Rotation absent in Relativity

[Jimmy Kesler]

another thing they cant afford and contradicts
relativity is rotation,

lol, relativity is all about translation only!!

there is nothing in relativity that demands
rotation, nevertheless everything rotates out
there as much as in there

they know they have a big hole in their theory,
how could they not know about it

[Poutnik]

Dne středa, 28. listopadu 2012 17:23:12 UTC+1 Jimmy Kesler napsal(a):

Avoid unverified claims....

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 8:23:12 AM UTC-8, Jimmy Kesler wrote:

> they know they have a big hole in their theory,
>
> how could they not know about it

You are an imbecile, special relativity deals with rotation.
It also deals with uniformly accelerated motion.

[Helmut Wabnig]

Usenet should be modified to display the age of the poster.
Cancel everyone below 7 years of age.

w.

[Jimmy Kesler]

hey imbecile², saying this reveals you dont understand
your own theory!!! lol, another one

deals? is not about "deals", there is no way around it,
so they must deal with it, by approximations, conversions
and such

the point is that relativity is all about translation and
demands no rotation anywhere, but translation, this is
what relativity demands, lol , thanks!!

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:45:42 +0100, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> Usenet should be modified to display the age of the poster.
> Cancel everyone below 7 years of age.
>
> w.

and those over 60, :) lol, thanks

[Dono.]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:05:37 AM UTC-8, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
>
> the point is that relativity is all about translation

No cretinoid, repeating the same imbecility doesn't make you right.

[Jimmy Kesler]

No cretinoid³ (cube), repeating the same imbecility² doesn't make you
right.

wise words indeed, said the man repeatingting himself, :) lol

[Paul Cardinale]

If you could do math, you could see that the equations of SR can be
applied to rotational motion.

[Mike Fontenot]

On 11/28/2012 10:22 AM, Dono. wrote:
> [...] special relativity deals with rotation.

> It also deals with uniformly accelerated motion.
>

And with arbitrary 3-D motion, and arbitrarily accelerated motion ... see

https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

--
Mike Fontenot

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
news:d84f4714-c769-46e6...@17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

===================================
But you can't do math, Crapinale, so how would you know?
eta = y, zeta = z in relativity, Crapinale, so Kesler Is right.

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

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

Yes, since the first 1905 relativity paper we have already relativity equations applied to the rotating clock at the equator with a gravitational acceleration.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:01:50 -0800, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:

> equations applied to the rotating clock at the equator with a
> gravitational acceleration.
>
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

yes, i just told that, conversions and approximations those equation needs
to do;

and please remark, those particular equation are not related to relativity
in any way!

show them, in order for me to prove

[xxein]

xxein: You are the new leading contender for the Henri Wilson-Lord
Androcles trophy. Do you think you can preform for the rest of the
year? On the chuckle meter, how do expect to outrank the leading
contenders.

Let's see. A head to head match between you and Wilson followed by a
match with Androcles. We want to see the chuckle meter bust the stop
pin placed at the max of 10.

Come on. We had our laughs with them. Give us a really good laugh.
We won't even mind if you use an actual measurement for a change. If
you can't find one, just lie and tell us it's real so we can get some
excitement. My 6 yr-old kid loves to laugh even more than I do.

Yeah. Fight, fight. Put wrestling to shame.

[Alfonso]

On 28/11/12 16:23, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> another thing they cant afford and contradicts
> relativity is rotation,
>
> lol, relativity is all about translation only!!
>
> there is nothing in relativity that demands
> rotation, nevertheless everything rotates out
> there as much as in there

As you say everything is rotating or orbiting about something. Suppose
the entire universe is rotating. (One might discuss whether that
statement has meaning - I think it does)

A B


Suppose B is orbiting about A and has a peripheral speed v. A can do
calculations using relativity about clocks and rulers.

Suppose now A is rotating such that he always faces towards B. The
apparent speed of B is zero so A could assume B's clocks were going at
the same rate as A's. It is vital that A knows whether or not he is
rotating otherwise his interpretation of data is flawed. If the entire
universe is rotating he cannot tell by looking at background stars. If
the distance between A and B is 10billion light years a minute rotation
on the part of A would make for a massive error and there is no
experiment which could determine A's rotation to sufficient accuracy.

Any theory which predicts that something is affected by the speed of
something in the observers inertial frame has no practical application
in astronomy. You have no way of knowing whether something is red
shifted because it is travelling away from you and is Doppler shifted or
whether it is orbiting you and the redshift is due to time dilation.

Alfonso

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/29/12 11/29/12 - 6:06 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> Suppose B is orbiting about A and has a peripheral speed v. A can do
> calculations using relativity about clocks and rulers.
>
> Suppose now A is rotating such that he always faces towards B. The apparent
> speed of B is zero so A could assume B's clocks were going at the same rate as
> A's.

Only if A is stupid and does not understand relativity. Apparently that
describes you.

> It is vital that A knows whether or not he is rotating otherwise his
> interpretation of data is flawed.

Hmmm. All A needs to do is compare himself to locally inertial frames.

> If the entire universe is rotating he cannot
> tell by looking at background stars.

Hmmm. It's not clear what it means for the "entire universe" to be "rotating".

> If the distance between A and B is
> 10billion light years a minute rotation on the part of A would make for a
> massive error and there is no experiment which could determine A's rotation to
> sufficient accuracy.

There is also no consequence of such a minute rotation. So you are worried about
a non-problem. This becomes apparent as soon as one applies errorbars to the
measurements.

> Any theory which predicts that something is affected by the speed of something
> in the observers inertial frame has no practical application in astronomy. You
> have no way of knowing whether something is red shifted because it is travelling
> away from you and is Doppler shifted or whether it is orbiting you and the
> redshift is due to time dilation.

Your inability to perform QUANTITATIVE calculations enables you to make silly
statements like this. If an object that far away was "orbiting us" with speed
sufficient to give the redshift we observe, it would have an observable proper
motion, which is not observed.

Remember that Doppler shift is first order in v/c, while "time dilation" is
second order. This difference can be ENORMOUS.


Bottom line: as long as you choose to remain ignorant of modern physics, you
will remain mystified, and will continue to make incorrect statements like
these. You will probably be so mystified that you are unaware of your problem.
The only cure is to STUDY. As you clearly do not bother to do that, you should
find a hobby more suited to your abilities, as physics is clearly beyond you.


Tom Roberts

[Vilas Tamhane]

Your post is interesting. If A is unaware of his orbital motion he can
never make any prediction about B’s orbital motion. But since this is
a gedanken, A will always be able to measure his rotary motion, say by
using Foucault pendulum. Once A knows his angular speed and the
distance between A and B, it would be very easy for A to calculate
tangential velocity of B. Just by looking at background stars, A will
not be able to detect orbital motions.
Since light rays from B will be perpendicular to tangential velocity
of B, red shift will be transverse Doppler Effect as predicted by SR
and so, I think there cannot be any other red shift due to time
dilation.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:53:16 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Remember that Doppler shift is first order in v/c, while "time dilation"
> is second order. This difference can be ENORMOUS.

i cant quite see how they relate, other than relativity concerns, the one
is not a differentiation of the other, is it?

as i see it, length contraction pops out as a direct consequence of high
speed near the speed of light and a limited speed of light

and also gravity, part of it tells that
1. objects should elongate like spaghetti in the local frame
2. then shrink as seen from outside zero gravity and so

time dilation however, occurs as a direct consequence of departure speed
(or arrival), or departure acceleration (also deceleration), not sure
about the acceleration; one must know which one is departing/ arrive and
which one stays at home

also gravity here do the same thing
1. time dilates in gravity (slow down)

remark that the twins may age equally if the one is left at home in strong
gravity!!

would you please tell me where am i not even wrong?

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:58:01 -0800, xxein wrote:

> xxein: You are the new leading contender

insignificant

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:04:51 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Since light rays from B will be perpendicular to tangential velocity of
> B,
> red shift will be transverse Doppler Effect as predicted by SR and so,

if the distance between A and B remains unchanged, what measurable
"transverse" Doppler effect are you talking about, shifted toward blue or
red?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
news:81261747-5f51-4d60...@pe9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

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

The crazy crank Einstein had to impulsively divide everything by
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), including Doppler's equation \nu' = \nu. (1 -
cos(phi).v/c)

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img107.gif

As "Geschwindigkeit" means both speed and velocity in German, the lunatic
didn't realise v.cos(\phi) was a vector. With \phi = pi, cos(\phi) is zero
and there is no
transverse shift according to Doppler, but Einstein divides by his pet
expression
(instead of sqrt( 1 - [cos(\phi).v/c]^2)), where v is a vector in the
numerator and
a scalar in the denominator, resulting in the *artefact* of transverse
blueshift.

The blundering fool Einstein wouldn't (and didn't) pass a rookie year in
mathematics.

[xxein]

xxein: And you are not?

[Alfonso]

On 29/11/12 15:53, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/29/12 11/29/12 - 6:06 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> Suppose B is orbiting about A and has a peripheral speed v. A can do
>> calculations using relativity about clocks and rulers.
>>
>> Suppose now A is rotating such that he always faces towards B. The
>> apparent
>> speed of B is zero so A could assume B's clocks were going at the same
>> rate as
>> A's.
>
> Only if A is stupid and does not understand relativity. Apparently that
> describes you.
>
>
>> It is vital that A knows whether or not he is rotating otherwise his
>> interpretation of data is flawed.
>
> Hmmm. All A needs to do is compare himself to locally inertial frames.

Idiot! Frames of Reference do not physically exist they are
mathematical abstractions *constructed* upon an object, a plank say -
typically at the origin. What your statement is saying is that he can
tell whether he is rotating by comparing his orientation, with an object
which isn't rotating. D'oh, if you can't tell whether you are rotating
how do you know whether that other object is rotating or not. You could
perhaps go to your local store and buy a non rotating plank together
with a long weight, a left handed spanner and some sky hooks.

>
>
>> If the entire universe is rotating he cannot
>> tell by looking at background stars.
>
> Hmmm. It's not clear what it means for the "entire universe" to be
> "rotating".

Speed is relative; rotation isn't. In theory one can crudely determine
ones absolute rotation by means of Foucault pendulum or using a gyroscope.

>
>
>> If the distance between A and B is
>> 10billion light years a minute rotation on the part of A would make for a
>> massive error and there is no experiment which could determine A's
>> rotation to
>> sufficient accuracy.
>
> There is also no consequence of such a minute rotation. So you are
> worried about a non-problem. This becomes apparent as soon as one
> applies errorbars to the measurements.
>
>
>> Any theory which predicts that something is affected by the speed of
>> something
>> in the observers inertial frame has no practical application in
>> astronomy. You
>> have no way of knowing whether something is red shifted because it is
>> travelling
>> away from you and is Doppler shifted or whether it is orbiting you and
>> the
>> redshift is due to time dilation.
>
> Your inability to perform QUANTITATIVE calculations enables you to make
> silly statements like this. If an object that far away was "orbiting us"
> with speed sufficient to give the redshift we observe, it would have an
> observable proper motion, which is not observed.

OK let's do the calculations. If an object is 10billion light years away
and its peripheral speed is 0.5c Then in one year it will move
0.5 ly
ArcTan (0.5/10,000,000,000) = 0.000000002 degrees per year.

The angle would change by 0.000000002 degrees per year. If you are
rotating at that rate it would cancel the apparent "proper motion".
Do you believe that there is any way we can tell whether we are rotating
at that rate? If the entire universe is rotating and we are anywhere
near the centre of rotation then red shift would increase with distance
(according to SR) because the peripheral speed naturally increases with
distance for a fixed angular rotation.

Why should we assume that the universe has no net rotation? Rotation and
orbiting systems appear to be the norm in nature.

Alfonso

Alfonso

[Alfonso]

See my reply to Tom Roberts. It is a question of accuracy. Foucault
pendulum demonstrates that rotation is absolute but I doubt it is
capable of refinement to measure very small rotation values.

Once A knows his angular speed and the
> distance between A and B, it would be very easy for A to calculate
> tangential velocity of B. Just by looking at background stars, A will
> not be able to detect orbital motions.
> Since light rays from B will be perpendicular to tangential velocity
> of B, red shift will be transverse Doppler Effect as predicted by SR
> and so, I think there cannot be any other red shift due to time
> dilation.

Transverse Doppler shift and Time dilation are one and the same
phenomena. One is simply the reciprocal of the other because frequency
is the reciprocal of time. Transverse Doppler is the change you get in
frequency due to time dilation.

Alfonso

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:C5adnUOUlZViAiXN...@bt.com...

Foucault
pendulum demonstrates that rotation is absolute

================================================
By that argument linear motion is absolute, it require a force to overcome
inertia.
You really need to get your philosophy straightened out along with your
pendulum
because the Sun, Moon and stars rotate around the Earth. ALL motion is
relative,
including the concentric shafts of a Rolls Royce Pegasus, one for the fan
and one
for the impeller.

[Alfonso]

On 30/11/12 12:59, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Alfonso" wrote in message news:C5adnUOUlZViAiXN...@bt.com...
> Foucault
> pendulum demonstrates that rotation is absolute
>
>
> ================================================
> By that argument linear motion is absolute,

You will have to explain what argument you are talking about. At the
north pole Foucault's pendulum will continue to swing in a constant
direction while the earth turns beneath it. It isn't a very accurate
means of providing a none rotating frame to compare the rotating frame
of the earth with (in will eventually stop swinging due to friction and
it is difficult to prevent the turning earth putting a twisting moment
on the rope) but it illustrates the point that it is possible to provide
a none rotating reference. One might perhaps put the pendulum in an
evacuated chamber and suspend it via a magnetic hinge to improve it. One
could produce something for use in deep space where gravity is replaced
with a permanent magnet and there are 3 pendulums at right angles. If
all 3 trace out the same unaltering swings then the device is not
rotating in any direction.

> linear motion is absolute, it require a force to
> overcome inertia.

No if a force overcomes inertia it results in acceleration. Linear
motion is relative, acceleration is absolute. Acceleration can be
measured using an accelerometer without an external reference. Linear
motion only has meaning relative to something.

The difference between absolute measurement and relative measurement is
that for absolute measurement you can define zero for what is being
measured without reference to an external thing i.e. zero is not
arbitrarily chosen.
Alfonso

[Vilas Tamhane]

It is due to time dilation and so it is always red shifted.

[Vilas Tamhane]

You said that speed is relative not rotation. In SR we talk about
inertial frame. Rotation is not an inertial frame. Tangential velocity
is changing direction and so it cannot be called inertial frame. In
fact it was pointed out by Tom that in spite of extreme angular
velocities in cyclotron, no time dilation was observed. So how can
there be time dilation in the clock of satellite? Why should there be
transverse Doppler Effect at all? I am talking about SR. Even if
direction of tangential velocity is constantly changing, v represents
component of linear motion. Is this component not subject to effects
of SR? I hope I will get answer to these questions.

[Vilas Tamhane]

I would like to withdraw my statement. It is experimentally proved
that high speed accelerating particles in cyclotron do not undergo
time dilation and so there is no transverse Doppler Effect.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 30, 9:29 pm, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> On 30/11/12 12:59, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>

> > "Alfonso"  wrote in messagenews:C5adnUOUlZViAiXN...@bt.com...

You are of course right but what do you want to prove? According to
OP, SR cannot be applied to orbital motions and so it is a big hole in
SR. How? SR talks only of inertial frames.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:06:41 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> I would like to withdraw my statement. It is experimentally proved that
> high speed accelerating particles in cyclotron do not undergo time
> dilation and so there is no transverse Doppler Effect.

i would not understand it anyway

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:SMWdnR8xpYZDQyXN...@bt.com...

On 30/11/12 12:59, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Alfonso" wrote in message
> news:C5adnUOUlZViAiXN...@bt.com...
> Foucault
> pendulum demonstrates that rotation is absolute
>
>
> ================================================
> By that argument linear motion is absolute,

You will have to explain

===================================================
No you will have to explain.

what argument you are talking about. At the
north pole Foucault's pendulum will continue to swing in a constant
direction while the earth turns beneath it.

=======================================================
No Foucault's pendulum swings absolutely linearly true by Newton's
FIRST LAW and the Earth turns relatively beneath it, anywhere on Earth.

It isn't a very accurate
means of providing a none rotating frame to compare the rotating frame
of the earth with (in will eventually stop swinging due to friction and
it is difficult to prevent the turning earth putting a twisting moment
on the rope) but it illustrates the point that it is possible to provide
a none rotating reference. One might perhaps put the pendulum in an
evacuated chamber and suspend it via a magnetic hinge to improve it. One
could produce something for use in deep space where gravity is replaced
with a permanent magnet and there are 3 pendulums at right angles. If
all 3 trace out the same unaltering swings then the device is not
rotating in any direction.

> linear motion is absolute, it require a force to
> overcome inertia.

No

======
Yes. Linear motion is absolute from Newton's FIRST LAW, and I can "No" more
that you.

if a force overcomes inertia it results in acceleration.

==============================================
No that's my point, not yours.
No Foucault's pendulum is all about acceleration of the Earth, not the
pendulum which is only accelerated by rising and falling, so Foucault's
pendulum demonstrates linear motion is absolute by your own argument.

Linear
motion is relative, acceleration is absolute.

============================================
No acceleration is relative, linear motion is absolute.
No two cars accelerate side-by-side on a drag strip, one to 170 mph and the
other to 200 mph.
No in the same five seconds one accelerated to 30 mph more than the other,
so it had a relative acceleration of 44 fps per 5 seconds or 8.8 fps^2.
No if linear motion is relative then so is acceleration.

Acceleration can be
measured using an accelerometer without an external reference.

===================================================
No accelerometers measure force, they have an internal spring.
No speedometers measure the car wheel's absolutely relative motion without
any external reference.

Linear motion only has meaning relative to something.

=================================================
No force only has meaning relative to something, Newton's THIRD LAW.
"Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that
other"
No learn basic Natural Philosophy.

The difference between absolute measurement and relative measurement is
that for absolute measurement you can define zero for what is being
measured without reference to an external thing i.e. zero is not
arbitrarily chosen.
Alfonso

==============================
No tip a calibrated aircraft accelerometer over on its side and it
reads -9.8 m/s/s in z and +9.8 m/s/s in x because it was calibrated to have
Earth's acceleration subtracted.
No it still reads 0 in y.
No you don't know the difference between force and acceleration. Neither did
Einstein so you are not alone. Acceleration is NOT equivalent to
force, I feel a force on my feet but I am NOT accelerating in Einstein's
elevator; his "Principle of Equivalence" is just more Einstein bullshit.

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

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

news:aa0fbf49-0c97-43e9...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

==============================================
He's not right at all, he's confusing force with acceleration.
SR clearly states:
"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for
a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the
equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely
similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical
conditions."
That's not an inertial frame.
Einstein analysed (if you can call it that) along the x-direction and
concluded no contraction in the y- or z-directions (specifically stated :

"An analogous consideration—applied to the axes of Y and Z—it being borne in
mind that light is always propagated along these axes, when viewed from the
stationary system, with the velocity sqrt(c^2-v^2) gives us @tau/@y = 0,
@tau/@z = 0.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img26.gif,
and hence no time dilation in those directions either.
Don't be misled by the dingleberries who re-write their own versions of
Einstein's crap. He did not PROVE any result for a polygonal path, v (and c)
is a vector confined to the x-direction and not a speed.

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

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/30/12 11/30/12 - 11:06 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> It is experimentally proved
> that high speed accelerating particles in cyclotron do not undergo
> time dilation and so there is no transverse Doppler Effect.

Why do you bother to make up shit like this? This is simply not true, and there
are MANY experiments to the contrary.

"Time dilation" is an established fact. Without it, pion beams would be limited
to a few meters in length; both CERN and Fermilab have had pion beams on the
order of a kilometer long.

> In
> fact it was pointed out by Tom that in spite of extreme angular
> velocities in cyclotron, no time dilation was observed.

That is a blatant lie (assuming I am the "Tom" you refer to). Particle
accelerators are PRECISELY the places one sees time dilation (not the only
places, of course...).


Tom Roberts

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:32:00 +0000, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:

> v (and c) is a vector confined to the x-direction and not a speed

since confined in x-direction only how come is not a speed?

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:57:43 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Particle
> accelerators are PRECISELY the places one sees time dilation

you mean interpret, a measurerer cant possible see such thing

more over, since the most of them tells that time doesnt even exists, i
wonder how this not existing entity would dilate

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Jimmy Kesler" wrote in message news:k9b7jl$sdd$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

==================================
It is not a transverse speed, hence there can be no shift in the y or z
direction.
Snipping fragments out of the context in which they are written doesn't make
you smart, punk, it just gets you ignored.
I haven't plonked you yet but you are getting awfully close to the kill
file.

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

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:41:18 +0000, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:

> Snipping fragments out of the context in which they are written doesn't
> make you smart, punk, it just gets you ignored.

i dont snip punk², reread the quoting, the rest of crap is not related to
my question

and also, what you wrote is still there, in your post, just in case that
anybody would feel the need to read; no reason to repeat that crap, i hope
you agree with me, thanks

[space...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 8:23:12 AM UTC-8, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> another thing they cant afford and contradicts
>
> relativity is rotation,

This is a point I have already made...
The Sun crosses the sky opposite of the
Earth's daily turn or round motion...
When real motion is created there is opposite
weightedness. To create motion you first require
an acceleration. Round turn can accelerate and
then decelerate...


Mitchell Raemsch

>
>
>
> lol, relativity is all about translation only!!
>
>
>
> there is nothing in relativity that demands
>
> rotation, nevertheless everything rotates out
>
> there as much as in there
>
>
>

[Vilas Tamhane]

It is your shit. I always thought that tangential velocity of a
rotating body can be treated as linear velocity for SR effect. In your
post you have mentioned about pions which are in linear motion. Is it
so difficult for you to understand difference between linear and
angular motion?
Unlike you defenders of SR, I never lie. I may forget or may
misunderstand but will never lie. There is no shit in my pant that I
need to hide. This problem is with you who cling to insane theory like
a possessed person. I have no time to dig up what you said. You said
something that particles even at about 10^19g in cyclotrons do not get
time dilated. To this remark I asked ‘then why satellite clock is time
dilated’. You never answered this question.

[Vilas Tamhane]

It is speed unless velocity has components in other directions of
selected coordinate system.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:22:40 -0800, spacespeed3 wrote:

> This is a point I have already made...

this is not true, maybe you made another point you cant recall exactly

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 07:59:03 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> It is speed unless velocity has components in other directions of
> selected coordinate system.

mister Lord said those other components was zero

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Dec 1, 2:41 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@November2012.org> wrote:
> "Jimmy Kesler"  wrote in messagenews:k9b7jl$sdd$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

What is kill file?

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 07:51:09 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> You said something that particles even at about 10^19g in cyclotrons do
> not get time dilated. To this remark I asked ‘then why satellite clock
> is time dilated’. You never answered this question.

mister Vilas, relativity is a total mess, nobody knows the ups and downs
in this theory

they demand materialism then tells you about a "fabric of spacetime" and
similar, lol, i know a wrong theory when i see one!

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

news:ca3f93d1-91be-4d0d...@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

========================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)

Not all newsreaders have killfiles.
The operating systems Windows 7 and Windows 8 support the newsreader
Windows Live Mail, which is free, and which supports a simple kill file
and a rather more extensive set of filters. I can (and do) colour code
respondents that I don't kill file, so Roberts is in red text, Henri Wilson
in purple, you and Alfonso and Mahipal are in green text, I am in blue.
Depending on my available time I respond to green adjacent to blue
first, then green, then purple, yellow and red last, or I may never get
to red.
Windows Live Mail functionality is inherited from the now obsolete
Outlook Express. The changeover from Windows XP to Windows Vista
is a huge one, larger than the changeover from Windows 3.0 to Windows
3.1 which switched from 16-bit to 32-bit in the early 1990s.
XP to Vista is 32-bit to 64-bit so we are talking of a hardware change, not
merely a software upgrade. After 2014 Microsoft will no longer support XP
and 32-bit products are already being phased out while others are duplicated
in 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
The greater width enables faster processing with the same clock rate which
for physical reasons (capacitive and inductive coupling through size
reduction) is reaching its theoretical and practical limit. The faster you
clock a processor the hotter it gets and the smaller it needs to be, so
we are approaching melt down and the way out is parallel processing
or a mixture of parallel and pipeline (sequential) processing.

Kesler has made it to my (huge) killfile, I no longer see his posts as I
have no interest in his silly one-liners and attempts at being a smart-arse.
He'll come back with another pseudonym when enough people ignore
him, that's how Usenet works.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:59:11 +0000, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:

> I can (and do) colour code respondents that I don't kill file, so
> Roberts is in red text, Henri Wilson in purple, you and Alfonso and
> Mahipal are in green text, I am in blue.
> Depending on my available time I respond to green adjacent to blue
> first, then green, then purple, yellow and red last, or I may never get
> to red.

lol :) mister Lord plays with colours

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/1/12 12/1/12 9:51 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Dec 1, 1:57 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 11/30/12 11/30/12 - 11:06 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>> It is experimentally proved
>>> that high speed accelerating particles in cyclotron do not undergo
>>> time dilation and so there is no transverse Doppler Effect.
>> Why do you bother to make up shit like this? This is simply not true, and there
>> are MANY experiments to the contrary.
>> "Time dilation" is an established fact. Without it, pion beams would be limited
>> to a few meters in length; both CERN and Fermilab have had pion beams on the
>> order of a kilometer long.
>>> In
>>> fact it was pointed out by Tom that in spite of extreme angular
>>> velocities in cyclotron, no time dilation was observed.
>> That is a blatant lie (assuming I am the "Tom" you refer to). Particle
>> accelerators are PRECISELY the places one sees time dilation (not the only
>> places, of course...).
>

> It is your shit.

No, it is not. You simply made it up. Apparently you based it on your inability
to read what I actually wrote (see below).

> I always thought that tangential velocity of a
> rotating body can be treated as linear velocity for SR effect.

This depends on the actual physical situation, and on what you are trying to do.

The equation for the "time dilation" of a particle depends only on the speed of
the particle relative to an inertial frame, and is independent of the particle's
acceleration. So for that there is no difference between linear and circular
motion (relative to the inertial frame used for reference).

There are other issues for which the tangential velocity of rotation is quite
different from a linear velocity; for example, the reciprocity of "time dilation".


> I never lie.

You just did up there. You even lie about your own lies.

> You said
> something that particles even at about 10^19g in cyclotrons do not get
> time dilated.

That is JUST PLAIN WRONG. I never said anything remotely like that. You need to
learn how to read.


What I have said is QUITE DIFFERENT: the clock hypothesis has been confirmed for
MUONS in a STORAGE RING in which their proper acceleration is ~10^18 g. That is,
the "ticking" of the muons' internal "clocks" is unaffected by that
acceleration. But in the lab, relative to which the muons travel at 0.9994 c
around the ring, "time dilation" of course applies. [See Bailey et al,
referenced in the FAQ -- when combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at
rest it is a direct implementation of the twin scenario.]



You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to remember what you have read.
Until you do, you will keep making stupid and incorrect statements. Indeed, most
of the fools and idiots around here who attempt to deny relativity have this
same disability. It simply is not possible to understand modern physics when you
are uneducated and illiterate; the ability to read is essential to curing both,
as is the ability to remember what you read.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/1/12 12/1/12 10:14 AM, Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> relativity is a total mess, nobody knows the ups and downs
> in this theory

This is just plain not true. You are only discussing YOUR OWN "mess", and that
fact that YOU do not "know the ups and downs".

Bottom line: special relativity is an excellent model of the world we inhabit,
within its (rather wide) domain of applicability. It is as solidly established
as any other physical theory. People like yourself who attempt to deny
relativity are merely uneducated, illiterate, or both (usually both). This is
YOUR PERSONAL PROBLEM, not any "problem" with the theory -- thousands of
physicists know and understand SR, and use it every day in their work.

You could learn about relativity and modern physics. But to do that you need to
STUDY. Until you do, you will just keep making stupid and incorrect statements
(as above). Simply posting nonsense to the 'net will not teach you anything.


Tom Roberts

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:10:39 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> That is, the "ticking" of the muons' internal "clocks" is unaffected by
> that acceleration.

how would you know that for sure, since

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Dec 1, 9:59 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

Thanks a lot about this information. Will it make XP and my 32bit
computer redundant? Or I will be able to use it?

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:16:18 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:


> Bottom line: special relativity is an excellent model of the world we
> inhabit, within its (rather wide) domain of applicability.

in other words you admit there are big holes in your theory, that only
works (if any at all) around the holes

[Dono.]

On Saturday, December 1, 2012 9:34:56 AM UTC-8, PATHETIC IMBECILE Jimmy Kesler wrote:
>
> in other words you admit there are big holes in your theory,

The only holes are in your brain. Same goes for the other imbeciles: Vilas Tamhane
and "Alfonso" .

[Vilas Tamhane]

Your last paragraph directly contradicts your trademark view.
According to you, theories in physics are just models to describe
observations. In short, there is no point in examining their
correctness. It also means that a theory can be logically incorrect
but as long as it serves the purpose of predictions, the point is not
important. When this is your view, why do you get upset when a theory
is denied or an inconsistency is pointed out?
Fools and idiots are those who are unable to think and debate. You
fall in this category. Instead of worrying about my memory, which in
any case can be easily replaced by a computer, you should worry about
your lack of logical and coherent thinking. No machine can help you in
this regard. Computer chips cannot be wired to think.

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:41:39 -0800, Dono. wrote:

> The only holes are in your brain. Same goes for the other imbeciles:
> Vilas Tamhane and "Alfonso" .

hmm whatever, the bottom line is here: you admit there are big holes in
your theory

i always have the bottom line

[Vilas Tamhane]

Tom is proud of his knowledge, but he cannot answer even the basic
questions. In short he learned his subject by rote. What is there to
be proud of this unquestioned storage? If a computer had emotions it
would laugh at him.

[Dono.]

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

news:30669197-e7b0-4406...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

=================================================
Is Concorde or the Space shuttle redundant now that they are retired
and unsupported? I expect both still work, we fly WWII Spitfires for
displays.
We live in a world of planned obsolescence, your computer will last until
it dies as mine did, then you'll get a new one. I warn you that if you have
data you want to keep, back it up. My old hard drives are wide ribbon IDE
which doesn't connect to SATA on my new machine.

[Jimmy Kesler]

not sure what the question is, but the answer will be: splunge

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:58:50 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> In short he learned his subject by rote.

:) not sure, however he either might be willingly biased, or not able to
really see the big holes in his theory

[Tyler Dresden]

On Dec 1, 11:58 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If a computer had emotions it would laugh at him.

no MCP looking over your shoulder. or No God, No Yahweh looking over
your shoulder.

Jeffrey Goines: Then, they took everything about me and put it into a
computer where they created this model of my mind. Yes! Using that
model they managed to generate every thought I could possibly have in
the next, say, 10 years. Which they then filtered through a
probability matrix of some kind to - to determine everything I was
gonna do in that period. So you see, she knew I was gonna lead the
Army of the Twelve Monkeys into the pages of history before it ever
even occurred to me. She knows everything I'm ever gonna do before I
know it myself. How's that?

Tron: My User has information that could... that could make this a
free system again! No, really! You'd have programs lined up just to
use this place, and no MCP looking over your shoulder.

Jason Whitney/Jerry Ashton: There is another world on top of this one?
So who's in control?
Douglas Hall: *Not* us.
Douglas Hall: We're nothing but a simulation on some computer.
Detective McBain: Maybe one of them "Units" crawled up the extension
cord and Killed Its Maker So, is someone gonna unplug me now?
[to Jane]
Detective McBain: Do me a favor, will you? When you get back to
wherever it is that you come from, just leave us all the hell alone
down here, okay?


"LOL"

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:45:18 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Your last paragraph directly contradicts your trademark view. According
> to you, theories in physics are just models to describe observations. In
> short, there is no point in examining their correctness. It also means
> that a theory can be logically incorrect but as long as it serves the
> purpose of predictions, the point is not important. When this is your
> view, why do you get upset when a theory is denied or an inconsistency
> is pointed out?
> Fools and idiots are those who are unable to think and debate. You fall
> in this category. Instead of worrying about my memory, which in any case
> can be easily replaced by a computer, you should worry about your lack
> of logical and coherent thinking. No machine can help you in this
> regard. Computer chips cannot be wired to think.

kinda agree, "shut up and calculate" is the worst thing they impose to
their theory, invalidating it automatically!!

you put a stupid machine to do the calculations,

calculations and derivations are nothing, since they are there, embedded
into manifold, far before you start the derivations, one just get lucky to
discover them

[Tyler Dresden]

http://youtu.be/69F7GhASOdM?t=1m11s

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/1/12 12/1/12 11:45 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Dec 1, 10:10 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>> [...]

>> You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to remember what you have read.
>> Until you do, you will keep making stupid and incorrect statements. Indeed, most
>> of the fools and idiots around here who attempt to deny relativity have this
>> same disability. It simply is not possible to understand modern physics when you
>> are uneducated and illiterate; the ability to read is essential to curing both,
>> as is the ability to remember what you read.
>

> Your last paragraph directly contradicts your trademark view.

How does YOUR inability to read affect anything I say? While I'm not sure what
you think is my "trademark view", it's clear to me that YOUR lack of reading
ability does not affect me at all.

> According to you, theories in physics are just models to describe
> observations. In short, there is no point in examining their
> correctness.

How silly -- THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE IS. Well almost -- it is not "correctness" we
seek, it is VALIDITY.

> It also means that a theory can be logically incorrect
> but as long as it serves the purpose of predictions, the point is not
> important. When this is your view, why do you get upset when a theory
> is denied or an inconsistency is pointed out?

You have never pointed out any inconsistency in modern physics. You have
frequently pointed out inconsistencies in YOUR OWN MISUNDERSTANDING of modern
physics. But that is personal to you, and does not affect the rest of us, or
modern physics itself.

> Fools and idiots are those who are unable to think and debate.

Like you. You are inadequately educated and have insufficient knowledge to
participate meaningfully in any "debate" about modern physics.

> You
> fall in this category.

Not true. But you are incompetent to judge.

There's no point in continuing, until you sit down and STUDY modern physics, and
LEARN something about the subject.

Goodbye.


Tom Roberts

[Alfonso]

On 30/11/12 17:12, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 30, 9:29 pm, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>> On 30/11/12 12:59, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>>
>>> "Alfonso" wrote in messagenews:C5adnUOUlZViAiXN...@bt.com...
>>> Foucault
>>> pendulum demonstrates that rotation is absolute
>>
>>> ================================================
>>> By that argument linear motion is absolute,
>>
>> You will have to explain what argument you are talking about. At the
>> north pole Foucault's pendulum will continue to swing in a constant
>> direction while the earth turns beneath it. It isn't a very accurate
>> means of providing a none rotating frame to compare the rotating frame
>> of the earth with (in will eventually stop swinging due to friction and
>> it is difficult to prevent the turning earth putting a twisting moment
>> on the rope) but it illustrates the point that it is possible to provide
>> a none rotating reference. One might perhaps put the pendulum in an
>> evacuated chamber and suspend it via a magnetic hinge to improve it. One
>> could produce something for use in deep space where gravity is replaced
>> with a permanent magnet and there are 3 pendulums at right angles. If
>> all 3 trace out the same unaltering swings then the device is not
>> rotating in any direction.
>>
>>> linear motion is absolute, it require a force to
>>> overcome inertia.
>>
>> No if a force overcomes inertia it results in acceleration. Linear
>> motion is relative, acceleration is absolute. Acceleration can be
>> measured using an accelerometer without an external reference. Linear
>> motion only has meaning relative to something.
>>
>> The difference between absolute measurement and relative measurement is
>> that for absolute measurement you can define zero for what is being
>> measured without reference to an external thing i.e. zero is not
>> arbitrarily chosen.
>> Alfonso
>
> You are of course right but what do you want to prove? According to
> OP, SR cannot be applied to orbital motions and so it is a big hole in
> SR. How? SR talks only of inertial frames.
>

There is no such thing as an inertial FoR so SR cannot be applied Q.E.D :o)

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:De6dnewG_8gd-CHN...@bt.com...

-- Al
========================================

A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".
Here is their experiment:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Question/inertial.JPG

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

[Alfonso]

On 30/11/12 20:32, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

> news:aa0fbf49-0c97-43e9...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> ==============================================
> He's not right at all, he's confusing force with acceleration.
> SR clearly states:

Einstein stated - yes

> "If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
> for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
> synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
> velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
> the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
> at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a
> balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
> amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
> under otherwise identical conditions."

Dingle asked "What entitled Einstein to conclude from his [special
relativity] theory, that the equatorial, and not the polar clock worked
the more slowly?"

And the truth is that at the time there was no accepted answer to that
question - that did not prevent Dingle being subjected to ridicule for
asking it. Believers don't like heretics.

In fact "FROM HIS THEORY" there was no way to reach that conclusion. Of
course Einstein cannot be wrong so a dogma was required which would make
him correct.

The H&K experiment would have been impossible without a clear answer
to that question. They accepted an idea put forward by "Geoffrey
Builder" in 1958 - his paper being one of the references in the H&K paper.

So Dingle asked the question in 1972
H&K in 1986 quoted the earliest reference to this dogma they could find.

"It is important to emphasise that special relativity purports to
describe certain physical phenomena only relative to (or from the point
of view of) inertial reference systems, and the speed of a clock
relative to one of these systems determines its timekeeping behaviour
(G. Builder, 1958)."

The accepted answer therfore, was that it is only an inertial observer -
at the pole in the H&K case - who is entitled to hold a valid opinion
about the physical fact of the relative rates of the clocks. Any
observer whose state is not 'inertial' within a necessary degree of
precision can conveniently be assumed to automatically come to some
erroneous conclusion and can be ignored.

What is interesting is that while H&K quoted G Builder's 1958 paper a
statement in that same paper says:

"Thus we conclude that the relative retardation of clocks predicted by
the restricted theory does indeed compel us to recognise the causal
significance of absolute velocities ........ there is therefore no
alternative to the ether hypothesis" [1] :o)

Ooops!

"...what is being said here is extremely important because it proposes a
re-interpretation of one aspect of special relativity which it suggests
has been universally misunderstood, Paraphrased, it says that an
observer must be "at rest relative to an inertial frame of reference"
if the explanations of the physical observations are to be
meaningful;...this Relativity is not reciprocal." Scott Murray

Of Course relativists being relativists will claim that this has been an
inherent part of SR since 1905. Of course what Einstein should have said is:

"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions when observed
by an observer at the pole. - we can totally ignore any conclusion which
the observer at the equator may come to."

But then we know that a clock at sea level at the equator keeps exactly
the same time as a clock at sea level at the pole contrary to Einstein's
prediction.

We also know that Essen who designed the atomic clocks H&K used pointed
out in a letter to the Journal which had published the H&K paper that
the clocks were not sufficiently accurate to support H&K's claims - the
Journal refused to publish it.

Several decades later when the raw data was released it did not - when
subjected to correct analysis - support the conclusions reached.

So much for integrity

[1] Builder, G. Ether and relativity, Aust..l. Plys. vol. 11, 1958
p.279.

Alfonso

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:V7OdnWv5yZF6GSHN...@bt.com...

=================================================
This is not a debate about Dingle or Essen or Murray or Builder,
but about your philosophy.
Einstein did not use the term (or imply) "inertial", and if you do
then it's your Aunt Sally or straw man you are knocking over to
no advantage or purpose. If you want to argue against Einstein
then do so without putting someone else's words in his mouth.
Einstein did not use the term "Lorentz contraction" although some
leeway can be allowed for "shortening", which he did use in
direct contradiction to his transformation equation for lengthening,
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
eta = y
zeta = z
By agreeing to use the term "contraction" you are again putting
someone else's words into his mouth and attacking another Aunt
Sally.
What Einstein should have said is irrelevant, we can only discuss
what he DID say or we are not discussing philosophy, physics or
mathematics, we are merely Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

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

[jem]

The fact that all aspects of the Einsteinian Relativity models haven't
been fully-appreciated by everybody who's written about them during
the last 107 years (including the models' inventor), is IRRELEVANT to
what the models say.

There's no problem whatsoever with how Einstein's models address any
of Kennaugh's wishful-thinking "inconsistencies".

[jem]

Listen-up kooks - SR is not limited to Inertial reference frames, nor
to linear motion.

[Vilas Tamhane]

If I put up a theory that is wrong, it is not a crime. If you accept
it thinking that it is correct, it is not a crime. But if you know
that it is not correct and still promote it as correct then you are a
criminal.
All top physicists fall in this category.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Whose invention is that?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Let's just adopt a non-interference policy for a while
and smile over their sweet silly chats :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Dono.]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 2:54:30 AM UTC-8, EXTREME CRANK Alfonso wrote:
> snip<

Imbecile, IF your claims wewre valid, GPS wouldn't work. Since GPS works, it falsifies your idiotic claims.

[paparios]

Just as an example see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

[Dono.]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 6:51:18 AM UTC-8, EXTREME CRANK Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > Listen-up kooks - SR is not limited to Inertial reference frames, nor
>
> > to linear motion.
>
>
>
> Whose invention is that?

At the beginning of the thread I explained to the EXTREME CRANK Jeremy Kessler that SR works in rotating frames. I could point out the appropriate papers but I know how useless it is for you kooks.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"paparios" wrote in message
news:ea7412ec-8921-4ec0...@googlegroups.com...

--bozo

=======================================
You mean the crazy kook Baez that ran away when challenged?
See
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/TwinParadox.htm

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

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:k9igrr$m41$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Let's just adopt a non-interference policy for a while
and smile over their sweet silly chats :-)

Dirk Vdm

=====================================
Never did learn math, did you, ugly twice-aged faggot?

-- So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years (2T) while his travelling twin sister will have
aged 6 years (2T/g). <no silly grin>
-- Psychodork Van de improper faggot
According to Einstein, tB-tA = rAB/(c-v) = 4/(1-0.8) = 20 years
for little sister’s signal to reach Earth from just before turnaround.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif
Little sister must be a tachyon.
Just after turnaround, t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v) = 4/(1+0.8) = 2.22 years,
the time it takes for stay-home Dork’s reply to reach little sister.
According to the frame jumping faggot, 20+2.22 = 6. ROFLMAO!

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

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

news:4883c7d5-79e5-48df...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

======================================================
Name a top physicist and the achievement that made him top.
(Repeating Einstein's crap isn't an achievement)

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

[Tom Roberts]

This is just plain wrong. SR can be applied to non-inertial systems and
coordinates. This is just ordinary mathematics, though differential geometry can
be used to greatly simplify the analysis.

Stop trying to describe what SR says until you STUDY it and learn what it
ACTUALLY says -- your GUESSES have always been wrong.

> There is no such thing as an inertial FoR so SR cannot be applied Q.E.D :o)

Physics is not about the sort of "absolute truth" that you seek. In the REAL
world, any measurement has an errorbar, and theories can only be tested and
applied within those errorbars. Here on earth, there are LOTS of experiments for
which the analysis can be performed in an inertial frame, such that the error
involved in the use of an APPROXIMATELY inertial frame is negligible compared to
the errorbars of the measurements. This includes most tabletop optical
experiments, and all elementary-particle experiments.

Here "error" is used in the sense of uncertainty, not "mistake".



Exercise for the reader: From GR we know that a locally inertial frame is in
freefall. For a measurement that lasts 100 ns, estimate how much deviation there
is between an earth-surface frame and one truly in freefall. The above
experiments have measurement resolutions larger than a nanometer; compare to
your estimate. Hint: Newtonian gravity is accurate enough, but remember that the
earth rotates.


Tom Roberts

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:1KqdnVy5gus...@giganews.com...

=============================================
The deviation is 1.6 nanograms, but remember spacemass and masstime
form a group in spacemasstime. Hint: you are a fucking wanker who don't
know time from distance.

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

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:22:16 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> In the REAL world, any measurement has an errorbar,

due to what, errorbars can be many things

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:03:54 -0800, Dono. wrote:


> Imbecile, IF your claims wewre valid, GPS wouldn't work. Since GPS
> works,
> it falsifies your idiotic claims.

nothing to do with it, relativity does not demands GPS nor rotating
anything, you still dont get it

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:13:29 -0500, jem wrote:


> Listen-up kooks - SR is not limited to Inertial reference frames, nor to
> linear motion.

who said "limited" kook, it was about what relativity demands, which is
translation only

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:07:26 -0800, Dono. wrote:

> At the beginning of the thread I explained to the EXTREME CRANK Jeremy
> Kessler that SR works in rotating frames. I could point out the
> appropriate papers but I know how useless it is for you kooks.

who is Jeremy kook, it was not about what is working, but what relativity
demands in order to do its job, and this is translation only

simply, Maxwell demands rotation, relativity demands translation, capisce?

[Jimmy Kesler]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:35:26 +0100, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Let's just adopt a non-interference policy for a while and smile over
> their sweet silly chats :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm

yeah, you never contribute anyway

[Dono.]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 2:42:49 PM UTC-8, PERSISTENT IMBECILE Jimmy Kesler wrote:
>
> > Imbecile, IF your claims wewre valid, GPS wouldn't work. Since GPS
>
> > works,
>
> > it falsifies your idiotic claims.
>
>
>
> nothing to do with it, relativity does not demands GPS nor rotating
>
> anything, you still dont get it

You see, this is precisely what makes you a cretinoid.

[Dono.]

On Monday, December 3, 2012 2:50:16 PM UTC-8, EXTREME IMBECILE Jimmy Kesler wrote:
>
> simply, Maxwell demands rotation, relativity demands translation, capisce?

This type of post is what makes you into a cretinoid, Jimmy

[Jimmy Kesler]

this goes right on you, not because cretinoid², but because you still dont
get it

[Jimmy Kesler]

then you dont know both maxwell and relativity "Dono", you only seamed to
have a relativity handicap :) lol

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/30/12 11/30/12 4:15 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 29/11/12 15:53, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Your inability to perform QUANTITATIVE calculations enables you to make
>> silly statements like this. If an object that far away was "orbiting us"
>> with speed sufficient to give the redshift we observe, it would have an
>> observable proper motion, which is not observed.
>
> OK let's do the calculations. If an object is 10billion light years away and its
> peripheral speed is 0.5c Then in one year it will move
> 0.5 ly
> ArcTan (0.5/10,000,000,000) = 0.000000002 degrees per year.

Well, you tried, which is more than most around here, so I'll respond.

First: The expression on the left does SORT-OF represent what you described, but
in your last digit, 2.8 rounds to 3. That doesn't really matter.

My "SORT-OF" is related to the ambiguities in attempting to discuss "distance"
on cosmological scales -- there are at least four different meanings of
"distance", all of which are quite reasonable, but they can differ by orders of
magnitude from each other. That's why redshift is generally used rather than
"distance".


> The angle would change by 0.000000002 degrees per year. If you are rotating at
> that rate it would cancel the apparent "proper motion".

Yes, for a given object under those conditions.

When I wrote my reply, I misremembered VLBI resolutions, thinking they were in
microarcseconds, when they are actually in milliarcseconds. So I was wrong and
you are correct: this would not be directly measurable.



But you seem to not understand what rotation is, and the importance of comparing
it to observations. Rotation NECESSARILY involves an axis, and along that axis
there is no relative motion. So the notion that "the universe is rotating, which
causes the redshift" implies that the redshift of distant objects will be zero
along the putative axis of rotation. That is NOT observed; the distribution of
redshifts is isotropic within resolutions.

If you change the notion to be that each distant object has its own axis of
rotation, then you could avoid that objection. But then you must explain how it
is the the earth "just happens" to be at the center of all those billions and
billions of "rotating" objects. And you also have to explain why the "rotation"
RATE around all those billions and billions of axes is related to distance from
earth. Given the fact that the earth is situated at the outer edge of a rather
ordinary galaxy, no answer you attempt to give will be accepted by anyone who
understands the issues.


> Why should we assume that the universe has no net rotation?

It's not an "assumption", it is a MEASUREMENT: No such "global rotation" is
observed. Moreover, no such rotation could explain the observations. The
expansion of the universe is a simpler explanation that fits the observations
(and combined with the big bang and the other aspects of the standard model of
cosmology, fits just about all of them).

Note also that the "time dilation" formula you are thinking of is
second order in v/c, while the Doppler formula for motion along the
line-of-sight is first order. So much smaller velocities are needed.


> Rotation and
> orbiting systems appear to be the norm in nature.

For OBJECTS, not for the universe as a whole. You are making a category error here.


Tom Roberts

[Vilas Tamhane]

There is a gossip that at that time there were only three people who
understood theory of relativity. This notion is obviously wrong. There
was only one person who understood relativity.
His name was Albert Einstein.
He knew that his theory based on relative motion was hogwash.
Therefore he resorted to another trick and deception. Through the
examples of twin paradox and above mentioned rotational motions he
tried to make it one sided show.
Why Dingle? Any clever undergraduate could have seen through his
pathetic attempt.

[Alfonso]

On 03/12/12 16:22, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/3/12 12/3/12 2:40 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> On 30/11/12 17:12, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>> SR cannot be applied to orbital motions and so it is a big hole in
>>> SR. How? SR talks only of inertial frames.
>
> This is just plain wrong. SR can be applied to non-inertial systems and
> coordinates. This is just ordinary mathematics, though differential
> geometry can be used to greatly simplify the analysis.
>
> Stop trying to describe what SR says until you STUDY it and learn what
> it ACTUALLY says -- your GUESSES have always been wrong.
>
>
>> There is no such thing as an inertial FoR so SR cannot be applied
>> Q.E.D :o)
>
> Physics is not about the sort of "absolute truth" that you seek. In the
> REAL world,

But according to you "the most that human beings can aspire to is to
make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what Nature
herself is really doing. We can only make models and test them". What
REAL world are you talking about? Perhaps you mean the fantasy world you
inhabit where you a great physicist handing down pearls of wisdom to
lesser mortals. Hint - you're not and you don't and you give yourself
away every other post.

> any measurement has an errorbar,

Ah yes - last time you trotted that out in your usual pompous way I
showed you were wrong. You didn't respond to that post so I will remind you.

I wrote
" Suppose B is orbiting about A and has a peripheral speed v. A can do
calculations using relativity about clocks and rulers.
Suppose now A is rotating such that he always faces towards B. The apparent
speed of B is zero so A could assume B's clocks were going at the same
rate as A's."

I was making a perfectly valid point that unless A knows *exactly* by
how much he is rotating his calculations will be inaccurate because
rotation will result in apparent peripheral speed.

You being your usual obnoxious self failed to see this obvious point and
replied

> Only if A is stupid and does not understand relativity. Apparently that
> describes you.

I wrote
"It is vital that A knows whether or not he is rotating otherwise his
interpretation of data is flawed."

To which you responded
>
> Hmmm. All A needs to do is compare himself to locally inertial frames.

Showing a total naivety when it comes to practical measurement. I'm
afraid my usual good natured politeness temporarily abandoned me an I
called you an idiot. What you were saying was that you can tell you are
rotating by comparing yourself with something which isn't.

Me:
>> If the entire universe is rotating he cannot
>> tell by looking at background stars.

You:
>
> Hmmm. It's not clear what it means for the "entire universe" to be
> "rotating".

Me
Speed is relative; rotation isn't. In theory one can crudely determine
ones absolute rotation by means of Foucault pendulum or using a
gyroscope. If the distance between A and B is 10billion light years a
minute rotation on the part of A would make for a massive error and
there is no experiment which could determine A's rotation to sufficient
accuracy. You have no way of knowing whether something is red shifted
because it is travelling away from you and is Doppler shifted or whether
it is orbiting you and the redshift is due to time dilation.

You - being your usual supercilious obnoxious self responded:

> There is no consequence of such a minute rotation. So you are
> worried about a non-problem. This becomes apparent as soon as one
> applies errorbars to the measurements.

> Your inability to perform QUANTITATIVE calculations enables you to make
> silly statements like this. If an object that far away was "orbiting us"
> with speed sufficient to give the redshift we observe, it would have an
> observable proper motion, which is not observed.

I did the calculations showing that it was in fact YOU who had an
inability to do QUANTITATIVE calculations and that the ERRORBARS are
such as to make the application of relativity totally useless in
astronomy.

Me:

OK let's do the calculations. If an object is 10billion light years away
and its peripheral speed is 0.5c Then in one year it will move
0.5 ly
ArcTan (0.5/10,000,000,000) = 0.000000002 degrees per year.

The angle would change by 0.000000002 degrees per year. If you are
rotating at that rate it would cancel the apparent "proper motion".

Do you believe that there is any way we can tell whether we are rotating
at that rate? If the entire universe is rotating and we are anywhere
near the centre of rotation then red shift would increase with distance
(according to SR) because the peripheral speed naturally increases with
distance for a fixed angular rotation.

Why should we assume that the universe has no net rotation? Rotation and

orbiting systems appear to be the norm in nature.

Alfonso

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

news:c902914e-0551-4f56...@lg12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

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

It is Kennaugh's philosophy to quote the dead rather than perform
a simple calculation himself, that's why Dingle.

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

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:afednRY2vOJ3EyDN...@bt.com...

Why should we assume that the universe has no net rotation?

Alfonso

==============================================================
Newton's First Law. If the universe rotated it would have an axis of
rotation
along which a free-falling body would obey that law and a fee-falling body
moving orthogonally to that axis would not.
Now get real, worry about William and Kate's pregnancy instead, he's got a
hangover aka morning sickness, poor guy.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Dec 3, 10:57 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 12/1/12 12/1/12   11:45 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 10:10 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to remember what you have read.
> >> Until you do, you will keep making stupid and incorrect statements. Indeed, most
> >> of the fools and idiots around here who attempt to deny relativity have this
> >> same disability. It simply is not possible to understand modern physics when you
> >> are uneducated and illiterate; the ability to read is essential to curing both,
> >> as is the ability to remember what you read.
>
> > Your last paragraph directly contradicts your trademark view.
>
> How does YOUR inability to read affect anything I say? While I'm not sure what
> you think is my "trademark view", it's clear to me that YOUR lack of reading
> ability does not affect me at all.
>
> > According to you, theories in physics are just models to describe
> > observations. In short, there is no point in examining their
> > correctness.
>
> How silly -- THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE IS. Well almost -- it is not "correctness" we
> seek, it is VALIDITY.
>
> > It also means that a theory can be logically incorrect
> > but as long as it serves the purpose of predictions, the point is not
> > important. When this is your view, why do you get upset when a theory
> > is denied or an inconsistency is pointed out?
>
> You have never pointed out any inconsistency in modern physics. You have
> frequently pointed out inconsistencies in YOUR OWN MISUNDERSTANDING of modern
> physics. But that is personal to you, and does not affect the rest of us, or
> modern physics itself.
>
> > Fools and idiots are those who are unable to think and debate.
>
> Like you. You are inadequately educated and have insufficient knowledge to
> participate meaningfully in any "debate" about modern physics.
>
> > You
> > fall in this category.
>
> Not true. But you are incompetent to judge.
>
> There's no point in continuing, until you sit down and STUDY modern physics, and
> LEARN something about the subject.
>
> Goodbye.
>
> Tom Roberts

What makes you think that slow muon decay is due to relativity? You
say that in the Lab frame, muon decay is slowed. What about the frame
of muon? Have you considered it? In the frame of muon, there is no
time dilation.
In the lab frame, if muons make n revolutions in t seconds, then in
muon’s frame too they must make n revolutions (before they decay).
This can be explained only by length contraction. And like linear
distances we face a problem here.
Imagine very thin round super conductor. How much thin is not
important for the gedanken. If electrons are set in motion in this
conductor, then in the frame of electrons, diameter of the round
conductor must get reduced. But since the ring is in lab frame, there
cannot be any such real contraction. But to satisfy SR, we must assume
that electrons, in their own frame, move round in the imaginary ring
of lesser diameter.
Situation is similar to the muons falling on earth. Length contraction
of the distance that is situated in the earth frame cannot get
contracted in reality.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

news:618e88a4-6600-4c14...@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

--VT
==============================================

What makes you think length contraction is part of special relativity?
You are as stupid as Roberts, mumbling words that don't match the
equations. Einstein was an idiot, and SO ARE YOU!
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is length DILATION, you MORON!

[Alfonso]

On 03/12/12 11:30, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Alfonso" wrote in message news:V7OdnWv5yZF6GSHN...@bt.com...

>
> On 30/11/12 20:32, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
>> "Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

> =================================================
> This is not a debate about Dingle or Essen or Murray or Builder,
> but about your philosophy.

No its actually about rotation and the theory of relativity as it is now
interpreted according to Builder as pointed out by Murray.


> Einstein did not use the term (or imply) "inertial", and if you do
> then it's your Aunt Sally or straw man you are knocking over to
> no advantage or purpose.

OK in 1905 he used the unsatisfactory term "stationary system". In
what way does an inertial FoR differ from what he described as a
stationary system? The subject relates to SR as it exists today.


If you want to argue against Einstein
> then do so without putting someone else's words in his mouth.
> Einstein did not use the term "Lorentz contraction" although some
> leeway can be allowed for "shortening",

Can you suggest a difference between contraction and shortening?


which he did use in
> direct contradiction to his transformation equation for lengthening,

> xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

> eta = y
> zeta = z
> By agreeing to use the term "contraction" you are again putting
> someone else's words into his mouth and attacking another Aunt
> Sally.

I can't find the reference but (I think it was Essen) pointed out that
he got it wrong. In a later paper he had another go and got it right. He
concealed the error in part in the corrected version by interchanging
his definitions of X and X'

> What Einstein should have said is irrelevant,

It depends on whether you are attacking his theory (corrected) or his
mathematical ability. He made a mathematical error which was rather
remiss of him especially as he knew the answer he was trying to get.
There are more elegant ways of deriving the transforms from his
postulates which are taught today.

we can only discuss
> what he DID say

Why? His theory *as now accepted* is what we should be attacking not his
poor maths. That theory was re-interpreted by Builder and Builder's
interpretation is now accepted. When you were taught Maxwell's equations
you were almost certainly taught Lorentz's version of Maxwell's
equations. Lorentz contributed a lot but the credit goes to Maxwell -
although sometimes it is more correctly described as Maxwell-Lorentz
electrodynamics. Now if you want to argue that it should rightly be
called Lorentz's theory not Einstein's then I would agree with you.

or we are not discussing philosophy, physics or
> mathematics, we are merely Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

[jem]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> jem<x...@xxx.invalid> wrote:
>> Alfonso wrote:
>>> On 30/11/12 17:12, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>>> There is no such thing as an inertial FoR so SR cannot be applied
>>> Q.E.D :o)
>>

>> Listen-up kooks - SR is not limited to Inertial reference frames, nor
>> to linear motion.
>

> Let's just adopt a non-interference policy for a while
> and smile over their sweet silly chats :-)
>

But informing them that the inanities they've dreamed up are as
factually wrong as can be, and then sitting back and watching as they
obliviously repeat their inanities right on cue, makes for even bigger
smiles. :))

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:Y9SdnQFoZsqdnyPN...@bt.com...

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

No this is not a debate about Dingle or Essen or Murray or Builder,
but about your SICK philosophy.
No so much for your integrity.

> Einstein did not use the term (or imply) "inertial", and if you do
> then it's your Aunt Sally or straw man you are knocking over to
> no advantage or purpose.

OK in 1905 he used the unsatisfactory term "stationary system".

===============================================
No it is very satisfactory, far more so than your unsatisfactory
"absolute" FoR in which you claim rotation is "absolute".

In
what way does an inertial FoR differ from what he described as a
stationary system?

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

"Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian
mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to
distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be
introduced hereafter, we call it the “stationary system.” -- Einstein

No in what way does an inertial FoR differ from what Einstein described as a
system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold
good?

No in what way does two differ from zwei?
No in what way does zwei differ from deux?
No in what way does deux differ from 2?
No in what way does "moving system" differ from "stationary system"?

No if you don't read what Einstein wrote you are not qualified to criticise
what he wrote.
No this is not a debate about Dingle or Essen or Murray or Builder, but
about your SICK philosophy.
No "stationary system" is very satisfactory, far more so than your
unsatisfactory "absolute" FoR in which you claim rotation is "absolute".

The subject relates to SR as it exists today.

====================================
No in what way does "the subject as it exists today" differ from SR as
Einstein wrote it?
No leave Einstein out of "the subject as to exists today" and only discuss
"the subject as it exists today".
No first tell us who wrote "the subject as it exists today", but remember
you are not discussing SR.
No so much for your integrity.

If you want to argue against Einstein
> then do so without putting someone else's words in his mouth.
> Einstein did not use the term "Lorentz contraction" although some
> leeway can be allowed for "shortening",

Can you suggest a difference between contraction and shortening?

========================================================
Can you suggest a difference between 1 multiplied by 0.5 and 1 divided by
0.5?
Let's be quite clear. Einstein was a babbling idiot and if you agree with
his
babble then SO ARE YOU!

which he did use in
> direct contradiction to his transformation equation for lengthening,
> xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> eta = y
> zeta = z
> By agreeing to use the term "contraction" you are again putting
> someone else's words into his mouth and attacking another Aunt
> Sally.

I can't find the reference but (I think it was Essen) pointed out that
he got it wrong.

=========================================================
Well I can find the reference and I did it without Essen for a crutch, and
of course the babbling idiot Einstein got it wrong.
The reference is in
§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid
Bodies and Moving Clocks
in
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
which ANYONE with out a lame brain can read without Essen to do it for them.

In a later paper he had another go and got it right.

===============================================
No he didn't. So much for your integrity.

"Thus, whereas the Y and Z dimensions of the sphere (and therefore of every
rigid body of no matter what form) do not appear modified by the motion, the
X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1:sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), i.e. the
greater the value of v, the greater the shortening." -- Einstein.

Same paper.
He wrote that to agree with Lorentz, but the ratio 1:sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is
1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), the greater the value of v, the greater the LENGTHENING.

He concealed the error in part in the corrected version by interchanging
his definitions of X and X'

===================================================
Cite it. So much for your integrity.

> What Einstein should have said is irrelevant,

It depends on whether you are attacking his theory (corrected) or his
mathematical ability. He made a mathematical error which was rather
remiss of him especially as he knew the answer he was trying to get.
There are more elegant ways of deriving the transforms from his
postulates which are taught today.

=====================================================
Take a tip from the moslems.
There is no Physics but SR and Einstein is its Prophet.
Every time you babble "contraction" you are agreeing with a babbling idiot.

we can only discuss
> what he DID say

Why?

=======================================================
That has to be the fucking dumbest question anyone ever asked.
To get it right, that's why! Your brain is contracted.