EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF FALSE THEORIES

[Pentcho Valev]

From a logical point of view, the birth of Einstein's theory of relativity consists in a single illegitimate act: the substitution of a false proposition of the ether theory ("The speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the speed of the light source") for the true antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light ("The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the light source"). Accordingly, if the arguments of the theory were valid and if experiments were performed and interpreted correctly, and if science were democratic, any experiment would either refute or fail to confirm the theory of relativity. Yet since science is totalitarian, all experiments gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Examples:

In 1887 (the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis is not advanced yet) the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. Nowadays Einsteinians teach that the experiment has confirmed the latter assumption.

In a gravitational field the speed of light varies like the speed of cannonballs so a frequency shift of phi/c^2 must be measured. The Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed this prediction but Einsteinians teach that the experiment has gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."

When cosmic-ray muons bump into an obstacle so that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, their forced and quick disintegration makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Why? Simply because rationality in today's science is so devastated that, as the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can safely say 'Lo, a muon at rest' (nobody cares to contradict them) and infer that non-crashing (moving) muons undergo time dilation and for that reason live longer than crashing ("at rest") muons. Sane science would compare the short lifetime of muons "at rest" with the short lifetime of a driver whose car has come to a sudden stop into a wall.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

The official lie: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html
"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."

In fact, Einstein changed his theory several times until eventually it "predicted" the known-in-advance precession. According to Etienne Klein, if Popper's criteria had been respected, the theory's failure to account for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury should have led to its rejection:

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/26/l-erreur-d-einstein-la-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."

See also:

http://www.unicaen.fr/servlet/com.univ.collaboratif.utils.LectureFichiergw?ID_FICHIER=1339054598187
Le Monde, 24 avril 2010: "Einstein-Besso, duo pour un eurêka!"

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

This implies that, in 1919, Eddington's results rejected the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory and confirmed the twice-as-great variation predicted by Einstein's general relativity. Is that true? Of course not. First, Eddington fudged the results - the effect was actually too small for him to have discerned. Second, forty years later, the Pound-Rebka experiment unequivocally showed that light falls with the acceleration of ordinary matter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. Il aura fallu attendre les années 1970 pour que de nouvelles méthodes parviennent enfin à fournir des preuves expérimentales solides de la relativité."

That is, for more than 50 years the experimental confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory was complete fraud but then, in the 1970's, absolute honesty was established in Einsteiniana and Divine Albert's Divine Theory was gloriously and irreversibly reconfirmed. Opponents of the Divine Theory have nothing to say - they can only join the Divine Choir:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

[xxein]

xxein: Belief makes measurement into the belief of the believer. It
is experimental interpretation guided by a belief to make a
measurement correspond to that belief.

M and M were fooled by what was really happening while P-R forced/made
observation to comply to a belief.

You have no certain knowledge of how to do a scientific investigation.

What is the cause of gravity? Why/how does it affect our clocks and
measured distance to make measurements (well that falls under a
belief, doesn't it)?

Why did Pioneer become an anomaly? Did Einstein get his Nobel with a
false belief?

If you can shove belief behind, you may have a chance of understanding
the reality of the physic.

Until then, I suppose we will suffer your posts as a weak attempt to
convert readers into your feeble belief.

[Henry Wilson]

Everything Pencho says is true.

Einstein's relativity is nonsense from start to finish...

[Vilas Tamhane]

What Pentcho says may not be all true but yes, Einstein’s relativity

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Vilas Tamhane <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2:33 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip snot]

>> Everything Pencho says is true.
>>
>> Einstein's relativity is nonsense from start to finish...
>
> What Pentcho says may not be all true but yes, Einstein’s relativity
> is nonsense from start to finish.

Absolutely. After all, the space is owned by the stationary observer:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpaceOwned.html
-- right?

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message news:k8o16k$qol$1...@dont-email.me...

[snip snot]

==============
Mission accomplished.
Anything else you want snipped, faggot snot?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 23, 7:28 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:

For the first time I opened your fumble links. Read it again and would
like to repeat it. That is not a fumble that is truth, though
description of the truth is rather clumsy.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 23, 7:43 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@November2012.org> wrote:
> "Dirk Van de moortel"  wrote in messagenews:k8o16k$qol$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> [snip snot]
>
> ==============
> Mission accomplished.
> Anything else you want snipped, faggot snot?
>
> -- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Don’t worry about Dirk. He entertains everybody.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
news:44d19d3b-e440-492e...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...

=============================================

"The velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity." --Einstein
If Einstein entertains then Dork plays the part, physically, of empty space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy
If Punch entertains then Dork plays the part, physically, of the sausages.

[Henry Wilson]

Nothing happens to a long rod placed between the ground and the top of the atmosphere no matter who looks at it.

--right?

> Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8498521a-cca0-4e48...@m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com

> On Nov 23, 7:28 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>> Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2:33 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip snot]
>>
>>>> Everything Pencho says is true.
>>
>>>> Einstein's relativity is nonsense from start to finish...
>>
>>> What Pentcho says may not be all true but yes, Einstein’s relativity
>>> is nonsense from start to finish.
>>
>> Absolutely. After all, the space is owned by the stationary observer:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpaceOwned.html
>> -- right?
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> For the first time I opened your fumble links.

No you haven't. Your IP has showed up a few dozen times up to now.
You are a liar.

> Read it again and would like to repeat it. That is not a fumble that is truth,
> though description of the truth is rather clumsy.

You are so naive. But clearly you are a filthy liar, which puts you in excellent
company with "Wilson" and Androfart. Congratulations.

Dirk Vdm

[Vilas Tamhane]

Whom you are trying to explain? To a person with genetic combination
of a buffoon and a monkey?

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 23, 9:19 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I am proud to be in the company of Androcles, Wilson and glad that I
am not in the company of hypocrites.
I am also glad to be in the company of John Baez. Pentcho Valev
writes,
“A few years ago John Baez, the main ideologue in Einsteiniana, found
it suitable to inform the world that the science he had preached up
until then was going to become schizophrenic - Baez had no more
confidence in it and shifted allegiance accordingly:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
John Baez quitting Einsteiniana is like Tomas de Torquemada quitting
the Holy Inquisition. How did the scientific community react? There
was no reaction. The era we live in can be called the era of
Postscientism: theoretical science is long dead, once flourishing
false theories quietly disappear, there is no sane replacement, nobody
cares. Einsteiniana's dignitaries have already abandoned the Divine
Theory but keep this secret. Still hints do leak out now and then: “

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b3cd4598-39f9-4f85...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com

Yes, it shows.
You are just as retired, stupid, arrogant, blockheaded and dishonest.

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 9:55 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
\

>
> Nothing happens to a long rod placed between the ground and the top of the atmosphere no matter who looks at it.
>
> --right?

Wrong. The momentum changes, the length changes, the kinetic energy of
the rod changes. If the rod is charged, then its electric field and
magnetic field both change. Lots of things happen to the rod.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 10:27 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Whom you are trying to explain? To a person with genetic combination
> of a buffoon and a monkey?
>

Now, now, Tamhane, was that really called for?
At worst, people have called out the fact that you are poorly educated
in even freshman physics, and yet you feel properly positioned to
question intelligently relativity and quantum mechanics. Nobody has
called you a monkey. If you want people to call you that, then your
precendent will set the tone.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 10:18 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>

>> For the first time I opened your fumble links.
>
> No you haven't. Your IP has showed up a few dozen times up to now.
> You are a liar.
>
>> Read it again and would like to repeat it. That is not a fumble that
>> is truth,
>> though description of the truth is rather clumsy.
>
> You are so naive. But clearly you are a filthy liar, which puts you in
> excellent
> company with "Wilson" and Androfart. Congratulations.
>

I've noticed this kind of clumsy bad behavior from him too.
It's remarkable what he thinks he can get away with.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k8oe3e$nb0$4...@speranza.aioe.org

Just another sign of severe lack of intelligence.
And nothing to lose anymore.
No surprise at all.

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

Hold on here. Look at what you've done. You've not read Baez directly,
you've only read a shallow snippet of what Baez said from Valev (who is
himself deeply and openly dishonest), and so you have NO idea of the
context of Baez's statement, and furthermore YOU DON'T CARE to look it
up. (And if you look, you dishonest troll, you will even see the places
where Valev has snipped important parts of what Baez said.) The second
thing you've done is to claim that Baez has done something he has NOT.
Baez said he has quit doing active research on quantum gravity. This in
NO WAY says he believes that relativity is wrong, and in fact if you
would ever read anything that Baez has produced recently, you would
IMMEDIATELY see that this is the completely wrong conclusion.

Tamhane, you have become a dishonest spin-monger propagandist. Like
Wilson, you feel free to lie openly or say anything, as long as serves
to push the needle your way. If you do not look yourself in the mirror
and ask yourself, "Tamhane, what has happened to you? Where is your
dignity? Where is your sense of honor and self-respect?" then you are
hiding from an ugly truth.

[Vilas Tamhane]

What makes you think that you understood freshman’s physics? What
makes you think that your views are gospel? What makes you to be in
the cozy company of people like Dirk and Dono? In what way you are
different? I never started this pissing in the newsgroup. It is you,
Dirk and many others who are not worthy to be called civilized.

[paparios]

On Friday, November 23, 2012 1:19:02 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8498521a-cca0-4e48...@m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Nov 23, 7:28 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>
> >> Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 23, 2:33 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> [snip snot]
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Everything Pencho says is true.
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Einstein's relativity is nonsense from start to finish...
>
> >>
>

> >>> What Pentcho says may not be all true but yes, Einstein�s relativity

>
> >>> is nonsense from start to finish.
>
> >>
>
> >> Absolutely. After all, the space is owned by the stationary observer:
>
> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpaceOwned.html
>
> >> -- right?
>
> >>
>
> >> Dirk Vdm
>
> >
>
> > For the first time I opened your fumble links.
>
>
>
> No you haven't. Your IP has showed up a few dozen times up to now.
>
> You are a liar.
>
>
>
> > Read it again and would like to repeat it. That is not a fumble that is truth,
>
> > though description of the truth is rather clumsy.
>
>
>
> You are so naive. But clearly you are a filthy liar, which puts you in excellent
>
> company with "Wilson" and Androfart. Congratulations.
>
>
>
> Dirk Vdm

Yeah the guy is a troll. He enjoys making noise and has a total lack of self respect by making a fool of himself on a daily basis.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 12:24 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> What makes you think that you understood freshman’s physics? What
> makes you think that your views are gospel?

It's pretty simple. Freshman physics is what is taught to freshmen. What
is taught to freshman is codified in textbooks used to teach freshmen.
Thus, you see, it is not simply a difference of opinion between you and
me. There is an external reference. Which we can always refer to, to
settle the argument.

Now, you may want to say that you have a right to call freshman physics
what YOUR MIND produces. But, no sir, that is not freshman physics. That
is the bastardized crap that your mind has produced. Do not confuse what
your mind has produced with freshman physics.

> What makes you to be in
> the cozy company of people like Dirk and Dono? In what way you are
> different? I never started this pissing in the newsgroup. It is you,
> Dirk and many others who are not worthy to be called civilized.

If calling you out for not knowing freshman physics is uncivilized, then
so be it. You yourself have said that you have never seen many of the
examples and lessons that are ROUTINELY taught in freshman physics, and
so you confess yourself that you do not know freshman physics to the
degree that most students have. If acknowledging what you say yourself
is uncivilized, then so be it. You yourself have said that you have
grave misgivings about what is taught in freshman physics. If
acknowledging that you do not believe freshman physics is uncivilized,
then so be it.

I think it is sufficient and proper for Tamhane and others to openly air
the fact that Tamhane has deep misgivings about freshman physics, and
that Tamhane has not benefited from the education that most other
students get in the basics of physics, and yet Tamhane has felt
self-qualified enough despite this to write a book about relativity,
complaining that he doesn't understand what it says.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:30:17 -0800, paparios wrote:

> Yeah the guy is a troll. He enjoys making noise and has a total lack of
> self respect by making a fool of himself on a daily basis.

You reading him on a daily basis must be a bigger fool than himself, lol

[Henry Wilson]

That sentence contains everything you know about science....

> Dirk Vdm

[Henry Wilson]

As usual, you have missed the point. Nothing happens to any rod just because somebody else looks at it.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Why is that you cannot comprehend meaning of the text? Of course you
do but that is your way of diversion.
If a drop of water is released at the top of the rod, it will have to
run the length of the rod and no other path.
It is a very foolish idea that this length contracts when in fact it
has to travel this length.

[Vilas Tamhane]

This insane drivel coming underneath a mask called Big Dog and when
everybody knows that under the mask lies Paul Draper. So why wear this
mask? So that you can be proud to call yourself uncivilized?

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 13:30:02 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> This insane drivel coming underneath a mask called Big Dog and when
> everybody knows that under the mask lies Paul Draper. So why wear this
> mask? So that you can be proud to call yourself uncivilized?

Seems not to be the case, PD use to be a nice person

[Big Dog]

I've just told you that the momentum changes, the length changes, the
kinetic energy changes, the electric and magnetic fields change. This is
a fact.

Now, you can continue saying "No, it doesn't and you can't make me
believe you." That's fine. That's what any half-wit would do.

[Big Dog]

Fascinating that you are so hell-bent on deflecting the subject. Why is
it that you find it so damned difficult to simply state that you do not
believe the statements of freshman physics? Does it just get stuck in
your throat somewhere?

[Henry Wilson]

The ratpack doesn't talk science because it knows none. Its debating method is based solely on ridicule and insult.

In all the time I have been posting here, I haven't seen ONE original scientific contribution from an Einstein worshipper. They merely preach their silly religion monotonously and out of pure faith. In fact, most of them have shown that they don't have a clue what Einstein theory is all about.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 3:38 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> The ratpack doesn't talk science because it knows none. Its debating method is based solely on ridicule and insult.

Science isn't a debating exercise. If you think that debate is how
science is done, then you're an even bigger fool than you've
demonstrated in the past.

Now, if you want to toss out half-baked, ill-considered ideas and debate
them back and forth and PRETEND that this is "talking science", then
there's a lovely costume party scheduled in your neighborhood for the
weekend.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:35:29 -0600, Big Dog wrote:

> I've just told you that the momentum changes, the length changes, the
> kinetic energy changes, the electric and magnetic fields change. This is
> a fact.

Yeah, but your miss the point apparently. They only change because they
are 100% rigid fixed! This is what relativity says

[Vilas Tamhane]

That sentence is akin to Hamas of Palestine. They think that they have
right to send daily dose of rockets on Israel. But Hamas are supported
by Iran. If in retaliation, Israel attacks Hamas, then Big Dog shouts
that this action is disproportionate; as if force in the slap is
deciding criteria in slapping.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 3:30 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:


>>> What makes you to be in
>>> the cozy company of people like Dirk and Dono? In what way you are
>>> different? I never started this pissing in the newsgroup. It is you,
>>> Dirk and many others who are not worthy to be called civilized.
>>
>

> This insane drivel coming underneath a mask called Big Dog and when
> everybody knows that under the mask lies Paul Draper. So why wear this
> mask? So that you can be proud to call yourself uncivilized?
>

Isn't it interesting what you consider civilized?

Do you consider it civilized to state that relativity is WRONG, and to
have the audacity to write a BOOK about it with pretense of expertise,
when you do not understand what relativity says?

Do you consider it civilized to state that relativity is wrong, when you
have not understood even classical, freshman physics, and you have open
questions about that?

Do you consider it civilized to demand people treat your misstatements
as honest questions from an inquisitive student, when you have not asked
honest questions and you are not interested in the answers? Do you
consider it civilized when you want gentle and polite answers, when your
statements (not questions) are neither gentle nor polite?

Do you consider it civilized to call others monkeys and members of a
religious cult and (by quote to B Russell) therefore idiots, when you
know NOTHING about science yourself?

[Vilas Tamhane]

He did not miss the point; he is trying to get around it. He is too
religious to tolerate attack on physics, which he treats as religion.
He forgets that physics is science and not religion. In fact it is
crime to treat it as religion. According to him there is nothing
wrong in physics. This means that all theories are gospel for him. He
will argue that he is not against proper replacement. These views are
contradictory. If he thinks that there is nothing wrong in present
theories how he can accept alternatives at the same time. This is
plain hypocrisy.

[Henry Wilson]

Diaper is a very weak person. Big dogs are powerful animals. The name gives him and his messages an injection of agression, as you can easily see if you compare his recent ones with those published under PD.
Unfortunately for doggie Diaper, his recent desexing operation causes him to invariably cock his leg on the wrong tree.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 3:43 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> That sentence is akin to Hamas of Palestine. They think that they have
> right to send daily dose of rockets on Israel. But Hamas are supported
> by Iran. If in retaliation, Israel attacks Hamas, then Big Dog shouts
> that this action is disproportionate; as if force in the slap is
> deciding criteria in slapping.

Do you consider it civilized, Vilas Tamhane, to claim I have said
ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about Israel or Hamas?

Have you looked in the mirror lately? Do you like what you see?

[Big Dog]

I find all this obsession with my identity to be amusing, and I'm happy
to let you flail. Keeps the focus off the idiotic statements you're
making, you see.

[Henry Wilson]

On Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:35:32 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 3:18 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, November 24, 2012 5:05:19 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> Wrong. The momentum changes, the length changes, the kinetic energy of
>
> >> the rod changes. If the rod is charged, then its electric field and
>
> >> magnetic field both change. Lots of things happen to the rod.
>
> >
>
> > As usual, you have missed the point. Nothing happens to any rod just because somebody else looks at it.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I've just told you that the momentum changes, the length changes, the
>
> kinetic energy changes, the electric and magnetic fields change. This is
>
> a fact.

Momentum and KE are not properties of the rod. Learn some physics please...

> Now, you can continue saying "No, it doesn't and you can't make me
>
> believe you." That's fine. That's what any half-wit would do.

Do you really believe that a rod changes every time a differently moving observer looks at it?
I think a more suitable nickname for you would be 'Big Worm'......no! better still.....'Little Worm'.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Used to be! Not any more. Any way that is not of much importance. What
I am troubled with is his attitude. It is crystal clear that he
defends rather than discuss. Sometimes I suspect that he is paid for
this. In that case he is doing his duty. If not it is a serious
matter. It would mean that he is treating science as religion when in
fact religion is anathema to science.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 3:51 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2:18 am, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 24, 2012 5:05:19 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2012 9:55 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> \
>>
>>>> Nothing happens to a long rod placed between the ground and the top of the atmosphere no matter who looks at it.
>>
>>>> --right?
>>
>>> Wrong. The momentum changes, the length changes, the kinetic energy of
>>> the rod changes. If the rod is charged, then its electric field and
>>> magnetic field both change. Lots of things happen to the rod.
>>
>> As usual, you have missed the point. Nothing happens to any rod just because somebody else looks at it.
>
> He did not miss the point; he is trying to get around it.

Get around what? His statement is wrong, and I said it was wrong.

If someone says that 2+3=11, then the statement is wrong, and saying
that it is wrong is not trying to "get around" any point that 2+3=11.

> He is too
> religious to tolerate attack on physics, which he treats as religion.
> He forgets that physics is science and not religion. In fact it is
> crime to treat it as religion. According to him there is nothing
> wrong in physics.

Whoa, there! I never said that. What I *do* find funny is that you are
looking for fault in simple concepts in freshman physics and looking for
fault in special relativity.

If someone believes that the earth is 6600 years old and is not round,
then he will get laughed at, especially if he's asking questions about
cosmology and astronomy. This doesn't mean that scientists don't think
there are no open questions in cosmology -- just not about the age of
the earth and its shape.

Part of the art of being a good scientist is knowing where the good
questions are.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 3:59 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Used to be! Not any more. Any way that is not of much importance. What
> I am troubled with is his attitude. It is crystal clear that he
> defends rather than discuss.

You do not want to discuss. You are making *statements* that relativity
is wrong, and that it is run by religious zealots. That is not an entry
to discussion -- you who complain about lack of civility.

To discuss something, you have to know something about the subject of
discussion. In recent weeks, you have both demonstrated and admitted
that you know nothing about relativity and that you do not understand
the tenets of freshman physics either. This puts you out of position to
DISCUSS anything about relativity, though it does put you in the
position to ASK POLITE QUESTIONS about freshman physics and about
relativity.

For some reason, this rankles you. You do not want to ask questions
about things you do not know about. Instead, you want to have your
pretenses honored and to DISCUSS it like knowledgeable people would.

> Sometimes I suspect that he is paid for
> this.

In that case, I would suspect you of paranoia.

> In that case he is doing his duty. If not it is a serious
> matter. It would mean that he is treating science as religion when in
> fact religion is anathema to science.

Don't be an idiot. If I defend to the teeth that 2+3=5 and is not 11, is
that treating arithmetic as a religion, when religion is anathema to
arithmetic? If I tell you what terms like "inertial reference frame" and
"field" MEAN and you do not believe me and want your own meaning to
those words considered valid instead, is that treating those terms like
religion? If I tell you that a theory is the most successful one to date
and passes all *scientific* measures of validity, is that adherence to
the scientific method then treating it as religion?

If you want to say that it is right to ask whether the earth is flat,
that is right to ask whether 2+3=11, whether it is right what "field" is
not properly defined by physicists, and that anyone who defends against
those statements is a religious zealot, be my guest. You'll elevate
yourself among the ranks of the Hysterical Whiners.

[kenseto]

On Friday, November 23, 2012 9:52:53 AM UTC-5, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:28 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>
> > Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 2:33 pm, Henry Wilson <hnrwl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > [snip snot]
>
> >
>
> > >> Everything Pencho says is true.
>
> >
>
> > >> Einstein's relativity is nonsense from start to finish...
>
> >
>
> > > What Pentcho says may not be all true but yes, Einstein’s relativity
>
> > > is nonsense from start to finish.
>
> >
>
> > Absolutely. After all, the space is owned by the stationary observer:
>
> >  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpaceOwned.html
>
> >  -- right?
>
> >
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
>
>

> For the first time I opened your fumble links. Read it again and would

>
> like to repeat it. That is not a fumble that is truth, though
>
> description of the truth is rather clumsy.

Dirtbag published his fumbles based on his naive knowledge of relativity.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 3:56 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:35:32 AM UTC+11, Big Dog wrote:

>>
>> I've just told you that the momentum changes, the length changes, the
>> kinetic energy changes, the electric and magnetic fields change. This is
>> a fact.
>
> Momentum and KE are not properties of the rod. Learn some physics please...

Momentum and KE and length and electric and magnetic field all have the
same status. If one is not an intrinsic property of the rod, then
neither are the others.

>
>> Now, you can continue saying "No, it doesn't and you can't make me
>> believe you." That's fine. That's what any half-wit would do.
>
> Do you really believe that a rod changes every time a differently moving observer looks at it?

The measurable properties listed above certainly change.

I'm FINE with you saying that the rod doesn't change with observer. But
the length -- that measurable property -- certainly does.

What's stupid is to say
1. The rod doesn't change with the observer.
2. Property X is an intrinsic property of the rod, because I fucking say
so, that's way.
3. Therefore property X cannot change with observer.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Science isn’t a debating exercise but a branch called physics is.
Physics has to carry this unfortunate cross on its back because it is
the only science that must supply fundamental theories. If you are
against this concept then you are not a physicist.
In every theory there is a weakness and possibility of replacement.
That is why physics must oblige to face debate.
Henry’s ideas are not half baked and ill conceived. Sometimes there
can be a mistake. Because unlike you, his way of pursual of science is
different. He likes to examine and only those who are intelligent
pursue this path. Others are satisfied in learning by rote.
His posts suggest that he has a good thinking mind. Why anybody should
get offended simply because he questions validity of SR. I can’t
understand this emotional binding. When emotions did became part of
physics?

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 4:11 PM, kenseto wrote:

>>
>> For the first time I opened your fumble links. Read it again and would
>> like to repeat it. That is not a fumble that is truth, though
>> description of the truth is rather clumsy.
>
> Dirtbag published his fumbles based on his naive knowledge of relativity.
>

Oh, there's a lot more on Dirk's page than about relativity.
It says something that you think everything on that page has to do with
relativity. It's not really surprising that you don't know the difference.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:54:24 -0600, Big Dog wrote:

> I find all this obsession with my identity to be amusing, and I'm happy
> to let you flail. Keeps the focus off the idiotic statements you're
> making, you see.

Why cant you be as nice like mister PD, huh?

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 4:16 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Science isn’t a debating exercise but a branch called physics is.

Bullshit, Tamhane. This demonstrates to me that you STILL do not have a
basic understanding of what science is and how it operates.

> Physics has to carry this unfortunate cross on its back because it is
> the only science that must supply fundamental theories. If you are
> against this concept then you are not a physicist.

Bullshit, again, Tamhane. You want to turn physics into philosophy,
whose fundamental truth is determined by REASON. That is crapola.
Physics is no different than other sciences in the application of the
scientific method. There are weaknesses and the possibility of
replacement in ANY science, whether biochemistry or geology or particle
physics. The method for doing that is with the scientific method.

But I suspect WHY you want physics to be different. It's because you
have an interest in physics and you don't have an interest in
biochemistry or geology. And you want it to be accessible to you because
you're interested in it. And you want to make a fundamental contribution
to it, and so you have to make it different than the others to become
accessible to you. And what you know you have at your disposal is
REASON, and so you want the fundamental questions of the subject you're
interested in to be decidable by REASON alone. You don't want to be
bothered with all the mess and details and laborious learning that the
other sciences would require.

DO NOT LIE TO YOURSELF. Physics is science. To make a contribution to
science of ANY kind, you have to learn how to do science. Pretending
that physics is different, more like philosophy, is foolishness aimed
only at soothing your ego and giving you hope for success.

[Big Dog]

I'm happy being myself, thanks very much.

Why can't you be more coherent, like some other posters here, Jimmy?

[Vilas Tamhane]

I am not the only person who considers relativity wrong. I am not
pretending anything. On the contrary you pretend that you are an
expert in physics but refuse to admit that there are weak points in
the subject.
It was you who brought in the classical physics in the discussions.
Not me. I differed on that point and then you refused to discuss that
point, pointing your figure to the text book. Why? Simply because you
realized that inertial force is not virtual.
I asked you “ Why there is current in the primary of a transformer
when applied emf and back emf are eual and opposite at every instant.”
You and Tom ran away. You said that this newsgroup is devoted to
relativity only. You are a thief and points your finger to a cop in
accusation. You must really have a twisted mind.
You are a perfect moron who does not understand even a freshman’s
physics. On other points too you displayed your inability to discuss
those points. And you have audacity to tell me that I don’t know
freshman’s physics. There are gray areas even in freshman’s physics,
but a moron like you can never realize this.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:30:43 -0600, Big Dog wrote:

> Why can't you be more coherent, like some other posters here, Jimmy?

See, you are not like mister PD, we want mister PD back

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 4:31 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> I am not the only person who considers relativity wrong.

How many of them understand relativity inside and out? And since you DO
NOT, how are you going to vet their ideas?

Note there is more than one person who believes the earth is flat. Does
this reassure one of them, knowing that there is another who believes
the earth is flat?

There is more than one person who believes we never landed on the moon.
Should that be reassuring to those who believe that?

> I am not
> pretending anything. On the contrary you pretend that you are an
> expert in physics but refuse to admit that there are weak points in
> the subject.

You've not pointed to any! All you've done is made statements where you
claim relativity makes claims it does not, or you say that it disagrees
with certain beliefs that are conflict with the mechanics of Aristotle!
As though that's a weak point!

> It was you who brought in the classical physics in the discussions.
> Not me. I differed on that point and then you refused to discuss that
> point, pointing your figure to the text book. Why? Simply because you
> realized that inertial force is not virtual.

No sir. You are wrong about that, and it is discussed in freshman
physics. You are having doubts about freshman physics.

> I asked you “ Why there is current in the primary of a transformer
> when applied emf and back emf are eual and opposite at every instant.”
> You and Tom ran away. You said that this newsgroup is devoted to
> relativity only.

It IS. Read the title of the group. What is SO FUCKING HARD about you
joining the group sci.physics and posting general physics questions THERE?

> You are a thief and points your finger to a cop in
> accusation. You must really have a twisted mind.
> You are a perfect moron who does not understand even a freshman’s
> physics. On other points too you displayed your inability to discuss
> those points. And you have audacity to tell me that I don’t know
> freshman’s physics.

And you don't! And you've admitted it!

> There are gray areas even in freshman’s physics,
> but a moron like you can never realize this.

I'm happy to hear about your "gray areas" in freshman physics. Post a
couple to sci.physics.

[Vilas Tamhane]

I had little bit of experience of discussing with him about a year or
two ago. However I don’t remember if he was aggressive or not. But
that is of little importance to me. Long ago during my first
interaction with bloggers, I was shocked to notice the language they
use; but got used to it. Now I try my best to avoid this kind of
engagement, though I don’t always succeed.
What is more important is the fact that, PD I remember, never agreed
to any of the correct point of any one who opposed SR. This is a clear
submission to very bad trait of human mind that is susceptible to
blind obedience. This attitude is harmful to science, particularly to
physics.

[Vilas Tamhane]

At least when there is no physics, think. Dirk is acting like Hamas
who attack Israel with rockets. They are supported by Iran. In the
present case you are supporting Dirk the way Iran is supporting Hamas.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 4:41 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> What is more important is the fact that, PD I remember, never agreed
> to any of the correct point of any one who opposed SR.

Does it occur to you that in the past you never saw a *correct* point
against SR, and that what you saw was the same point raised by several
people who do not know the first thing about what SR says?

> This is a clear
> submission to very bad trait of human mind that is susceptible to
> blind obedience. This attitude is harmful to science, particularly to
> physics.
>

If three students in a class of 30 have the same (common)
misunderstanding that, in 2D kinematics, gravity has the effect of
converting horizontal motion into vertical motion, then defending
against this misconception is a characteristic of blind obedience and a
refusal to acknowledge a correct point?

[Big Dog]

Fuck you.

[Vilas Tamhane]

No, not at all. Henry said 2 + 3=5 and you said a+d+d=add. If henry’s
statement is wrong then you should tell him why it is wrong. You are
beating around the bush and please don’t think you are the lord of
this newsgroup.
Why you are shy to point out my oppositions to points in freshman’s
physics. Why you are putting something in mouth when I never said it?
You are not only a moron not to understand this but you are also
terribly malicious.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:31:40 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> I am not the only person who considers relativity wrong. I am not
> pretending anything.

He rather don't understand sets, functions and hierarchies, that
relativity is a subset of physics, science, philosophy and math

math(philosophy(science(physics(relativity))))

[Jimmy Kesler]

No way, I dont think are that pretty!!

Send a picture of your Mother first!

[Big Dog]

And so in any case where two people agree with each other and disagree
with a third, this is an example of them acting like Hamas and Iran
attacking Israel with rockets.

Do you like what you see in the mirror?

[Vilas Tamhane]

You are at your game. What makes you so malicious? You are not able to
discuss points raised against relativity. It is your bad habit to
divert the issue. Since I am not a physicist, I don’t mind asking
questions. But found that you are not capable of replying. You
continue to assume role of a teacher and though you are on the public
platform you think that others should agree with you without applying
mind. You are a megalomaniac.
The points I raised against classical physics are correct but you are
unable to understand even those basic points. Like modern physics you
have learned classical physics by rote.

[Big Dog]

No, I do not have to do that. That is at my DISCRETION. "Henry" believes
that he can say any damn fool thing he wants and that he is ENTITLED to
convincing that he is wrong.

If you were to state that the earth is flat, would you then think I
should bother to tell you why you are wrong?

If you were to state that the earth is 6600 years old, would you then
think I should bother to tell you why you are wrong?

Not every question is worth answering.

When you make statements about relativity that are wrong, and it is
obvious that they are wrong because you don't know what the words mean,
or that you think they are wrong because they conflict with the
teachings of Aristotle, then those statements ARE NOT WORTH REBUTTAL.

You may, if you are lucky, get a suggestion on how to correct your
misunderstanding of the words used by reading a particular book. If you
do not want to read a book and want answers only on this newsgroup, you
will find little interest and LOTS of open mockery. If you object to the
mockery for being a lazy, arrogant ass, then you will get MORE mockery.
If you object to this pattern, then ask yourself who is responsible for it?

> You are
> beating around the bush and please don’t think you are the lord of
> this newsgroup.
> Why you are shy to point out my oppositions to points in freshman’s
> physics.

Because you are posting them OFF-TOPIC in a relativity group. If you
want to have anyone discuss your doubts about freshman physics, then ask
them in sci.physics and hope for the best that someone will think the
question is worth answering.

> Why you are putting something in mouth when I never said it?
> You are not only a moron not to understand this but you are also
> terribly malicious.

If you think it is malicious to not answer your questions about freshman
physics on a relativity group, then you are a fool. If you think it is
malicious to not treat your comments about relativity seriously when you
don't know what the words mean and you have problems with freshman
physics, then you are also a fool.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:41:14 -0600, Big Dog wrote:

> How many of them understand relativity inside and out? And since you DO
> NOT, how are you going to vet their ideas?

You definitely do not. I wiser man, wiser than my self once said

"those pretending understanding relativity does not understand
relativity !!!"

You pretend understanding relativity, therefore you are wronger than
everybody else

[Vilas Tamhane]

By comparison, even a moron would do better. Why you are bringing in
other properties when Henry is pointing to length alone?
It is extremity in foolishness to say that rod adjusts its length
according to the motion of every observer. In the whole history of
science there is no other statement that is even close to this on the
scale of foolishness.
And in fact there is no such rod placed across the path and so we need
not consider material properties.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Birds of the same feathers flock together.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 5:09 PM, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:41:14 -0600, Big Dog wrote:
>
>> How many of them understand relativity inside and out? And since you DO
>> NOT, how are you going to vet their ideas?
>
> You definitely do not. I wiser man, wiser than my self once said
>
> "those pretending understanding relativity does not understand
> relativity !!!"

Who said that?

[Vilas Tamhane]

You are wrong. I don’t have any intentions while I made those
statements. On the contrary by rejecting reason in physics you are
making science subservient to the whims of some physicists.
Be honest! Take a look at yourself. Most often people are discussing
theoretical part in this newsgroup. In any case there is very little
math in SR. In case, SR is just a model as tom says then why you are
so much disturbed when somebody says SR theory is wrong?
When somebody says SR is wrong they make a point based on reason and
if it is just a model you would just say, well that is the
inconsistency in the theory but at present this is the only model we
have.
You don’t take this approach. You try to justify that inconsistency.

[Vilas Tamhane]

You are again at usual malicious. Kesler says that you were not like
this before. I think that was your mask. In the name of Big Dog you
are simply your own self.
Since reply to your idiotic post would be repetition, I would like to
avoid it.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:29:21 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> You are again at usual malicious. Kesler says that you were not like
> this before. I think that was your mask. In the name of Big Dog you are
> simply your own self.

It is worse that that, Big Dog is both stupid and not know what he is
stupid in, lol

[Vilas Tamhane]

Henry says that earth cannot possibly be flat and you say that it is
flat. Of course you know relativity but what you don’t know is that it
is wrong. Simply because YOU say that it is correct, doesn’t make it
correct.
Once again I wish to remind you that you were the person who was
guilty in bringing up the topic that was classical mechanics. And even
that you fumbled at. This is because of your philosophy that doesn’t
allow reason, which means that nobody has permission to think over the
subject.

[Vilas Tamhane]

In this thread he used diversion tactics. He is a very bad physicist
but a seasoned politician. Main question was, how can Muon face a
contractred length? In the stationary frame if the length AB is fixed
and if Muon has to travel this distance, how could it have travelled
this distance but at the same time lesser than this distance. This is
only possible if by some magic, there is a new path A’B’ for Muon,
which is lesser than AB. But a stationary observer has seen that the
Muon has travelled a distance AB and the Muon was on no other path.
Muon also agrees that it took the same path. According to SR this
length AB is in continuous contraction in various proportions to suit
all the different velocities.
Unless mathematical equations or geometry relate to reality, it should
be treated as wrong.

[paparios]

El viernes, 23 de noviembre de 2012 18:37:20 UTC-3, Big Dog escribió:

> On 11/23/2012 3:30 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 11:50 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> If calling you out for not knowing freshman physics is uncivilized, then
>
> >> so be it. You yourself have said that you have never seen many of the
>
> >> examples and lessons that are ROUTINELY taught in freshman physics, and
>
> >> so you confess yourself that you do not know freshman physics to the
>
> >> degree that most students have. If acknowledging what you say yourself
>
> >> is uncivilized, then so be it. You yourself have said that you have
>
> >> grave misgivings about what is taught in freshman physics. If
>
> >> acknowledging that you do not believe freshman physics is uncivilized,
>
> >> then so be it.
>
> >>
>
> >> I think it is sufficient and proper for Tamhane and others to openly air
>
> >> the fact that Tamhane has deep misgivings about freshman physics, and
>
> >> that Tamhane has not benefited from the education that most other
>
> >> students get in the basics of physics, and yet Tamhane has felt
>
> >> self-qualified enough despite this to write a book about relativity,
>
> >> complaining that he doesn't understand what it says.
>
> >
>
> > This insane drivel coming underneath a mask called Big Dog and when
>
> > everybody knows that under the mask lies Paul Draper. So why wear this
>
> > mask? So that you can be proud to call yourself uncivilized?
>
> >
>
>
>

> Fascinating that you are so hell-bent on deflecting the subject. Why is
>
> it that you find it so damned difficult to simply state that you do not
>
> believe the statements of freshman physics? Does it just get stuck in
>
> your throat somewhere?

Well the guy is just trolling you Paul, as is the other funny character Kessler-Watson-etc guy.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k8ov7j$1i9$3...@speranza.aioe.org

He loves it: https://twitter.com/tamhanespeaks
What a creep :-|

Dirk Vdm

[Yosemite Samuelson]

On Friday, November 23, 2012 5:11:10 PM UTC-6, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> It is extremity in foolishness to say that rod adjusts its length
> according to the motion of every observer.

No relativist has EVER claimed that. Don't be an idiot.

What is claimed is that one's perspective view of the rod, that is, its PROJECTION in three-space, varies according to one's motion.

Do you have any issue with the fact that a photograph of a rod, that is, a two-dimensional PROJECTION of the rod onto a surface, shows the projected image of the rod as being different depending on the position (mixture of x,y,z) from which one views the rod?

Add a time dimension. What makes you have such an issue with the fact that the PROJECTION of the rod onto a three-dimensional volume shows a different length depending on the velocity (mixture of x,y,z and time) from which one views the rod?

We just don't normally see these effects because the time dimension is disproportionate to the x,y,z dimensions. In other words, at all ordinary speeds that we can reach, our perspective of the rod has hardly changed at all.

Yosemite Samuelson

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Yosemite Samuelson" wrote in message
news:a80e975b-3874-4f8b...@googlegroups.com...

====================================
Time is not a vector, it can have no effect on perspective. You might also
say mass affects perspective and be just as stupidly wrong.
What we don't normally see we never see and you can't cite a single example
of us ever having seen it. Carry on being a babbling idiot, we all know you
can't help it.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[kenseto]

There is no length contraction of AB.....the decay time of 2.2 us
on the muon clock is worth gamma*2.2 us on the earth clock. That's why
according to the earth clock the cosmic muon is able to reach
the earth surface.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 24, 6:27 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

It is like a yardstick magically getting converted into clock. Or
there is some physical entity that can be measured by yardstick and at
the same time by a clock. I can’t understand why these believers don’t
posses even the minimum common sense of an 12 years old child.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:02:57 +0100, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> He loves it: https://twitter.com/tamhanespeaks What a creep :-|
>
> Dirk Vdm

you just angry he publish more papers than you do;

when was the last time you published a paper mister Dirk?

[Yosemite Samuelson]

On Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:27:44 AM UTC-6, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:

> Time is not a vector, it can have no effect on perspective. You might also
> say mass affects perspective and be just as stupidly wrong.
> What we don't normally see we never see and you can't cite a single >

> of us ever having seen it.

The Michelson-Morley experiment has two possible explanations: length contraction and emission theory.

However, all variants of emission theory have been excluded by experiments specifically designed to test for their effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Therefore, the Michelson-Morley experiment provides a direct, quantitative measurement of length contraction.

Yosemite Samuelson

[paparios]

And how about you Watson?

[Henry Wilson]

On Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:43:11 PM UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> On Friday, November 23, 2012 5:11:10 PM UTC-6, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is extremity in foolishness to say that rod adjusts its length
>
> > according to the motion of every observer.
>
>
>
> No relativist has EVER claimed that. Don't be an idiot.

No relativist has ever claimed anything that anyone BUT an idiot would accept.

>

>
> What is claimed is that one's perspective view of the rod, that is, its PROJECTION in three-space, varies according to one's motion.

So what? Don't believe everything you see.
Nothing happens to the rod no matter how many moving observers look at it.

> Do you have any issue with the fact that a photograph of a rod, that is, a two-dimensional PROJECTION of the rod onto a surface, shows the projected image of the rod as being different depending on the position (mixture of x,y,z) from which one views the rod?

That is completely irrelevant and merely a a spatial effect.

>
>
> Add a time dimension. What makes you have such an issue with the fact that the PROJECTION of the rod onto a three-dimensional volume shows a different length depending on the velocity (mixture of x,y,z and time) from which one views the rod?

Time and space are not related.

> We just don't normally see these effects because the time dimension is disproportionate to the x,y,z dimensions. In other words, at all ordinary speeds that we can reach, our perspective of the rod has hardly changed at all.

When a hundred differently moving observers look at a rod, what name would you give to the intrinsic property of that rod which DOES NOT change?

> Yosemite Samuelson

[Henry Wilson]

Ah! The point is, if one imagines that time is just another spatial dimension, one can create a whole new universe of science fiction in which very little boys can play sensational word games that make them appear like grown-ups.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 07:21:25 -0800, paparios wrote:

>> when was the last time you published a paper mister Dirk?
>
> And how about you Watson?

Are you into the publishing papers industry mister Papa? lol

Papa Rios, PhD, universidad de catholica

[Henry Wilson]

On Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:55:05 AM UTC+11, Yosemite Samuelson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:27:44 AM UTC-6, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>
>
>
> > Time is not a vector, it can have no effect on perspective. You might also
>
> > say mass affects perspective and be just as stupidly wrong.
>
> > What we don't normally see we never see and you can't cite a single >
>
> > of us ever having seen it.
>
>
>
> The Michelson-Morley experiment has two possible explanations: length contraction and emission theory.
>
>
>
> However, all variants of emission theory have been excluded by experiments specifically designed to test for their effects.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

That article was obviously written by someone with the scientific aptitude of Pigdog.

All claimed refutations of ballistic theory are now themselves refuted in my ongoing thesis, www.scisite.info/new ballistic theory.html

As you are aware, I had already squashed the Sagnac myth about BaTh here: http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html.

A recent addition to BaTh is that 'fields' are made of an 'aetherlike' substance that has the ability to modify the speeds and properties of any light passing through. The stronger the fields, the greater the effect.... So extinction (unification) is not dependent so much on the density of matter in the region but rather on the strengths of local fields.
It is fanciful to think that individual photons retain their original shapes and sizes for maybe billions of years. Rather, the new BaTh considers that they slowly merge into the sea of other EM moving in roughly the same direction, combining speeds and reinforcing their own wavelength range into a broad web-like wavefront.

> Therefore, the Michelson-Morley experiment provides a direct, quantitative measurement of length contraction.

.....Poor old Sambo...would believe anything (:

> Yosemite Samuelson

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
news:7a999abf-2608-462a...@nl3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

=======================================================
Seems to me that there are two classes of intelligence. There's the
religious class, those that accept the supernatural from childhood
and never challenge their own belief that they've thoroughly learnt,
and the inventive class, those that question everything and see nature
as a challenge. The supernaturalists go on to become priests, medical
doctors, politicians, artists, schoolteachers, etc. and the challengers
become engineers, scientists, airline pilots, soldiers etc. I'd be out of
my depth as a schoolteacher, Tom&Jeery here would be out of his/her
depth as an engineer. (It once claimed its big brother saved it from
date rape by teaching it martial arts, so we not too sure of its gender.
Having returned as yet another cartoon character, Yosemite Sam, we
see the leopard cannot change its spots even if it changes its name.)
Let's look at what it said.
"One's perspective view of the rod, that is, its PROJECTION in three-space,

varies according to one's motion."

A projection is like a shadow or a map, one dimension is lost as we produce
a shape in only two dimensions. The projection of a rod can be a rectangle,
a circle, a hexagon and its shadow changes based on the position of the sun.
But what's a projection in three-space if not the rod itself to itself? No
dimension has been lost so its not a projection. Why capitalise? Okay,
what it means is the projection onto the retina, but that varies according
to one's position, motion has nothing to do with it.
Then the idiot says you should not be an idiot when you point out that by
the PoR the Einstein length expansion of the rod is caused by the moving
observer who sees the rod coming toward him.
Of course you did set him up for it, but that's the fun you are having.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Yosemite Samuelson" wrote in message

news:6c62eb9d-ba66-4be4...@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:27:44 AM UTC-6, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl
of Medway wrote:

> Time is not a vector, it can have no effect on perspective. You might
> also
> say mass affects perspective and be just as stupidly wrong.
> What we don't normally see we never see and you can't cite a single >
> of us ever having seen it.

The Michelson-Morley experiment has two possible explanations: length
contraction and emission theory.

========================================================
You never could count to three.

However, all variants of emission theory have been excluded by experiments
specifically designed to test for their effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Therefore, the Michelson-Morley experiment provides a direct, quantitative
measurement of length contraction.

Yosemite Samuelson

===========================================================
So when the front of the rod moves from 1 to to x and the back of the rod
moves from 0 to vt so that the length of the moving rod is x-vt = 1, and
according to Einstein the length of the moving rod is (x-vt) divided by a
number less than one, namely sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), making the length of
the rod greater than x-vt = 1,
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 1/ 0.5 = 2 because v = 0.866c,
MMX disproves Einstein's idiotic math by providing a direct,
quantitative measurement of length contraction which is not
Einstein's length dilation, the third possibility, correct?
You never could count to three.
Carry on being a fucking idiot, we all know you can't help it.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 24, 7:55 pm, Yosemite Samuelson <yosemite.samuel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:27:44 AM UTC-6, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>
> > Time is not a vector, it can have no effect on perspective.  You might also
> > say mass affects perspective and be just as stupidly wrong.
> > What we don't normally see we never see and you can't cite a single >
> > of us ever having seen it.
>
> The Michelson-Morley experiment has two possible explanations: length contraction and emission theory.
>

> However, all variants of emission theory have been excluded by experiments specifically designed to test for their effects.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

>
> Therefore, the Michelson-Morley experiment provides a direct, quantitative measurement of length contraction.
>
> Yosemite Samuelson

Length contraction is space contraction. How can nothing contract?

[Vilas Tamhane]

I can’t understand why these believers don’t posses even minimum
common sense of a 12 year old child?
At some velocities the rod can become a black hole. At least density
should increase so much that it should pierce the ground. Does this
actually happen? If not doesn’t measurement made from the moving frame
apparent?
And what about Earth? If the Muon is falling on the equator, there is
no globe that rotates around an axis but there will be a disc that
will be seen as rotating. On the other hand, for the Muon falling on
the North Pole, shape of Earth will be entirely different.
And what about time? For a Muon Earth will almost stop rotating.
When will these children learn that SR is an insane theory.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 24, 9:38 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

Excellent point indeed! Projections are the coordinate components and
not the vector or a metric itself.
But strictly speaking, in the Muon’s frame, length of the rod is split
into two components. Part remains a length and part is converted into
time. How can this happen?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

news:46f731f5-7205-4cd7...@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...

==============================================
Cosmic muons travel from the upper atmosphere to sea level (100 km)
and have a measured life span of 64 us by stationary clocks.
Speed = distance/time, so there speed is 1,562,500,000 m/s or 5.2c
Since this is 5 times faster than a photon (same distance, same clock)
relativity is disproven.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm

Nobody ever timed the life of a muon when it was resting in
a laboratory bench, 2.2 us is entirely fictitious.

[Henry Wilson]

It is certainly insane. ...and so are those who support it.
The silliest part is, they accept that nothing actually happens to a rod or clock when it changes speed. They have to...because an acceleration in one frame will be a deceleration in an infinite number of others. ...and a rod cannot both shrink and extend simultaneously.

[Henry Wilson]

On Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:20:20 AM UTC+11, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> On Nov 23, 11:05 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/23/2012 9:55 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > \
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Nothing happens to a long rod placed between the ground and the top of the atmosphere no matter who looks at it.
>
> >
>
> > >     --right?
>
> >
>
> > Wrong. The momentum changes, the length changes, the kinetic energy of
>
> > the rod changes. If the rod is charged, then its electric field and
>
> > magnetic field both change. Lots of things happen to the rod.
>
>
>

> Why is that you cannot comprehend meaning of the text? Of course you
>
> do but that is your way of diversion.
>
> If a drop of water is released at the top of the rod, it will have to
>
> run the length of the rod and no other path.
>
> It is a very foolish idea that this length contracts when in fact it
>
> has to travel this length.

You have to understand the significance of Einstein's flawed RoS before you can fully appreciate the extent of the stupidity.
The claim is that even though nothing happens to a moving rod, its end are not the same distance apart at the same instant in the rest frame.
.....they kind of ARE but they ARE NOT ....

[Yosemite Samuelson]

On Saturday, November 24, 2012 2:52:36 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:

> Nobody ever timed the life of a muon when it was resting in
> a laboratory bench, 2.2 us is entirely fictitious.

Measurement of the STOPPED muon lifespan is such a simple experiment that it is part of the standard undergraduate physics curriculum. One STOPS muons in a plastic scintillator and measures the difference between time of entry and the STOPPED muon's decay. In a classroom environment, the STOPPED muon mean lifespan of 2.2 usec is typically confirmed to about 5 percent.
http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~ph77/labs/exp15.pdf
http://www.advancedlab.org/mediawiki/index.php/Muon_Lifetime
http://mxp.physics.umn.edu/s01/Projects/Muon/muonfinal1c.pdf

High precision measurements have determined the STOPPED muon lifespan to a part per million.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v106/i4/e041803

Yosemite Samuelson

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Yosemite Samuelson" wrote in message

news:2f45ee96-e193-4a63...@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, November 24, 2012 2:52:36 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl
of Medway wrote:

> Nobody ever timed the life of a muon when it was resting in
> a laboratory bench, 2.2 us is entirely fictitious.

Measurement of the STOPPED muon

==============================

Snipping the part you don't like doesn't work with me, Tom&Jeery faggot. It
only demonstrates your ignorant stupidity and bigotry. I can snip too.

Cosmic muons travel from the upper atmosphere to sea level (100 km)
and have a measured life span of 64 us by stationary clocks.

Speed = distance/time, so their speed is 1,562,500,000 m/s or 5.2c

Since this is 5 times faster than a photon (same distance, same clock)
relativity is disproven.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Muons/Muons.htm

Nobody ever timed the life of a muon when it was resting in

a laboratory bench, 2.2 us is entirely fictitious improper time.
The proper time is 64 us. Don't you now what proper time is, you wanker?

[Yosemite Samuelson]

On Sunday, November 25, 2012 3:21:12 AM UTC-6, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:

> Nobody ever timed the life of a muon when it was resting in

> a laboratory bench, 2.2 us is entirely fictitious improper time.
> The proper time is 64 us. Don't you now what proper time is, you wanker?

No wonder you think Einstein predicts time dilation. You misread definitions, get your facts backwards, and refuse to acknowledge your mistakes.

Once again:

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 25, 8:51 am, Yosemite Samuelson <yosemite.samuel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Saturday, November 24, 2012 2:52:36 PM UTC-6, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>
> > Nobody ever timed the life of a muon when it was resting in
> > a laboratory bench, 2.2 us is entirely fictitious.
>

> Measurement of the STOPPED muon lifespan is such a simple experiment that it is part of the standard undergraduate physics curriculum. One STOPS muons in a plastic scintillator and measures the difference between time of entry and the STOPPED muon's decay. In a classroom environment, the STOPPED muon mean lifespan of 2.2 usec is typically confirmed to about 5 percent.http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~ph77/labs/exp15.pdfhttp://www.advancedlab.org/mediawiki/index.php/Muon_Lifetimehttp://mxp.physics.umn.edu/s01/Projects/Muon/muonfinal1c.pdf

>
> High precision measurements have determined the STOPPED muon lifespan to a part per million.http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v106/i4/e041803
>
> Yosemite Samuelson

First you will have to make basic physical sequence clear. Is the Muon
moving towards the ground or the ground is moving towards Muon?