wrong claims
francisco
web site first.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: Many preachers explain how "any other" religion is necessarily
wrong. What they really mean is that the other religions do not lend
full support to their pov. How blasphemous!
Did you expect scientific belief to be different?
But the physic of this universe is singular and uncompromising. Look
for it and use the best hints (from any source) with an objective point
of view. Don't look for shortcuts because that is exactly what they do
to you.
Bilge
>francisco wrote:
>> if any one wants to refute mainstream views its worth having a look at this
>> web site first.
>>
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
>
>xxein: Many preachers explain how "any other" religion is necessarily
>wrong.
Yes, you do.
>What they really mean is that the other religions do not lend
>full support to their pov. How blasphemous!
Thank you, jimmy swaggert.
>Did you expect scientific belief to be different?
Are you on the kansas school board?
>But the physic of this universe is singular and uncompromising.
Except for the fact that you don't think experiments are
of any use in figuring out anything about the universe.
>Look or it and use the best hints (from any source) with an objective point
>of view. Don't look for shortcuts because that is exactly what they do
>to you.
Don't worry. You and the other kooks are the only ones after
shortcuts. Those of us who are interested in physics figure it's
necessary to use a theory to calculate results that agree with
experimental data in order have some confidence in the theory.
David McAnally
> xx...@bellsouth.net:
> >
> >francisco wrote:
> >> if any one wants to refute mainstream views its worth having a look at this
> >> web site first.
> >>
> >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
> >
> >xxein: Many preachers explain how "any other" religion is necessarily
> >wrong.
> Yes, you do.
>
> >What they really mean is that the other religions do not lend
> >full support to their pov. How blasphemous!
>
> Thank you, jimmy swaggert.
> >Did you expect scientific belief to be different?
> Are you on the kansas school board?
> >But the physic of this universe is singular and uncompromising.
> Except for the fact that you don't think experiments are
>of any use in figuring out anything about the universe.
This is in direct contrast with interaction that I had with xxein a while
back. In response to a question, within the realm of special relativity,
of a purely theoretical nature, xxein tried to introduce all sorts of
experimental style considerations into his answer (considerations that he
presumably thought, or wanted to claim, was necessary), and he classified
his answer as superior to others, in spite of the fact that the question
called for a purely theoretical answer, an answer which had already been
effectively and efficiently given before he made his first posting on the
subject.
-----
Harry
<xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1125526257....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> francisco wrote:
> > if any one wants to refute mainstream views its worth having a look at
this
> > web site first.
> >
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
>
> xxein: Many preachers explain how "any other" religion is necessarily
> wrong. What they really mean is that the other religions do not lend
> full support to their pov. How blasphemous!
>
> Did you expect scientific belief to be different?
Exactly - it was my interest to verify the hypothesis that scientific belief
is similar, that brought me to this group.
> But the physic of this universe is singular and uncompromising. Look
> for it and use the best hints (from any source) with an objective point
> of view. Don't look for shortcuts because that is exactly what they do
> to you.
Yeah.
Harald
Harry
> > if any one wants to refute mainstream views its worth having a look at
this
> > web site first.
> >
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
Thanks for reminding me of that one. Some of the claims under the header
"Scientifically Inaccurate Claims" are funny, but anyway they are - as
usual - someone's personal opinion and should not at face value be taken to
be all necessarily "mainstream" (which is difficult to measure anyway).
> xxein: Many preachers explain how "any other" religion is necessarily
> wrong. What they really mean is that the other religions do not lend
> full support to their pov. How blasphemous!
At least they highlight that in case of disagreement, at most one can be
right. ;-)
> Did you expect scientific belief to be different?
>
> But the physic of this universe is singular and uncompromising. Look
> for it and use the best hints (from any source) with an objective point
> of view.
Good advice but everyone is biased.
> Don't look for shortcuts because that is exactly what they do
> to you.
Cheers,
Harald
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: Sure, everyone is biased. But some see an open-ended
understanding (to the whole), while others are only concerned with a
subjectively measured experimental result, put it into a haphazard
subjectively oriented theory, that ignores the objectiveness of reality
(that may include us as an inbred universe or a neighbor universe).
Have you ever encountered a science that could claim 'rest' on their
laurels?
Are quasars OUR future if we expand that far? What happened to cmbr
and entropy? How did a rapid inflationary period allow quasars to form
from such a rapid entropy?
How do we do physics and cosmology from the local apple falling from a
tree? That IS the current state of affairs right now. We construct
the whole while only choosing the parts that we may like (ignoring the
'or not').
The 'or not' is the higher level of continuum that holds such things as
'local' and 'proper' together. It appears to be above the current
understanding that is usually parroted here as the "official view of
physics".
I make no apologies to 'die-hard' experiment quoters. We've had them
in the past and a knowledgable science is still growing beyond them.
It always has and I make no prediction as to when it will end (like
predicting the end of time in an eternal dynamic).
"Local" is good for us as a working engineering, but let's not pretend
that we know and understand the whole continuum to its barest of bones.
However, I'll continue to work on that. It can never become complete
and that is the whole point of this post. When did we think we knew it
all?
Sue...
Harry wrote:
> <xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1125526257....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
francisco wrote:
<<
if any one wants to refute mainstream views its worth having a look at
this web site first.
>>
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
Sue:
Oddly... my word searcher came up null looking for the
words 'Keating' and 'Rebka'.
Is that 'mainstream physics' way to do a mia culpa
by sleight of pen.
In spite of some recent lapses in the stewardship
of field notes, I find this source more credible:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/
Sue...
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1129275200.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Harry wrote:
| > <xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
| > news:1125526257....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| francisco wrote:
| <<
| if any one wants to refute mainstream views its worth having a look at
| this web site first.
| >>
|
| http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
"If you know about a claim I haven't listed--- I really don't think I
want to know!" - Baez.
Einstein's relativity was stillborn.
No one should be fooled by Cardinal John Baez's latest attempt to
sanitize the scandal of the necrophile priests in the Archdiocese of
sci.physics.relativity.
| Sue:
| Oddly... my word searcher came up null looking for the
| words 'Keating' and 'Rebka'.
|
| Is that 'mainstream physics' way to do a mia culpa
| by sleight of pen.
|
| In spite of some recent lapses in the stewardship
| of field notes, I find this source more credible:
| http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/
"No one should be fooled by Cardinal Roger Mahony's latest attempt to
sanitize the scandal of the pedophile priests in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles."
Androcles.
xx...@bellsouth.net
Sue... wrote:
> Harry wrote:
> > <xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:1125526257....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> francisco wrote:
> <<
> if any one wants to refute mainstream views its worth having a look at
> this web site first.
> >>
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
>
> Sue:
> Oddly... my word searcher came up null looking for the
> words 'Keating' and 'Rebka'.
>
> Is that 'mainstream physics' way to do a mia culpa
> by sleight of pen.
>
> In spite of some recent lapses in the stewardship
> of field notes, I find this source more credible:
> http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/
>
> Sue...
xxein: 'Keating' and 'Rebka' are valid experiments. Try looking at
Hafle-Keeting and Pound-Rebka.
Depending upon your belief, one is staggared to the other. Neither one
is true as stated against the other (assuming a universal logic).
The Ghost In The Machine
<xx...@bellsouth.net>
wrote
on 15 Oct 2005 18:41:44 -0700
<1129426904....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Hmmm...
In GTR, the claim is made (I don't know how to verify it mathematically)
that
f = f_0 (1 + gd_0/c^2)
where in the case of Pound-Rebka, d_0 = 22.6 m, g is the usual
9.805 N/kg (more or less), c is the speed of light, f_0 is
the launched light wavelength (on the tower), and f is the
received wavelength (on the ground).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html
Since energy is proportional to the frequency, one also has
E = hf = E_0 (1 + gd_0/c^2)
where h is Planck's Constant. We can rewrite this for brevity as
E = E_0 * (1 + D)
where D = gd_0/c^2 will be useful later.
In Newtonian ballistic physics, one assumes light has a mass m = 2E_0/c^2,
and is launched relative to the light source at c [*]. As a ballistic
problem, one gets
v = c + tg
and of course
d = d_0 - ct - 1/2gt^2
Since the destination is the ground,
0 = d_0 - ct - 1/2gt^2
1/2gt^2 + ct - d_0 = 0
t = (-c + sqrt(c^2+ 2gd_0))/g
v = c + (-c + sqrt(c^2+ 2gd_0))
= sqrt(c^2+ 2gd_0)
= c * sqrt(1 + 2D)
and therefore
E = 1/2*m*(c * sqrt(1+2D))^2
= E_0 * (1 + 2D)
which is *twice* the effect predicted by GR. Therefore, Pound-Rebka
can easily verify general relativity given a bandpass filter of known
characteristics -- in their case, a Fe57 iron block.
And AFAIK they did. :-)
[*] there are some interesting questions about this since any source
launching light rays is going to be hot enough to move atoms
around by a velocity of a few tens of meters per second,
at least at room temperature.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:ghr823-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
It's still legal to be a phuckwit.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Andr...@MyPlace.org>
wrote
on Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:25:52 GMT
<QUp4f.30936$ey6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:ghr823-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
[my stuff snipped]
> It's still legal to be a phuckwit.
>
Thank you. I was getting worried that I had not seen your response yet.
Sue...
You don't mention the wave length 3 meters from the
emitter. Is that considered unimportant ?
http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm
Sue...
The Ghost In The Machine
<suzyse...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote
on 16 Oct 2005 12:03:53 -0700
<1129489432.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
I don't know. Presumably some ambiguities can be resolved by using
a taller tower...say, the Empire State Building? Ideally, this
would establish a function between d_0 and f/f_0. One can also
of course vary f, establishing a function between f_0 and f/f_0.
Ideally we'd fire laser pulses from ISS at the moon and
receive them from Earth. While rather complicated one should
be able to discern a function relating to vector motion
and altitude.
[crunch]
Sue...
Hmmm...
<< R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on
Nuclear Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3]
The more accurate measurement with Snider. >>
Will the building security let you push a nucleus
off from up there ?
;-)
Sue...
xx...@bellsouth.net
> <xx...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote
> on 15 Oct 2005 18:41:44 -0700
> <1129426904....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
> >
xxein: You missed a simple logical and physical point (if you don't
live in fairyland).
P-R concluded that light lost/gained energy during the vertical trip
AND the higher clock operates faster than the lower clock. EITHER ONE
OR THE OTHER, BUT NOT BOTH conditions makes the measurement come out
according to an observer. Now which is the correct condition?
Here's a clue. GPS. By trick, we launch GPS clocks to run slower; to
correspond to the timerate of Earth-surface clocks. If we did that to
P-R, what do you think the tower observer would measure of the
frequency produced and measured by the ground? Ref to the above
"either one or the other, but not both".
Let's take an exaggerated example. Let the tower be 2500 meters so
that we can break into the 16 significant digits of ordinary computers.
(1-(2*M/r))^.5 (M in meters). Let's use an arbitrary 'given' for the
mass of Earth of 4.43886003015173E-03 meters and a radius of 6378170
meters. According to the gravitational formula (beginning of
paragraph) the timerate on the surface is .999999999304054:1 compared
to a non-gravitational timerate. For the 2500 meter observer it is
.999999999304327:1. You can do the rest of the math and see that the
clockrates alone describe the difference in energy observed.
You can drop leaves into a stream at a certain freguency and at every
point downstream, regardless of the velocity of the stream, the
frequency of passing leaves remains the same (forget turbulence). This
relates to what is considered heresy by SR-GR. You can say that the
leaves are going faster (slower) now and that it changes the energy of
each leaf. But it did not change the frequency.
You see, in this case, your clock is regulated by the velocity of the
water. The faster the water, the slower the clockrate. It is the same
with gravity. The higher the escape velocity, the slower the clock
(the lower the escape velocity, the faster the clock).
This points to an 'absolute' and an 'infinity' that SR-GR shuns. SR-GR
tells you what you will measure in a certain set of conditions. It
cannot tell you why those conditions exist or thier relations between
and among each other. SR-GR can only tell you "what you will measure".
That's why it is called a "measurement theory".
SR-GR is only the subjectively measured 'set of points and conditions'
within the whole of G, M, R, c and the dynamic evidence. It is not
objective enough to 'see' outside itself.
I hope I said this clearly enough for logic and physics to continue, as
they should, before our muddled understanding tried to change it.
brian a m stuckless
NO part of that term is SR or GR.
There is NO GR G_uv related to mass M.
There is NO GR radius r for GR POiNT-mass.
The expression is clearly, ONLY, Newtonian.!!
brian a m stuckless
p.s.
WHOLLY see ..it is finished.!!
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> (1-(2*M/r))^.5 (M in meters).
NO part of that term is SR or GR.
There is NO GR G_uv related to mass M.
There is NO GR radius r for GR POiNT-mass.
The expression is clearly, ONLY, Newtonian.!!
> SR-GR can only tell you "what you will measure".
> That's why it is called a "measurement theory".
> It is not objective enough to 'see' outside itself.
> before our muddled understanding tried to change it.
WHOLLY see ..it is finished.!!
xx...@bellsouth.net
brian a m stuckless wrote:
> > (1-(2*M/r))^.5 (M in meters).
> NO part of that term is SR or GR.
> There is NO GR G_uv related to mass M.
> There is NO GR radius r for GR POiNT-mass.
> The expression is clearly, ONLY, Newtonian.!!
> brian a m stuckless
> p.s.
> WHOLLY see ..it is finished.!!
> >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > (1-(2*M/r))^.5 (M in meters).
>
> NO part of that term is SR or GR.
> There is NO GR G_uv related to mass M.
> There is NO GR radius r for GR POiNT-mass.
> The expression is clearly, ONLY, Newtonian.!!
>
> > SR-GR can only tell you "what you will measure".
> > That's why it is called a "measurement theory".
>
> > It is not objective enough to 'see' outside itself.
>
> > before our muddled understanding tried to change it.
>
> WHOLLY see ..it is finished.!!
xxein: Drugs are the complete answer.
xx...@bellsouth.net
brian a m stuckless wrote:
> > (1-(2*M/r))^.5 (M in meters).
> NO part of that term is SR or GR.
> There is NO GR G_uv related to mass M.
> There is NO GR radius r for GR POiNT-mass.
> The expression is clearly, ONLY, Newtonian.!!
> brian a m stuckless
> p.s.
> WHOLLY see ..it is finished.!!
> >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > (1-(2*M/r))^.5 (M in meters).
>
> NO part of that term is SR or GR.
> There is NO GR G_uv related to mass M.
> There is NO GR radius r for GR POiNT-mass.
> The expression is clearly, ONLY, Newtonian.!!
>
> > SR-GR can only tell you "what you will measure".
> > That's why it is called a "measurement theory".
>
> > It is not objective enough to 'see' outside itself.
>
> > before our muddled understanding tried to change it.
>
> WHOLLY see ..it is finished.!!
xxein: Deja vu.
Androcles
<xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1129515881.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
xx...@bellsouth.net
brian a m stuckless wrote:
> > (1-(2*M/r))^.5 (M in meters).
> NO part of that term is SR or GR.
> There is NO GR G_uv related to mass M.
> There is NO GR radius r for GR POiNT-mass.
> The expression is clearly, ONLY, Newtonian.!!
> brian a m stuckless
> p.s.
> WHOLLY see ..it is finished.!!
> >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > (1-(2*M/r))^.5 (M in meters).
>
> NO part of that term is SR or GR.
> There is NO GR G_uv related to mass M.
> There is NO GR radius r for GR POiNT-mass.
> The expression is clearly, ONLY, Newtonian.!!
>
> > SR-GR can only tell you "what you will measure".
> > That's why it is called a "measurement theory".
>
> > It is not objective enough to 'see' outside itself.
>
> > before our muddled understanding tried to change it.
>
> WHOLLY see ..it is finished.!!
xxein: Your post leaves me wondering what you said and meant. Do you
suppose you could reword it?