dies for them, and the rejection of
> the world. LOL.

Wouldn't know. All I know about Jesus christ is that including certain
profanities in his name is regarded as a good way to relieve frustration.

> R.H.

[Richard Hertz]

Young Tommy, LOL!

He's 72.

[JanPB]

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 4:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 12:27:29 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com
> >> No. You cannot have it both ways jan. You claimed no one can change
> >> it... forever... according to you.
> >
> > What I said, again, was that relativity, Maxwell's and Newton's theories
> > will never go away despite being (the latter two) falsified by
> > experiment. This is because the domain within which they are correct is
> > simply phenomenally applicable to many oractical situations.
> >
> > I won't repeat it again on thus thread.
> >
> >> > Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
> >> > Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).
> >> >
> >> > They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.
> >>
> >> Einstein said they would get transcended to something better in the
> >> future. Only the dinosaur like you holds onto the past.
> >
> > You keep misunderstanding what I say. What I said was not that
> > relativity won't be transcended (it will be) but that its practical
> > relevance is such that it will never go away, just like Maxwell and
> > Newton which have been falsified by experiment to boot.
>
> Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
> which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is measured.
> that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works if
> an absolute frame exists. Since there is none, Einstein's theories will
> definitely go away...right away as far as possible.

No. You just don't know how science works.

> Einstein was a
> disaster for Physics.

Stop fantasising. It's silly, childish.

> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong.

Nonsense. I can argue theories but I'm not going to argue facts.
Sorry, this is non-debatable.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 6:16:49 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 23:36:45 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Le 07/04/2023 à 01:11, Jane a écrit :
> >
> >
> >> Einstein was a disaster for Physics.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) who
> > intervened to counter the French school led by Langevin, Poincaré,
> > Becquerel, etc...
> >
> > It has deflected the current of thought more than it has carried it
> > further.
>
> Precisely. It was a terrible distraction.

Another loony tunes joined the group.

--
Jan

[Jane]

I will tell you why Einstein was a disaster. The MMX result confirmed
what many suspected...that there was no absolute frame. Lorentz and Fitz
then put forward a reasonable theory that kept the possibility alive,
even although that supposed 'Ether' could never be detected. Einstein
quite cleverly but very deviously saw a great opportunity to make a name
for himself by realizing that if it couldn't be observed there was no
need to mention it. He simply replaced its main function, that of
governing light speed, with a postulate and merely rewrote LET back to
front.
Consequently everyone was conned into believing that the Ether had
quietly gone away when in fact it was still just as vital to SR as it was
to LET.

THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE FRAME. GET USED TO IT AND FORGET ALL ABOUT
EINSTEIN'S FUNNY LITTLE JOKE ON PHYSICS AND ALL THE NONSENSE AND TIME
WASTING THAT HAS FOLLOWED. It is all terrible crap!

>> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong.
>
> Nonsense. I can argue theories but I'm not going to argue facts.
> Sorry, this is non-debatable.

There is a simple Newtonian explanation for everything uniquely
attributed to Einstein.

[Jane]

72 months? He's quite bright then, after all.

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 12:20:23 AM UTC-3, Jane wrote:

<snip>

> There is a simple Newtonian explanation for everything uniquely
> attributed to Einstein.

For instance, in 1801 Von Soldner calculated that starlight grazing Sun's surface fall into it by suffering Sun's
gravitational constant g_S. He found that the path of light has a hyperbolic trajectory, in a very detailed paper
which started from zero, just assuming that light fell due to solar gravity. He obtained 0.85 arcseconds of
deflection, with no other premise.

Einstein plagiarized Von Soldner in 1911, obtaining exactly the same value AND with the same premises.

All of a sudden, on Nov. 18, 1915, in the middle of his paper on the plagiarized perihelion advance of Mercury (Gerber, 1898),
he inserted a few paragraphs announcing that he obtained twice the 1801/1911 value (pure newtonian development).

What the cretin did, in 1915, was to replace the classic newtonian gravitational potential by the formula 7a in that paper.

Using THAT FORMULA, he DOUBLED light momentum when grazing Sun's surface and, voilá, obtained 1.7 arcseconds of
deflection. Eddington fudged the results of the 1919 eclipse and made Einstein a fucking worldwide star overnight.

Of course, such value remained as written in stone, and since then the cabal (mainly small hats) preserved this myth, even
when Einstein announced that such value was half newtonian and half relativistic.

Many relativistic geeks here go crazy if you mention the above, and claim that such exact value has been proved up to
the sixth decimal, by using the Parametric Post Newtonian theory (PPN), a stupid LINEARIZATION of GR equations, where
the deflection is given by (1 + Y), where Y is the PPN Gamma Factor, "proven" to be better than 0.999999.

The 1 in (1 + Y) is newtonian, but don't say that, or the relativistic bitches will jump crying foul.

So, Von Soldner (Newton, Laplace) is right, and Einstein is a fucking fraud on this, as in everything he touched either by plagiarism
or (as a parasite), stealing the work of "protegees". A name like Bose comes to my mind, and there are dozens.

[Paul Alsing]

AND he has a PhD in physics... which almost certainly leaves you in the dust...

[whodat]

I'd be careful, Paul. Non-conformance does not equal ignorance, although
quite often in newsgroups it does. But that is not a universal truism.

[Paul Alsing]

Well, blatant ignorance just boils my blood... this stuff is very basic and is understood by millions of undergraduates worldwide... why do the cranks come out of the woodwork here? It is blatantly obvious that none of them have had a proper physics education and are simply shooting from the hip... and missing the barn entirely!

[whodat]

Jane is one of the most advanced and well educated people these
newsgroups have seen in years and a recent retiree (I think) from
a significant teaching position at a highly reputable university.

Yes I'll toot her horn but will not "out" her. I expect she feels
liberated in her retirement leading to the posts she's made here
recently. Not a crank. Take my word for it. Best regards.

I welcome the complications she presents and hope you give
significant thought to what she writes here. Don't forget
that progress is quite often painful when past ideas are
being replaced. Please expect to see a lot more of this.

[Volney]

On 4/6/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:

> Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
> which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is measured.
> that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works if
> an absolute frame exists.

In SR, an absolute frame cannot exist. Its first postulate is that
physics anywhere and anywhen follow the same laws. An absolute frame, by
definition, has laws different from other frames.

It also helps that there is no reference to any "absolute" frame in SR.

> Since there is none, Einstein's theories will
> definitely go away...right away as far as possible. Einstein was a
> disaster for Physics.

Since SR doesn't assume an absolute frame (quite the opposite), it won't
"go away" for any such reason.

>
> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong. Ther
> will always be a Newtonian explanation of any physical process.

I'd love to see the Newtonian explanation for the cosmic muon existence
at sea level.

[Volney]

On 4/6/2023 11:20 PM, Jane wrote:

> THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE FRAME. GET USED TO IT AND FORGET ALL ABOUT
> EINSTEIN'S FUNNY LITTLE JOKE ON PHYSICS AND ALL THE NONSENSE AND TIME
> WASTING THAT HAS FOLLOWED. It is all terrible crap!

Again, Einstein's SR doesn't assume or need an absolute frame. The
"etherists" are the one who need to get used to that.

>
>>> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong.
>>
>> Nonsense. I can argue theories but I'm not going to argue facts.
>> Sorry, this is non-debatable.
>
> There is a simple Newtonian explanation for everything uniquely
> attributed to Einstein.

Once again, I'd love to hear the Newtonian explanation for cosmic muons
reaching sea level. Or how can the km long pion beam that Tom has
mentioned here many times even exist.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 09:05:45 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 4/6/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
>
> > Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
> > which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is measured.
> > that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works if
> > an absolute frame exists.
> In SR, an absolute frame cannot exist. Its first postulate is that
> physics anywhere and anywhen follow the same laws. An absolute frame, by
> definition, has laws different from other frames.

:) By what "definition", stupid Mike?

[JanPB]

On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 8:20:23 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 18:43:31 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 4:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 12:27:29 -0700, JanPB wrote:
> >
> >> Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
> >> which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is
> >> measured.
> >> that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works
> >> if an absolute frame exists. Since there is none, Einstein's theories
> >> will definitely go away...right away as far as possible.
> >
> > No. You just don't know how science works.
> >
> >> Einstein was a disaster for Physics.
> >
> > Stop fantasising. It's silly, childish.
> I will tell you why Einstein was a disaster. The MMX result confirmed
> what many suspected...that there was no absolute frame. Lorentz and Fitz
> then put forward a reasonable theory that kept the possibility alive,
> even although that supposed 'Ether' could never be detected. Einstein
> quite cleverly but very deviously saw a great opportunity to make a name
> for himself

Stop fantasising.

> by realizing that if it couldn't be observed there was no
> need to mention it. He simply replaced its main function, that of
> governing light speed, with a postulate and merely rewrote LET back to
> front.

Naive in the extreme. You have no idea what went on before 1905 in
physics.

> Consequently everyone was conned into believing that the Ether had
> quietly gone away when in fact it was still just as vital to SR as it was
> to LET.

Not worth continuing. You have a LOT to learn. I cannot teach you on
an ASCII text forum.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

So far it doesn't show *at all*. Perhaps she should consider wording her posts
more carefully. Taken at face value they simply *look* ignorant and
hopelessly naive, as if written by someone who has never met a real
life scientist and with absolutely no knowledge of the relevant physics history.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

--
Jan

[whodat]

In time, one of us will be. Best regards.

[Volney]

I have seen this before. Long, long ago there was a retired math
professor Alexander Abian posting on Usenet. If you read sci.math and
his replies to (serious) math questions, it was obvious he was very
knowledgeable in math. But read sci.physics or sci.astro, it was
completely different. The very same Alexander Abian was posting bizarre
rants how we had to blow up the moon and "Reorbit Venus into a new
Earthlike Orbit". We simply HAD to do these things! No matter how many
orders of magnitude these were beyond our capabilities, we HAD to do
these! Also "Time has MASS!". (when he died, someone observed it with a
gram of silence) 😃

[JanPB]

On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 10:47:47 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 4/7/2023 3:39 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 11:07:25 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2023 12:12 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> >>> Well, blatant ignorance just boils my blood... this stuff is very basic and is understood by millions of undergraduates worldwide... why do the cranks come out of the woodwork here? It is blatantly obvious that none of them have had a proper physics education and are simply shooting from the hip... and missing the barn entirely!
> >> Jane is one of the most advanced and well educated people these
> >> newsgroups have seen in years and a recent retiree (I think) from
> >> a significant teaching position at a highly reputable university.
> >>
> >> Yes I'll toot her horn but will not "out" her. I expect she feels
> >> liberated in her retirement leading to the posts she's made here
> >> recently. Not a crank. Take my word for it. Best regards.
> >
> > So far it doesn't show *at all*. Perhaps she should consider wording her posts
> > more carefully. Taken at face value they simply *look* ignorant and
> > hopelessly naive, as if written by someone who has never met a real
> > life scientist and with absolutely no knowledge of the relevant physics history.
> >
> > I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
>
> I have seen this before. Long, long ago there was a retired math
> professor Alexander Abian posting on Usenet. If you read sci.math and
> his replies to (serious) math questions, it was obvious he was very
> knowledgeable in math. But read sci.physics or sci.astro, it was
> completely different. The very same Alexander Abian was posting bizarre
> rants how we had to blow up the moon and "Reorbit Venus into a new
> Earthlike Orbit".

Ah yes, I completely forgot about him. It's interesting how unexpectedly
narrow and specialised those derangements can be.

--
Jan

[Jane]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 03:05:49 -0400, Volney wrote:

> On 4/6/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
>
>> Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
>> which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is
>> measured.
>> that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works
>> if an absolute frame exists.
>
> In SR, an absolute frame cannot exist. Its first postulate is that
> physics anywhere and anywhen follow the same laws.

Newton said that 350 years ago....but quantities don't necessarily have
the same value in different frames.

An absolute frame, by
> definition, has laws different from other frames.

Negated by the LTs.

> It also helps that there is no reference to any "absolute" frame in SR.

There is no reference because it is built into the second postulate...and
that comes directly from LET on the assumption that the absolute Ether
frame exists.

>> Since there is none, Einstein's theories will definitely go
>> away...right away as far as possible. Einstein was a disaster for
>> Physics.
>
> Since SR doesn't assume an absolute frame (quite the opposite), it won't
> "go away" for any such reason.

It certainly DOES rely entirely on an absolute frame to unify all light
speeds from differently moving sources. What else could possibly achieve
such an outcome.

>> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong. There

>> will always be a Newtonian explanation of any physical process.
>
> I'd love to see the Newtonian explanation for the cosmic muon existence
> at sea level.

Muons are being created all the way down and plenty of them move at
>>c. ...the coincidence method of detection eliminates anything that is
measured at greater than c.

So the whole experiment provides evidience for Einstein only because it
is based on the validity of his second postulate. Like all such supposed
proof of SR it relies entirely on circular logic.

[Jane]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 00:35:32 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 8:20:23 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

>
>> by realizing that if it couldn't be observed there was no need to
>> mention it. He simply replaced its main function, that of governing
>> light speed, with a postulate and merely rewrote LET back to front.
>
> Naive in the extreme. You have no idea what went on before 1905 in
> physics.

I suppose you were there! You sound demented enough...

>> Consequently everyone was conned into believing that the Ether had
>> quietly gone away when in fact it was still just as vital to SR as it
>> was to LET.
>
> Not worth continuing. You have a LOT to learn. I cannot teach you on an
> ASCII text forum.

How does Einstein's second postulate unify light speeds? Come on! Tell us
what you know!

[Jane]

I think my qualifications are superior. Anyone can 'buy' a PhD these
days. All a girl needs are big boobs.

[Jane]

I can only feel sorry for you. You have no understanding of the fact that
you are being forcibly indoctrinated with a sham 'theory' that is little
different in principle from any other religion. If you don't believe, you
will be shunned...and you certainly wont pass your exams.

I'm sure you will agree that there is no absolute frame yet you will then
hypocritically support Einstein's theory, when he himself admitted later
that "Without an aether, my theory will collapse".

If you are lucky, you might one day see the light and feel very ashamed
your own gullibility.

[Jane]

> dust...\

Tommy seems to want to walk before he has learnt to crawl. He even
reckoned that Mercury would slow down and fall into the sun if the FORCE
of gravity took time to act.

[JanPB]

You are not only misquoting but also lying by omission. Here is what
Einstein actually said (in 1920):

"“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity
space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there
exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without
ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time …"

It's obvious he is not talking about the 19th-century aether. Instead, he is
reusing that word to refer to "space endowed with physical qualities",
without specifying any specific medium property besides it being in
some (unspecified) was the reason light transmission exists.

> If you are lucky, you might one day see the light and feel very ashamed
> your own gullibility.

You have alot to learn. Pretending that people who disagree with you are
gullible is a nice heartwarming fantasy but it won't get you anywhere.

--
Jan

[Jane]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 17:40:07 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 5:08:03 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 22:12:45 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:

>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> He's 72.
>> >> >> 72 months? He's quite bright then, after all.
>

>> I'm sure you will agree that there is no absolute frame yet you will
>> then hypocritically support Einstein's theory, when he himself admitted
>> later that "Without an aether, my theory will collapse".
>
> You are not only misquoting but also lying by omission. Here is what
> Einstein actually said (in 1920):
>
> "“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
> relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
> therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
> relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there
> not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
> existence for standards of space and time …"
>
> It's obvious he is not talking about the 19th-century aether. Instead,
> he is reusing that word to refer to "space endowed with physical
> qualities",

He obviously had no idea of the true meaning of the word relativity.

> without specifying any specific medium property besides it being in some
> (unspecified) was the reason light transmission exists.

Say no more. His theory assumed and required an ether to unify light
speeds....and there is none... So don't try to dig yourself out of such
an obvious whole with stupid statements and insults.

>> If you are lucky, you might one day see the light and feel very ashamed
>> your own gullibility.
>
> You have alot to learn. Pretending that people who disagree with you are
> gullible is a nice heartwarming fantasy but it won't get you anywhere.

Einstein is already seen as a hoaxer by most of the world's physicists.
About his entire bunch of diehard supporters spend their time here trying
to prop up his name.

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 6:37:11 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

> Einstein is already seen as a hoaxer by most of the world's physicists.

I would sure like to see what evidence you have to support this outrageous claim. Here is what openAI has to say about it...

"It is difficult to determine the exact number of physicists who agree with Einstein, as his work has influenced and continues to influence many fields within physics. However, Einstein's theories, such as the theory of relativity and the equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc²), are widely accepted by the physics community and have been extensively tested and confirmed by experimental evidence. Therefore, it is safe to say that the majority of physicists agree with Einstein's theories and consider them to be among the most important contributions to the field of physics."

Your move. Good luck.

Evidence rules. Got any?

[Jane]

Why do you think E = Mc^2 is uniquely the work of Einstein? It was around
well before him and is a purely normal Newtonian expression. Einstein SR
should not be regarded as wrong because it accurately described what it
set out to do, provide a mathematical description of a fictional universe
that featured constant light speed.. It was just a useless and
inappropriate distraction. Naturally it produced some correct answers,
just as Earth centrism can predict tides and planetary movements. SR
fluked the MMX null result simply because it claimed light always moves
at c relative to its source and to everything at rest with that source
although the official explanations go into a long winded load of totally
unnecessary mathematical garbage just to impress.

c is obviously a very important universal constant and just happens to
also be the speed of light relative to its source for reasons not
entirely clear...standard Newtonian stuff..

> Evidence rules. Got any?

[Volney]

Yes. I have seen a few other instances of someone acting perfectly sane
as long as their idée fixe wasn't involved, but if it was, watch out.

I can't think of others offhand. Abian was an extreme example.

[Paul Alsing]

My question to you was, simply, "I would sure like to see what evidence you have to support your outrageous claim that Einstein is already seen as a hoaxer by most of the world's physicists."

You have failed miserably in answering this very direct question... and I doubt that you can.

> > Evidence rules. Got any?

[JanPB]

On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 6:37:11 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 17:40:07 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 5:08:03 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 22:12:45 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> He's 72.
> >> >> >> 72 months? He's quite bright then, after all.
> >
> >> I'm sure you will agree that there is no absolute frame yet you will
> >> then hypocritically support Einstein's theory, when he himself admitted
> >> later that "Without an aether, my theory will collapse".
> >
> > You are not only misquoting but also lying by omission. Here is what
> > Einstein actually said (in 1920):
> >
> > "“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
> > relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
> > therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
> > relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there
> > not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
> > existence for standards of space and time …"
> >
> > It's obvious he is not talking about the 19th-century aether. Instead,
> > he is reusing that word to refer to "space endowed with physical
> > qualities",
>
> He obviously had no idea of the true meaning of the word relativity.

You haven't addressed the fact that you quoted out of context.
If you want to discuss a new topic, start a new thread.

> > without specifying any specific medium property besides it being in some
> > (unspecified) was the reason light transmission exists.
>
> Say no more. His theory assumed and required an ether to unify light
> speeds....

No, that's false.

> and there is none...

Irrelevant.

> So don't try to dig yourself out of such
> an obvious whole with stupid statements and insults.

You post quotes out of context, you get responses pointing it out.

> >> If you are lucky, you might one day see the light and feel very ashamed
> >> your own gullibility.
> >
> > You have alot to learn. Pretending that people who disagree with you are
> > gullible is a nice heartwarming fantasy but it won't get you anywhere.
>
> Einstein is already seen as a hoaxer by most of the world's physicists.

If you want to daydream like this, I suggest a Disney movie or perhaps
a vacation. Go see places, enjoy yourself. But making stuff is not a
good way to fix your emotional problems.

> About his entire bunch of diehard supporters spend their time here trying
> to prop up his name.

Gobbledygook. Not even wrong.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 8:38:04 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 19:45:56 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 6:37:11 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >
> >> Einstein is already seen as a hoaxer by most of the world's physicists.
> >
> > I would sure like to see what evidence you have to support this
> > outrageous claim. Here is what openAI has to say about it...
> >
> > "It is difficult to determine the exact number of physicists who agree
> > with Einstein, as his work has influenced and continues to influence
> > many fields within physics. However, Einstein's theories, such as the
> > theory of relativity and the equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc²), are
> > widely accepted by the physics community and have been extensively
> > tested and confirmed by experimental evidence. Therefore, it is safe to
> > say that the majority of physicists agree with Einstein's theories and
> > consider them to be among the most important contributions to the field
> > of physics."
> >
> > Your move. Good luck.
> Why do you think E = Mc^2 is uniquely the work of Einstein? It was around
> well before him and is a purely normal Newtonian expression.

So was the formula for the Schwarzschild radius. Yet it's not called
"Laplace radius" now, is it.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/6/23 7:43 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 11:19:30 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> If you think real hard, you might be able to figure out what
>> supplies the force that cancels the force of their magnetic
>> attraction.
>
> So you accept that the force exists even though it is balanced by the
> compression of the material in the magnets.

Good, you have thought of it.

> For both magnets, dv/dt=0

Yes, because F in the equation is the total force on the object, not
just the magnetic force.

> Your gravitational FORCE is also balanced by the compression of the
> ground on which you stand. Both exist without acceleration.

Sure, when standing on the ground, and either force is easily measured
using a spring scale. The absence of acceleration OUGHT to be obvious --
the TOTAL force on you is zero. But in freefall the spring scale
measures zero -- indeed there is no possible way to measure the "force
of gravity", because measuring force is inherently a two-terminal
operation, and there is no place to put the second terminal for an
object in freefall.

> Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
> which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is
> measured.

This is not true. In SR and GR, the speed of light is "always the same"
only when measured in vacuum relative to a locally inertial frame using
standard measuring instruments. Your "always the same" is actually c.
And this is not a "hypothetical universe", it is quite accurately the
universe we inhabit.

You keep omitting essential conditions and caveats, indicating how
superficial your understanding of basic physics actually is.

> that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only
> works if an absolute frame exists.

How silly and ignorant. The vacuum speed of light being a universal
constant also works in SR and GR [#] without any "absolute frame", and
more importantly, in the world we inhabit.

[#] Really classical electrodynamics, which is based
on SR and only applies locally in GR.

> Since there is [no absolute frame], Einstein's theories will
> definitely go away

Nonsense! SR and GR accurately model the world we inhabit in important
and useful domains, and they will FOREVER be useful in those domains, no
matter what future advances are made in theoretical physics. Just like
Newtonian mechanics and classical electrodynamics are useful in their
respective domains, even though they have been falsified outside those
domains. Your fantasies cannot change this, no matter how much you wish
they could.

> THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE FRAME. GET USED TO IT AND FORGET ALL ABOUT
> EINSTEIN'S FUNNY LITTLE JOKE ON PHYSICS AND ALL THE NONSENSE AND
> TIME WASTING THAT HAS FOLLOWED. It is all terrible crap!

Your first sentence happens to be true, apparently through no fault of
your own. The rest is pure nonsense, indicating your arrogance far
exceeds your knowledge and understanding of basic physics.

> [SR] DOES rely entirely on an absolute frame to unify all light

> speeds from differently moving sources. What else could possibly
> achieve such an outcome.

Your inability to imagine something does not mean it is false. Indeed
the structure of spacetime can "unify all light speeds from differently
moving sources" -- as usual you make statements that are missing
important caveats (here: in vacuum, relative to locally inertial frames,
using standard instruments).

> Einstein is already seen as a hoaxer by most of the world's
> physicists.

Making stuff up and pretending it is true won't get you anywhere.
Apparently you don't personally know any physicists -- I know and work
with dozens, and not one would support your claim here.

> [...] trying to prop up his name.

I, for one, have no interest at all in doing that -- Einstein's
reputation can stand on his own accomplishments far more than anything I
could do. I am here to discuss how modern physics describes things of
interest. In a relativity newsgroup that necessarily involves discussing
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity.

I repeat: your arrogance far exceeds your knowledge and understanding of
basic physics.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/7/23 1:07 AM, whodat wrote:
> Jane is one of the most advanced and well educated people these
> newsgroups have seen in years and a recent retiree (I think) from
> a significant teaching position at a highly reputable university.

If true, I shudder to think of what happened to her students.

And why does she act like an ignorant crank with a hatred for Einstein
and far more arrogance than knowledge and understanding of basic physics?

Tom Roberts

[Volney]

On 4/7/2023 7:38 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 03:05:49 -0400, Volney wrote:
>
>> On 4/6/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
>>
>>> Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
>>> which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is
>>> measured.
>>> that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works
>>> if an absolute frame exists.
>>
>> In SR, an absolute frame cannot exist. Its first postulate is that
>> physics anywhere and anywhen follow the same laws.
>
> Newton said that 350 years ago....but quantities don't necessarily have
> the same value in different frames.

I said the laws of physics are the same. Not quantities.

>
> An absolute frame, by
>> definition, has laws different from other frames.
>
> Negated by the LTs.

Then there is no absolute frame. Make up your mind.

>
>> It also helps that there is no reference to any "absolute" frame in SR.
>
> There is no reference because it is built into the second postulate...

No, the second postulate states the speed of light is c in ALL frames.
No special "absolute" frame.

> and
> that comes directly from LET on the assumption that the absolute Ether
> frame exists.

That's the LET, not SR. It's a different theory for the same result.
Note that its ether/reference frame is undetectable in LET, so it may as
well not exist. SR ignores the ether entirely.

>
>>> Since there is none, Einstein's theories will definitely go
>>> away...right away as far as possible. Einstein was a disaster for
>>> Physics.
>>
>> Since SR doesn't assume an absolute frame (quite the opposite), it won't
>> "go away" for any such reason.
>
> It certainly DOES rely entirely on an absolute frame to unify all light
> speeds from differently moving sources. What else could possibly achieve
> such an outcome.

How could it be an absolute frame if ALL (inertial) frames measure light
moving at c? All frames are the same that way.

>
>>> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong. There
>>> will always be a Newtonian explanation of any physical process.
>>
>> I'd love to see the Newtonian explanation for the cosmic muon existence
>> at sea level.
>
> Muons are being created all the way down and plenty of them move at
>>> c. ...the coincidence method of detection eliminates anything that is
> measured at greater than c.

If they move at c, they can only travel for ~600 meters. How can they
reach sea level (or even underground) if they are created thousands of
meters up?

And why did you snip this without answering it?

> Or how can the km long pion beam that Tom has mentioned here many times even exist?

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 8 April 2023 at 06:53:06 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 4/7/2023 7:38 PM, Jane wrote:
> > On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 03:05:49 -0400, Volney wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/6/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
> >>
> >>> Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
> >>> which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is
> >>> measured.
> >>> that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works
> >>> if an absolute frame exists.
> >>
> >> In SR, an absolute frame cannot exist. Its first postulate is that
> >> physics anywhere and anywhen follow the same laws.
> >
> > Newton said that 350 years ago....but quantities don't necessarily have
> > the same value in different frames.
> I said the laws of physics are the same. Not quantities.

And do you still believe that adjusting clocks
to your ISO idiocy means some "Newton mode"?
You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even
considering relativistic standards.

> If they move at c, they can only travel for ~600 meters.

I've heard experiments are denying that.

[Jane]

I will try to educate you.
In LET, the Ether accounts for source independence. The LTs account for
observer independence. So the MMX null result did not rule out the Ether
even though there has never been any proof that Lorentz was right..
Einstein's SR began with LET's conclusion....that light speed would
always be measured as being c. (2nd postulate.) Einstein solved a little
equation and found the solutions were the same LTs that Lorentz had
concocted...What a surprise! SR is LET but without any mechanism that
will unify light speed, It merely says so by postulate.

>>> Since SR doesn't assume an absolute frame (quite the opposite), it
>>> won't "go away" for any such reason.
>>
>> It certainly DOES rely entirely on an absolute frame to unify all light
>> speeds from differently moving sources. What else could possibly
>> achieve such an outcome.
>
> How could it be an absolute frame if ALL (inertial) frames measure light
> moving at c? All frames are the same that way.

Nobody has ever directly measured OWLS from a moving source and shown
that it is always c.
On the other hand, the fact that TWLS is always precisely c, verifies the
emission theory of light..

>>>> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong.
>>>> There will always be a Newtonian explanation of any physical process.
>>>
>>> I'd love to see the Newtonian explanation for the cosmic muon
>>> existence at sea level.
>>
>> Muons are being created all the way down and plenty of them move at
>>>> c. ...the coincidence method of detection eliminates anything that is
>> measured at greater than c.
>
> If they move at c, they can only travel for ~600 meters. How can they
> reach sea level (or even underground) if they are created thousands of
> meters up?

They move at 2c, 10c, 20c any multiple of c. That's why they go through
the Earth and cause a lot of damage.
Your silly experiment first assumes c, rejects any speed that suggests >c
and then claims hat it proves light speed is c. ..typical circular logic
again.

>
> And why did you snip this without answering it?
>
>> Or how can the km long pion beam that Tom has mentioned here many times
>> even exist?

It's typical nonsense. If pions last long enough to do that then it is a
perfectly normal Newtonian situation.

I have studied all supposed verifications of SR and they are all full of
holes.

[Maciej Wozniak]

I will try to educate You: the result of a procedure
depends on the procedure. Measurements included.

[Hector Bergamaschi]

Jane wrote:

>> It's obvious he is not talking about the 19th-century aether. Instead,
>> he is reusing that word to refer to "space endowed with physical
>> qualities",
>
> He obviously had no idea of the true meaning of the word relativity.

no, fucking stupid, Einstine was wrong in relativity for another reason.
He slept in bed with his cousin, many times.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/7/23 11:53 PM, Volney wrote:
> [...] the second postulate states the speed of light is c in ALL
> frames.

No, it doesn't. From his 1905 paper, the second postulate (translated
into English) is:
Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-
ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the
ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

That is QUITE different from what you said. Note however, that in this
paper "stationary" is merely a label applied to an ARBITRARY inertial
frame, so this implies what you said.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/8/23 3:38 AM, Jane wrote:
> Nobody has ever directly measured OWLS from a moving source and
> shown that it is always c.

You are reading cranks and idiots too much. OWLS has been measured many
times, in many different ways, and always found to be c (in vacuum, when
using standard clock synchronization in locally inertial frames).

Yes, standard clock synchronization ensures OWLS will be measured to be
c (usual caveats) -- it can easily be measured, but the measurement is
not very useful as it is merely a check on the synchronization.

> On the other hand, the fact that TWLS is always precisely c, verifies
> the emission theory of light..

And SR. And an infinite set of other ether theories that differ only in
the way clocks are synchronized.

[Well, really classical electrodynamics.... Today SR is not
considered to include electrodynamics (unlike 1905).]

>>> Muons are being created all the way down and plenty of them move
>>> at
>>>>> c. ...the coincidence method of detection eliminates anything
>>>>> that is
>>> measured at greater than c.
>>
>> If they move at c, they can only travel for ~600 meters. How can
>> they reach sea level (or even underground) if they are created
>> thousands of meters up?
>
> They move at 2c, 10c, 20c any multiple of c.

Making stuff up and pretending it is true is useless.

Most cosmic-ray experiments measuring muons require a coincidence
between two detectors, and the signals from those counters show speeds
consistent with c, and completely reject your fantasy. (Charged-particle
detectors are usually called "counters" for historical reasons.)

> That's why [muons] go through the Earth and cause a lot of damage.

NONSENSE! Making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS.

No cosmic-ray muon has ever been observed to have enough energy to
transit the earth [#]. Moreover, measurements a few kilometers below the
surface show the muon rate is reduced by factors of thousands to
millions compared to the rate at the surface (details matter and other
processes become important when very deep).

[#] A 10TeV muon loses ~ 5GeV/m in rock, and the loss
is rising with energy, so to transit the earth a
cosmic-ray muon would need an energy much greater than
60,000,000GeV. None are observed with that high energy.

Cosmic-ray muons certainly do not "cause a lot of damage" -- over a
thousand pass through your body every minute of your life, but don't do
any visible damage (integrated over your lifetime they may be an
important aspect of the aging process).

> Your silly experiment first assumes c, rejects any speed that
> suggests >c and then claims hat it proves light speed is c.

Again, making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS.

I repeat: you REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 8 April 2023 at 18:15:10 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/8/23 3:38 AM, Jane wrote:
> > Nobody has ever directly measured OWLS from a moving source and
> > shown that it is always c.
> You are reading cranks and idiots too much. OWLS has been measured many
> times, in many different ways, and always found to be c (in vacuum, when
> using standard clock synchronization in locally inertial frames).

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
improper t'=t in improper seconds.

[Hector Bergamaschi]

it's not about clocks, you fucking stupid. It's about the passage of time,
where "improper" clocks are irrelevant. You kiss my ass, I kiss yours.

[Volney]

On 4/8/2023 4:38 AM, Jane wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 00:53:09 -0400, Volney wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/2023 7:38 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 03:05:49 -0400, Volney wrote:

>>> and that comes directly from LET on the assumption that the absolute
>>> Ether frame exists.
>>
>> That's the LET, not SR. It's a different theory for the same result.
>> Note that its ether/reference frame is undetectable in LET, so it may as
>> well not exist. SR ignores the ether entirely.
>
> I will try to educate you.

You are the one who needs education.

> In LET, the Ether accounts for source independence. The LTs account for
> observer independence. So the MMX null result did not rule out the Ether
> even though there has never been any proof that Lorentz was right..

Well yes, after the MMX they came up with all kinds of hacks to try to
save the concept of the ether. None of them could explain everything.

> Einstein's SR began with LET's conclusion....that light speed would
> always be measured as being c. (2nd postulate.)

Actually Einstein started with assuming light was always measured as c
in just one frame, and from that he proved it would be c in all frames.
It was based on the fact that every time scientists measured the speed
of light they came up with c.

> Einstein solved a little
> equation and found the solutions were the same LTs that Lorentz had
> concocted...What a surprise!

Well yes, Lorentz pulled a rabbit out of a hat and came up with a
transformation that worked, but no proof of it. Einstein independently
came up with the same result as Lorentz, but with a proof. Lorentz later
told Einstein that Einstein's proof was better than his own.

> SR is LET but without any mechanism that
> will unify light speed, It merely says so by postulate.

The real postulate was for one frame. But it was based on the fact that
every time scientists measured the speed of light they came up with c.
Einstein then assumed it was some sort of unknown law of physics, so he
treated it as such and came up with excellent results.

>>>> Since SR doesn't assume an absolute frame (quite the opposite), it
>>>> won't "go away" for any such reason.
>>>
>>> It certainly DOES rely entirely on an absolute frame to unify all light
>>> speeds from differently moving sources. What else could possibly
>>> achieve such an outcome.
>>
>> How could it be an absolute frame if ALL (inertial) frames measure light
>> moving at c? All frames are the same that way.
>
> Nobody has ever directly measured OWLS from a moving source and shown
> that it is always c.

Yes they have. Pointers to experiments that do this get posted here often.

> On the other hand, the fact that TWLS is always precisely c, verifies the
> emission theory of light..

It verifies other theories as well, such as SR. It also verifies OWLS is
also c, since travel time at c+v and return at c-v is not the same as
the time for c both ways (unless v=0).

>
>>>>> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong.
>>>>> There will always be a Newtonian explanation of any physical process.
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to see the Newtonian explanation for the cosmic muon
>>>> existence at sea level.
>>>
>>> Muons are being created all the way down and plenty of them move at
>>>>> c. ...the coincidence method of detection eliminates anything that is
>>> measured at greater than c.
>>
>> If they move at c, they can only travel for ~600 meters. How can they
>> reach sea level (or even underground) if they are created thousands of
>> meters up?
>
> They move at 2c, 10c, 20c any multiple of c.

No, they don't. Nothing moves faster than c. They are measured as moving
at ~c or less.

> Your silly experiment first assumes c, rejects any speed that suggests >c
> and then claims hat it proves light speed is c. ..typical circular logic
> again.

Nope. They're always measured as moving at ~c or slower.

>> And why did you snip this without answering it?
>>
>>> Or how can the km long pion beam that Tom has mentioned here many times
>>> even exist?
>
> It's typical nonsense. If pions last long enough to do that then it is a
> perfectly normal Newtonian situation.

Except they don't last long enough. Their lifetime is 2.6 × 10^-8
seconds, long enough to travel about 7.8 meters when moving at nearly c.
Not 1 km. They can travel that far due to SR time dilation.

>
> I have studied all supposed verifications of SR and they are all full of
> holes.

Name two such "holes".

[JanPB]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 4/8/2023 4:38 AM, Jane wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, the fact that TWLS is always precisely c, verifies the
> > emission theory of light..
>
> It verifies other theories as well, such as SR. It also verifies OWLS is
> also c, since travel time at c+v and return at c-v is not the same as
> the time for c both ways (unless v=0).

There is a nice summary table in Panofsky & Phillips on p. 282 (Tables
15-2 and 15-3) comparing various theories of light with experimental
data (7 theories vs. 13 experiments, written in 1962 [2nd ed.])).

--
Jan

[RichD]

On April 7, JanPB wrote:
>> The very same Alexander Abian was posting bizarre
>> rants how we had to blow up the moon and "Reorbit Venus into a new Earthlike Orbit".
>
> Ah yes, I completely forgot about him. It's interesting how unexpectedly
> narrow and specialised those derangements can be.

It's an example of the 'general intelligence' myth: someone is
accomplished in one specialty, therefore he's Really Smart, and
his utterances on every subject deserve respect. Or he overrates
his own cogitations, on every topic.

There are many such, I've known a few myself. Or look up Einstein's
inane comments on economics and socialism -


--
Rich

[J. J. Lodder]

Let me guess: you are an inane American?

In the article Einstein "addresses problems with capitalism, predatory
economic competition, and growing wealth inequality. It highlights
control of mass media by private capitalists making it difficult for
citizens to arrive at objective conclusions, and political parties being
influenced by wealthy financial backers resulting in an "oligarchy of
private capital"."

Seems spot on to me, looking at the USA as it is today.

Jan

PS Einstein also cautioned that "a planned economy is not yet
socialism", since it may also be accompanied by an "all-powerful"
bureaucracy that leads to the "complete enslavement of the individual".
Also spot on.

[Jane]

On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 00:53:09 -0400, Volney wrote:

> On 4/7/2023 7:38 PM, Jane wrote:
>
>>
>>> It also helps that there is no reference to any "absolute" frame in
>>> SR.
>>
>> There is no reference because it is built into the second postulate...
>
> No, the second postulate states the speed of light is c in ALL frames.
> No special "absolute" frame.
>
>> and that comes directly from LET on the assumption that the absolute
>> Ether frame exists.
>
> That's the LET, not SR. It's a different theory for the same result.
> Note that its ether/reference frame is undetectable in LET, so it may as
> well not exist. SR ignores the ether entirely.

It pretends to ignore it by merely stating its main function as a
postulate...that of unifying all light speeds. SR = LET. (Poincare's
upgrade)

>> It certainly DOES rely entirely on an absolute frame to unify all light
>> speeds from differently moving sources. What else could possibly
>> achieve such an outcome.
>
> How could it be an absolute frame if ALL (inertial) frames measure light
> moving at c? All frames are the same that way.

Nobody has measured light from a moving source. That's why Einstein has
survived this long.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

No absolute rest applies to material but dimension is
of itself a still medium for material movement.

[Jane]

On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:14:58 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/8/23 3:38 AM, Jane wrote:
>> Nobody has ever directly measured OWLS from a moving source and shown
>> that it is always c.
>
> You are reading cranks and idiots too much.

Be careful. You might be one of them.

OWLS has been measured many
> times, in many different ways, and always found to be c (in vacuum, when
> using standard clock synchronization in locally inertial frames).

Please give me one example of OWLS being measured accurately by two
synchronized clocks using a light pulse from a moving light.

> Yes, standard clock synchronization ensures OWLS will be measured to be
> c (usual caveats) -- it can easily be measured, but the measurement is
> not very useful as it is merely a check on the synchronization.

Surely you are joking Tommy. Einstein's standard sychronization STATES
that clocks are correctly synchronized ONLY IF they measure OWLS to be c.
...and silly people like you cannot see how you have been taken for a
ride....

>> On the other hand, the fact that TWLS is always precisely c, verifies
>> the emission theory of light..
>
> And SR. And an infinite set of other ether theories that differ only in
> the way clocks are synchronized.

The fact that TWLS is always c refutes all ether theories including SR.

>>> If they move at c, they can only travel for ~600 meters. How can they
>>> reach sea level (or even underground) if they are created thousands of
>>> meters up?
>>
>> They move at 2c, 10c, 20c any multiple of c.
>
> Making stuff up and pretending it is true is useless.
>
> Most cosmic-ray experiments measuring muons require a coincidence
> between two detectors, and the signals from those counters show speeds
> consistent with c, and completely reject your fantasy. (Charged-particle
> detectors are usually called "counters" for historical reasons.)

If the events suggest speeds >c they are rejected as spurious.
Cosmic rays are obviously arriving here at speeds far greater than c and
are are reacting with the atmosphere all the way down.

You are using the pre-condition that nothing travels faster than c as
evidence that it is impossible. How trivially stupid and circular.

>> That's why [muons] go through the Earth and cause a lot of damage.
>
> NONSENSE! Making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS.
>
> No cosmic-ray muon has ever been observed to have enough energy to
> transit the earth [#]. Moreover, measurements a few kilometers below the
> surface show the muon rate is reduced by factors of thousands to
> millions compared to the rate at the surface (details matter and other
> processes become important when very deep).

We are not talking about muons. We are talking about massive cosmic
particles that create muons amongst other things.

> [#] A 10TeV muon loses ~ 5GeV/m in rock, and the loss is rising
with
> energy, so to transit the earth a cosmic-ray muon would need an
energy
> much greater than 60,000,000GeV. None are observed with that high
> energy.
>
> Cosmic-ray muons certainly do not "cause a lot of damage" -- over a
> thousand pass through your body every minute of your life, but don't do
> any visible damage (integrated over your lifetime they may be an
> important aspect of the aging process).

They are believed to cause genetic mutations in gamete cells and have
always a significant factor in the evolutionary process..

>> Your silly experiment first assumes c, rejects any speed that suggests
>> >c and then claims hat it proves light speed is c.
>
> Again, making stuff up and pretending it is true is USELESS.
>
> I repeat: you REALLY need to learn basic physics.

......Says the young fellow who cannot even work out what would happen to
Mercury if the force of gravity took time c/D to act

> Tom Roberts

[Jane]

Not one actually measures OWLS from a moving source with two synchronized
clocks.

>> On the other hand, the fact that TWLS is always precisely c, verifies
>> the emission theory of light..
>
> It verifies other theories as well, such as SR. It also verifies OWLS is
> also c, since travel time at c+v and return at c-v is not the same as
> the time for c both ways (unless v=0).

SR does say that TWLS will always be c for the simple reason that it
reverts to straight Newton when nothing is relatively moving. In a TWLS
experiment v = 0. On the other hand, it becomes straight ether theory iv
there is relative movement..

>>>>
>>>> Muons are being created all the way down and plenty of them move at
>>>>>> c. ...the coincidence method of detection eliminates anything that
>>>>>> is
>>>> measured at greater than c.
>>>
>>> If they move at c, they can only travel for ~600 meters. How can they
>>> reach sea level (or even underground) if they are created thousands of
>>> meters up?
>>
>> They move at 2c, 10c, 20c any multiple of c.
>
> No, they don't. Nothing moves faster than c. They are measured as moving
> at ~c or less.
>
>> Your silly experiment first assumes c, rejects any speed that suggests
>> >c and then claims hat it proves light speed is c. ..typical circular
>> logic again.
>
> Nope. They're always measured as moving at ~c or slower.

How are they measured?

>>> And why did you snip this without answering it?
>>>
>>>> Or how can the km long pion beam that Tom has mentioned here many
>>>> times even exist?
>>
>> It's typical nonsense. If pions last long enough to do that then it is
>> a perfectly normal Newtonian situation.
>
> Except they don't last long enough. Their lifetime is 2.6 × 10^-8
> seconds, long enough to travel about 7.8 meters when moving at nearly c.
> Not 1 km. They can travel that far due to SR time dilation.
>>
>> I have studied all supposed verifications of SR and they are all full
>> of holes.
>
> Name two such "holes".

I am currently looking into moving mirror experiments like Michelson's.
It is a joke...completely wrong. Theory of Sagnac effect is another.

[Jane]

I don't hate Einstein. ...just the fanatics that seem to think he is god..
I said that his theory was not wrong but very ingenious and he deserves
full credit for producing such a precise mathematical description of an
imaginary universe in which light always moves at c. He was very clever
man and would make a good snake oil salesman..

>
> Tom Roberts

[Jane]

I doubt if anyone would want to sleep with an imbecile like you.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 8:39:25 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 11:14:58 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Einstein's standard sychronization STATES
> that clocks are correctly synchronized ONLY IF they measure OWLS to be c.

Sort of...More accurately stated, is that the (operational) definition of 'meter' is such that
(ensures) the OWLS will be c.

Hence, by *definition* (the operational definitions of positions, times, speeds...) , OWLS (and TWLS)
will be c.

> >> On the other hand, the fact that TWLS is always precisely c, verifies
> >> the emission theory of light..
> >
> > And SR. And an infinite set of other ether theories that differ only in
> > the way clocks are synchronized.

Correct (in response to Tom).

> The fact that TWLS is always c refutes all ether theories including SR.

No. Ether theories (some), just as SR, imply (or stipulates) that OWLS, just as TWLS will be measured as c.

> You are using the pre-condition that nothing travels faster than c as
> evidence that it is impossible.

No he is not. You seem to have trouble understanding what you read.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 8:59:45 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 14:38:42 +0000, Hector Bergamaschi wrote:

> I doubt if anyone would want to sleep with an imbecile like you.

DO NOT STROKE THE TROLLS.
Best to report it as spam.

[JanPB]

On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 5:53:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

You start reasonably:

> I don't hate Einstein. ...

...and then immediately slide into a Hollywood-esque GUI fantasy world:

> just the fanatics that seem to think he is god..

This is one of the obligatory crank lines: instead of arguing the science, they
simply invent some nonsensical trait that their opponents supposedly have,
and then they argue *that*. The mystical "Einstein is God" trait is always
near the top. It implies, incidentally, that all those dreamland-dwellers have
a very repetitive and limited imagination: it's forever the same made-up nonsense
about other people.

> I said that his theory was not wrong but very ingenious and he deserves
> full credit for producing such a precise mathematical description of an
> imaginary universe in which light always moves at c. He was very clever
> man and would make a good snake oil salesman..

Not even wrong. You have no clue how science works in general. Which is
another standard crank line: confusing science with philosophy. Both are
valid methods of acquiring knowledge but they are simply different.
Get over it.

--
Jan

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 9 April 2023 at 04:00:27 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> Hence, by *definition* (the operational definitions of positions, times, speeds...) , OWLS (and TWLS)
> will be c.

No more than communism was by *definition*
the best political system in the world we inhabit.
See, poor halfbrain: defining a shark as a grass
eater won't make sharks eating grass:(

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 9 April 2023 at 06:18:29 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 5:53:51 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>
> You start reasonably:
> > I don't hate Einstein. ...
> ...and then immediately slide into a Hollywood-esque GUI fantasy world:
> > just the fanatics that seem to think he is god..
> This is one of the obligatory crank lines: instead of arguing the science, they
> simply invent some nonsensical trait that their opponents supposedly have,
> and then they argue *that*. The mystical "Einstein is God" trait is always
> near the top.

This is an obligatory defence of Einstein worshippers:
when telling them who they are they scream "we're
not allowing you to talk about that!!! You're only allowed
to talk about light, experiments and so on!!!"

[Hector Bergamaschi]

you must be a pederass, you talk like that. I never understand why people takes these Mongolian monks as gurus. Saw once a retrospective, they kill other people outside their regime, like nothing. Kiss my ass, you uneducated sack of human excrement. You and your boyfriend rotchm are imbeciles, not undrestanding anything, much less relativity and physics introductory level. Fuck yooo.

Dalai Lama Caught Kissing Young Boy and Telling Him to ‘Suck My Tongue’
https://newspunch.com/dalai-lama-caught-kissing-young-boy-and-telling-him-to-suck-my-tongue/

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) […]

Poor lunatic.


PointedEars
--
«Nec fasces, nec opes, sola artis sceptra perennant.»
(“Neither high office nor power, only the scepters of science survive.”)

—Tycho Brahe, astronomer (1546-1601): inscription at Hven

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) […]

You poor lunatic.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes Jan, but you and I are not American. Americans are totally blind to
these things.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[Hector Bergamaschi]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) […]
>
> You poor lunatic.

true, you fucking stupid. You germons are so stupid eating your own shit.

Germany is *_completely_spineless_*, no dignity, taking it all the way
*_without_lubricant_*. Germany/US vassal taking *_"self-humiliation"_* to
another level

*_Vice_Chancellor_Robert_Habeck_* apologized to khazar gypsy Zelensky for
Germany’s late decision to deliver military equipment to Ukraine.

“We changed our position, but it took too long. *_I_am_extremely_ashamed_*
that it was too late."
https://twitter.com/Angelo4justice3/status/1643460162840297473?s=20

[Richard Hachel]

Le 09/04/2023 à 14:43, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) […]
>
> Poor lunatic.

It's so obvious (open your eyes) that I wonder how anyone can contradict
it.

And even if Eisntein had been the genius they say, did he not benefit from
incredible media propaganda and was he not created by the Anglo-Saxon
media?

And how does it come about that Henri Poincaré is completely unknown to
the general public?

It's still very weird.

We would have liked to assassinate him in the media, we couldn't have done
it better.

We would have liked to put Eintein on the throne of God, ditto.

Question what happened?

Who did the Lorentz transformations? Who wrote E=mc²? Who wrote "we do
not have the certainty of the equality of two times for events occurring
in other theaters? etc...

Have you ever read Poincaré's astonishing texts on mathematics,
philosophy, relativistic physics?

No?

So shut up.

Eisntein has always been considered a common plagiarist, employed to copy
patents in an obscure patent office in Bern.

He picked up well.

On that, I say not.

Poor fool.

> PointedEars

R.H.