Einstein Had a Poor Undersanding of His Own Theories
Traveler
He had no idea why clocks slow down or why things fall or even move.
If your physics cannot explain these things, it's not physics; it's
just chicken-shit math engineering. Einsteinian physics follows in the
tradition of Newtonian mechanics. It's all math engineering with very
little physics in between. Physics is about particles, their
properties and their interactions. Everything else is abstract or
voodoo, including space and time.
But, it gets even worse. In 1949, Kurt "lunatic" Godel announced to
the world that general relativity allows time travel via closed
time-like loops. Even though this is pathetically false (nothing can
move in spacetime), Einstein agreed with the fruitcake. In fact,
Einstein became depressed because he felt that, even though he knew
that time travel is illogical for a variety of reasons, why should GR,
his crowning achievement, allow such nonsense? In other words,
Einstein did not understand his own theory which gives credence to
accusations that he was a mediocre plagiarizer or a puppet on a
pedestal.
The irrefutable truth is that nothing can move in spacetime and time
does not change. This is the reason that Sir Karl Popper (of
"falsifiability of science" fame) called spacetime, "Einstein's block
universe in which nothing ever happens."
IOW, no motion in spacetime, no geodesics, no particles curving the
fabric of spacetime so as to cause gravity. Spacetime is a
chicken-shit fictitious math trick in the tradition of ptolemaic
epicycles. For a hundred years we've been fed a bunch of Star-trek
bullshit physics by a bunch of clueless con artists. ahahaha...
ahahahaha...
So who wants to be the next Einstein? Not me. I'd rather be Archimedes
Plutonium a thousand times over than be a gutless ass kisser.
Someone recently accused me of being against GR and SR. I am not! I am
against relativists. Certainly I think relativity is a chicken shit
theory because it explains nothing. I am angry at the the relativist
con artists who have managed to deceive multiple generations of young
minds in the last century. Relativity says none of the crap they have
claimed for it: time travel, time dilation (clock slowing) particles
following their geodesics in spacetime, gravity being a geometric
effect of curved spacetime, etc... It's all unmitigated crackpottery.
The relativist charlatans who have held an iron grip on the
dissemination of certain physics knowledge in the last century are in
for rough times. This is the age of the internet and the blogs. The
charlatans no longer have a monopoly on the dissemination of
knowledge. People are beginning to have dissident ideas and making
themselves heard and this bothers the con artists to no end.
Illustrious Time Travel Crackpot List:
Kurt Godel
Albert Eisntein
Kip Thorne
Stephen Hawking
Richard Feynman (absorber theory)
John Wheeler (absorber theory)
Carl Sagan
Michio Kaku
Brian Greene
And many more...
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:hpalc15islc5pdgf6...@4ax.com...
> Einstein Had a Poor Undersanding of His Own Theories.
Louis Savain had no understanding of his own imbecility:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nobody.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MaybeConspiracy.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SavainAnswer.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Insanity.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EatShit.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PoliteConversation.html
[follow-ups set to more appropriate newsgroups]
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
[crap]
What does John Baez's ass smell like today, Van de merde? ahahahaha...
ahahaha... Or is it Uncle Dickhead's ass? AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahaha...
Phew! Physics is so much Phucking Phun! ahahaha...
EL
> Einstein Had a Poor Understanding of His Own Theories.
>
[EL]
Even Bilge said so.......!
I am not sure, but is that really true?
EL
richard miller
>
> He had no idea why clocks slow down or why things fall or even move.
> If your physics cannot explain these things, it's not physics; it's
> just chicken-shit math engineering. Einsteinian physics follows in the
> tradition of Newtonian mechanics. It's all math engineering with very
> little physics in between. Physics is about particles, their
> properties and their interactions. Everything else is abstract or
> voodoo, including space and time.
>
Tell me, do you think anyone has a deep, intuitive grasp of Quantum
Mechanics? Most have a grasp of the mathematical concepts, but relating to
it intuitively? Yet some aspects of QM have 11 digits backing them up.
Probably more these days.
It may be chicken shit, but its highly predictive and seems to work very
well, no matter how bizarre. Its results that do the talking, call it
Mathematics or Physics, we don't care so long as the predictive power of the
theory matches all we can observe/measure.
RJM
StableXYZN5
Uncle Al
>
> Einstein Had a Poor Undersanding of His Own Theories.
Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)
Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität u. Electronik 4 411 (1907)
Annalen der Physik 4 XLIX 769-822 (1916)
> Louis Savain
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Mark Martin
Traveler wrote:
> Einstein Had a Poor Undersanding of His Own Theories.
Well, then you & he have something very much in common.
-Mark Martin
Traveler
"Mark Martin" <qed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[crap]
ahaha... another ass kisser heard from.
Traveler
[crap]
Baez... ass... sniff... kiss... ahahaha... ahahaha...
Mark Martin
Traveler wrote:
> In article <1120599959.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mark Martin" <qed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> ahaha... another ass kisser heard from.
You're the ass around here. I don't expect you've an abundance of
hickies.
-Mark Martin
Traveler
"Mark Martin" <qed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[crap]
Ass... kiss... sniff... ahahaha...
Tom Capizzi
[snip diatribe]
> Someone recently accused me of being against GR and SR. I am not! I am
> against relativists. Certainly I think relativity is a chicken shit
> theory because it explains nothing. I am angry at the the relativist
Bullshit. You are just angry, period.
> con artists who have managed to deceive multiple generations of young
> minds in the last century. Relativity says none of the crap they have
> claimed for it: time travel, time dilation (clock slowing) particles
> following their geodesics in spacetime, gravity being a geometric
> effect of curved spacetime, etc... It's all unmitigated crackpottery.
>
More of your worthless, unsupported opinion
> The relativist charlatans who have held an iron grip on the
> dissemination of certain physics knowledge in the last century are in
> for rough times. This is the age of the internet and the blogs. The
> charlatans no longer have a monopoly on the dissemination of
> knowledge. People are beginning to have dissident ideas and making
> themselves heard and this bothers the con artists to no end.
The load of crap that uneducated pretenders try to pass off as logical
argument is also irritating, but the difference is you and your ilk are just
a flash in the pan. A hundred years from now no one will care about
your crusade to remake the laws of physics, while Einstein will still be
taught. Someone may develop a better theory, but it will only differ
in the most extreme circumstances, in the same way that Einstein
replaced Newton, who is still being taught over 300 years later. You
won't even be a footnote.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
>
>>Einstein Had a Poor Undersanding of His Own Theories.
Hi Traveler,
Many years ago I got interested in relativity. Not knowing any better,
I started by reading Einstein's original works on special relativity. I
found them hard to understand, and it seemed to me that his ideas were
full of paradoxes. But I persevered and thought very much about them,
and more or less rediscovered for myself that his theories are not only
highly self-consistent, but also very beautiful. Then when I reread
Einstein, I found out that he actually understood his own theories
extremely well.
When I say that Einstein was a genius, I am not saying it to flatter my
peers, or to kiss up to anyone. I say it because I have spent a large
amount of time trying to figure him out, and finding that his ideas are
really extremely clever. This is my own experience, not my relating
what one of my teachers told me.
Follow what your name says about you, and travel some more. If you stop
at the first island that contains some apparent paradox, you will miss
out on the real beauty that lies out there.
Stephen
Mark Martin
Traveler did:
> Ass... kiss... sniff... ahahaha...
-Mark Martin
Traveler
[crap]
hehe... Does Uncle Dickhead still have his unit up your ass,
Capizzoid? ahahaha...
Traveler
Montgomery-Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>> Traveler wrote:
>>
>>>Einstein Had a Poor Undersanding of His Own Theories.
>
>Hi Traveler,
>
>Many years ago I got interested in relativity. Not knowing any better,
>I started by reading Einstein's original works on special relativity. I
>found them hard to understand, and it seemed to me that his ideas were
>full of paradoxes.
Well I don't see any paradox in relativity. I just see a chicken-shit
math theory devoid of any explanatory power. Same with Newtonian
physics, BTW. Four hundred years after Newton and physicists still
have no fucking idea why things move. It's fucking pathetic to say the
least.
> But I persevered and thought very much about them,
>and more or less rediscovered for myself that his theories are not only
>highly self-consistent, but also very beautiful. Then when I reread
>Einstein, I found out that he actually understood his own theories
>extremely well.
Well, he certainly did not understand that nothing can move in
spacetime. Otherwise he would not have agreed with Kurt "lunatic"
Godel that GR allows time travel via closed time-like curves. He would
have contradicted the fruitcake and told him to go pound sand or
something. ahahaha...
>When I say that Einstein was a genius, I am not saying it to flatter my
>peers, or to kiss up to anyone. I say it because I have spent a large
>amount of time trying to figure him out, and finding that his ideas are
>really extremely clever. This is my own experience, not my relating
>what one of my teachers told me.
You ARE an ass kisser, whether you think so or not. Relativity is just
chicken-shit math engineering. It explains nothing. Do you know why
clocks slow down under gravity? Do you know why things fall? Do you
know why particles move in the first place? No need for you to answer.
You don't. You are as clueless as Einstein was. And if you don't think
that a scientific theory or model should explain the why of observed
phenomena, fuck you. I got nothing else to discuss with you.
>Follow what your name says about you, and travel some more. If you stop
>at the first island that contains some apparent paradox, you will miss
>out on the real beauty that lies out there.
My advice is, stop kissing ass.
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
Peace, Stephen
Schoenfeld
EL wrote:
> [Traveler wrote]
> > Einstein Had a Poor Understanding of His Own Theories.
> >
> [EL]
> Even Bilge said so.......!
"Bilge" has a particular malicously ignorant streak, demonstrated by
that statement (if indeed he did make that statement).
The Ghost In The Machine
<trav...@nospam.net>
wrote
on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:50:10 -0400
<hpalc15islc5pdgf6...@4ax.com>:
To boil this down:
[1] No movement in spacetime. Movement in space, yes, but not in time.
[2] Universal time.
[3] Math is fine but insufficient.
OK. I want a more detailed explanation of Probabilistic Particle Jump
Theory, please. (I'm assuming that's what it's called for the nonce;
if you have a better name for it by all means produce it and I'll change
my catalog entry. No, "Savain's Super Sexy Spacetime System" isn't
quite explicative enough. :-) )
PPJT will have to at least try to attempt Compton scattering.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Bilge
>> Einstein Had a Poor Understanding of His Own Theories.
>>
>[EL]
>Even Bilge said so.......!
Oh really? Where precisely did I say that? If you can't reference
an article in which I made that statement, why are you attributing
to me a statement I didn't make?
EL
[EL]
In your post
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/98bba3dd9b0f38df?scoring=d&hl=en>
I said:
{
>You also miss the fact that claiming that the second postulate of SR is
>unnecessary to SR is an insult to Einstein.
>If it was unnecessary then why did he include it as a postulate?
}
So You said as an answer:
{
Because he wrote the paper in 1904, not 2004. The average graduate
student has a much greater understanding of relativity than anyone
did a century ago.
}
Now let the semantics war begin, and do your best to twist every
meaning as possible as you can. :D
EL
Nick
but right about everything else!
Traveler
<trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
[correction]
>Someone recently accused me of being against GR and SR. I am not! I am
>against relativists. Certainly I think relativity is a chicken shit
>theory because it explains nothing. I am angry at the the relativist
>con artists who have managed to deceive multiple generations of young
>minds in the last century. Relativity says none of the crap they have
>claimed for it: time travel, time dilation (clock slowing) particles
Actually, I agree there is clock slowing but it's not "time dilation"
which is hopelessly deceiving misnomer since time cannot change.
>following their geodesics in spacetime, gravity being a geometric
>effect of curved spacetime, etc... It's all unmitigated crackpottery.
Traveler
The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
[cut]
>To boil this down:
>
>[1] No movement in spacetime. Movement in space, yes, but not in time.
There is neither space nor time. There are only particles, their
properties and their interactions. Position is an intrinsic property
of a particle. Motion is just a change in a positional property. Time
is an abstract evolution parameter.
>[2] Universal time.
What universal time? There is only a single interaction interval which
is on the order of "Planck time." I will have the correct fundamental
interval soon. Right now, I am too busy with other matters.
>[3] Math is fine but insufficient.
Math is for engineers and its utility comes mainly when one needs to
quantify macroscopic phenomena. It is not needed in order to
understand nature at its fundamental level, i.e., the individual
particle level. In fact, math is a hindrance. Understanding has to do
with causes and effects at the particle level. This is missing in both
Newtonian and Einsteinian "physics."
>OK. I want a more detailed explanation of Probabilistic Particle Jump
>Theory, please. (I'm assuming that's what it's called for the nonce;
>if you have a better name for it by all means produce it and I'll change
>my catalog entry.
Are you writing a book or something? You must have a lot of time on
your hands. In a discrete universe motion is necessarily
probabilistic. How else would the Pythagorean theorem hold at the
macroscopic level? Even a photon's motion is probabilistic unless the
motion happens to be in a single degree of freedom (a single changing
coordinate). In which case there are only jumps and no rests in that
coordinate.
> No, "Savain's Super Sexy Spacetime System" isn't
>quite explicative enough. :-) )
I don't believe in spacetime. It is a useless and fictitious construct
that adds nothing to comprehension.
>PPJT will have to at least try to attempt Compton scattering.
No. That's an engineering problem, IMO. I'm only interested in
fundamental issues such as the cause of motion, the electric and
magnetic fields and gravity.
Traveler
<ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>Ah, I'm sorry I answered you. Your case is worse than I had realised.
>
>Peace, Stephen
I suggest you go to the corner meat market and get yourself a
backbone. ahahaha... and while you're at it, get yourself another
neuron to replace the one between your ears. In the meantime, just
fuck off. Ass kissing jackass. ahaha... AHAHAHA...
Physics is so much Phucking Phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
schoe...@gmail.com
Traveler wrote:
> In article <hpalc15islc5pdgf6...@4ax.com>, Traveler
> <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> [correction]
>
> >Someone recently accused me of being against GR and SR. I am not! I am
> >against relativists. Certainly I think relativity is a chicken shit
> >theory because it explains nothing. I am angry at the the relativist
> >con artists who have managed to deceive multiple generations of young
> >minds in the last century. Relativity says none of the crap they have
> >claimed for it: time travel, time dilation (clock slowing) particles
>
> Actually, I agree there is clock slowing but it's not "time dilation"
> which is hopelessly deceiving misnomer since time cannot change.
>
> >following their geodesics in spacetime, gravity being a geometric
> >effect of curved spacetime, etc... It's all unmitigated crackpottery.
Hey Savian, dV/dt != (1 , dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt). Stop making mistakes.
Traveler
schoe...@gmail.com wrote:
[crap]
Hey, Cornfeld. hehe... Are you still having deep philosophical
discussions with Lady Chatterly, the chat-bot? ahahaha... ahahahaha...
AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
<ric...@microscitech.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:hpalc15islc5pdgf6...@4ax.com...
>> Einstein Had a Poor Undersanding of His Own Theories.
>>
>> He had no idea why clocks slow down or why things fall or even move.
>> If your physics cannot explain these things, it's not physics; it's
>> just chicken-shit math engineering. Einsteinian physics follows in the
>> tradition of Newtonian mechanics. It's all math engineering with very
>> little physics in between. Physics is about particles, their
>> properties and their interactions. Everything else is abstract or
>> voodoo, including space and time.
>>
>
>Tell me, do you think anyone has a deep, intuitive grasp of Quantum
>Mechanics? Most have a grasp of the mathematical concepts, but relating to
>it intuitively? Yet some aspects of QM have 11 digits backing them up.
>Probably more these days.
So fucking what? The Maya priests were extremely accurate in their
predictions, too. Heck, even my fucking dog has a predictive theory
that is very accurate. He correctly predicts that there will be food
in his plate every time I start opening a can of dog food with the can
opener. So far, his theory has not failed.
>It may be chicken shit, but its highly predictive and seems to work very
>well, no matter how bizarre.
I don't fucking care. I want explanations, not predictions.
Predictions are a dime a dozen. Dogs do it. Even bugs and bacteria do
it. Whoopdipeedee-fucking-do!
> Its results that do the talking, call it
>Mathematics or Physics, we don't care so long as the predictive power of the
>theory matches all we can observe/measure.
I don't give a fuck what you care about. We cannot possibly know ALL
we can observe unless we have a causal understanding of nature at the
fundamental level. Your understanding is crap. I don't need a
chicken-shit math theory to tell me that things fall. I can already
see that for myself. I need a theory/model to explain why they fall.
Heck, explain why things move in the first place. That'll make me
happy. Until then, fuck you.
Mark Martin
Traveler wrote:
> I don't fucking care. I want explanations, not predictions.
> Predictions are a dime a dozen. Dogs do it. Even bugs and bacteria do
> it. Whoopdipeedee-fucking-do!
And this is your big problem. By what other means have we, mere
mortals, than predictions, for rating a theory? If a theory makes
predictions which match the world empirically, then it's still in the
running. If it makes predictions which categorically contradict data,
then it's categorically wrong. All you seem to want is to... comfort
yourself. You're just an astrologer.
> I don't give a fuck what you care about.
And it doesn't fucking matter what you give a fuck about, Fucker.
> We cannot possibly know ALL
> we can observe unless we have a causal understanding of nature at the
> fundamental level. Your understanding is crap. I don't need a
> chicken-shit math theory to tell me that things fall. I can already
> see that for myself. I need a theory/model to explain why they fall.
> Heck, explain why things move in the first place. That'll make me
> happy. Until then, fuck you.
This is another of your personal problems, and that's all it is,
your problem, not anyone else's. Physics is a work in progress. As you
put it, we ought not be satisfied with learning in increments, as
experience warrants. What Newton noticed wasn't that "things fall
down", (you moron). What he noticed was a quantitative relationship
between gravitation & massive bodies. This was an important -critical-
step. It acknowledged an orderliness in the behavior of things. Same
goes for general relativity. It notices a relationship between mass &
motion, but with a step more sophistication than Newtons theory.
And as for math, what's the difference between that and any other
symbolism that you may accept? That is ALL that we have, symbolism. The
symbolism models what I perceive going on in the world. If I witness an
event, and then write the, "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy
dog", what the quoted sentence does is model what I've noticed. And in
the same way, if I write, "F = GMm/r^2", the expression models
something I've noticed about the order of things.
-Mark Martin
Traveler
[crap]
hehe... Hey, Martin. What does Hawking's ass smell like today? You
know. The little fucking con artist in the wheelchair? ahahaha...
Bilge
I have no need to dicuss semantics. I clearly did not write the
statement you attributed to me, so it makes no difference whether
you consider what I wrote to have any resemblence to what you
attributed to me. If the two statements were equivalent, then
you wouldn't have any reason to not quote me accurately. I'm not
going to defend a statement I didn't make.
tj Frazir
is fucking retarted.
einstien knew what motion is and what gravity is and why clocks run at
rates.
YOU dont understand a word of it.
Time dont change but clocks do.
Things like the gain in mass with the same effective force to run the
clock ..
Motion is the gain in mass and the atom is pushing its self.
no atom gets pushed pr pulled they allways move them selves .
Any atom in an energy gradiant .
All the atoms parts are falling twards the center of the atom and wile
they orbit they change mass at C . They have more mass when on top than
when they are on the bottom of the orbit . The atom then has more mass
falling in one directon than the other.
Mark Martin
Traveler wrote:
> Mark Martin wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> hehe... Hey, Martin. What does Hawking's ass smell like today? You
> know. The little fucking con artist in the wheelchair? ahahaha...
I dunno. You tell me, since you're the one with the ass-sniffing
fetish. I'm just curious: Do you have access to enough asses each day
to feel "complete"?
-Mark Martin
richard miller
"StableXYZN5" <stringth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120597054.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Earwicker blume and craft.
>
Name of a band is it not?
How about Emerson Lake and Palmer?
Oh boy, wasn't the seventies just great for rock. We had it all, etc... (but
we did)
OK, I jest, on this one, I'm not sure what the post was, I just couldn't
resist.
good day
RJM
k wallace
> In article <h8Hye.126057$_o.21073@attbi_s71>, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Ah, I'm sorry I answered you. Your case is worse than I had realised.
>>
>>Peace, Stephen
>
>
> I suggest you go to the corner meat market and get yourself a
> backbone. ahahaha... and while you're at it, get yourself another
> neuron to replace the one between your ears. In the meantime, just
> fuck off. Ass kissing jackass. ahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
> Physics is so much Phucking Phun! ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
So, you explain it. If Einstein was so...flawed, or whatever you are
saying, and if you also think Newtonian physics is a load of crap, what
do you have to replace or improve upon it?
Anyone can say anything is a load of crap, but if they don't have
anything to constructively add to the field, then I see it as just bitching.
why don't you write a textbook on "why things move". If it makes a
dime's worth of sense, and/or advances the field in any way, I'll do
what I can to see it gets published. Not that I expect much, but I'm
always open.
kwallace
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> So, you explain it. If Einstein was so...flawed, or whatever you are
> saying, and if you also think Newtonian physics is a load of crap, what
> do you have to replace or improve upon it?
> Anyone can say anything is a load of crap, but if they don't have
> anything to constructively add to the field, then I see it as just
> bitching.
> why don't you write a textbook on "why things move". If it makes a
> dime's worth of sense, and/or advances the field in any way, I'll do
> what I can to see it gets published. Not that I expect much, but I'm
> always open.
> kwallace
It seems to me that "Traveller" has far worse problems in his life than
not understanding Einstein, Newton or physics. His supposed textbook
"Why Things Move" may contain many insights, but I doubt that many
readers will be able to get beyond his writing style, which (obviously)
leaves very much to be desired.
Tom Capizzi
> Ass kisser Tom Capizzi wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> hehe... Does Uncle Dickhead still have his unit up your ass,
> Capizzoid? ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
>
Odysseus
>
> "StableXYZN5" <stringth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1120597054.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Earwicker blume and craft.
> >
>
> Name of a band is it not?
>
If so, they borrowed it from James Joyce.
--
Odysseus
EL
What are you denying, if I am giving the reference right here:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/041cc918cfaf3fe3?hl=en>
In which I said:
{
>You also missed the point about the first postulate being verbally
>identical with that of the Galilean assertions.
>You also miss the fact that claiming that the second postulate of SR is
>unnecessary to SR is an insult to Einstein.
>If it was unnecessary then why did he include it as a postulate?
}
{
Because he wrote the paper in 1904, not 2004. The average graduate
student has a much greater understanding of relativity than anyone
did a century ago.
}
(Bilge)}
*Gotcha*. :D
The Ghost In The Machine
<nejnc11q75gena323...@4ax.com>:
> In article <01urp2-...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>, The Ghost In
> The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>To boil this down:
>>
>>[1] No movement in spacetime. Movement in space, yes, but not in time.
>
> There is neither space nor time. There are only particles, their
> properties and their interactions. Position is an intrinsic property
> of a particle. Motion is just a change in a positional property. Time
> is an abstract evolution parameter.
Hmm...needs more seasoning. :-)
Please indicate what is a "particle property", and give some examples
thereof.
>
>>[2] Universal time.
>
> What universal time? There is only a single interaction interval which
> is on the order of "Planck time." I will have the correct fundamental
> interval soon. Right now, I am too busy with other matters.
Ah, well, in that case why are you here?
>
>>[3] Math is fine but insufficient.
>
> Math is for engineers
Three guesses what my employment is. But never mind that.
> and its utility comes mainly when one needs to
> quantify macroscopic phenomena. It is not needed in order to
> understand nature at its fundamental level, i.e., the individual
> particle level.
Uh huh. And how does one construct a particle accelerator
without math, again?
> In fact, math is a hindrance. Understanding has to do
> with causes and effects at the particle level. This is missing in both
> Newtonian and Einsteinian "physics."
It may very well be missing, at that. What is *not* missing is
the ability to predict (and exploit for profit) certain phenomena,
such as the modern transistor (which can be found in the billions
in any suitably large electronic device, such as a computer, in
submicron form).
>
>>OK. I want a more detailed explanation of Probabilistic Particle Jump
>>Theory, please. (I'm assuming that's what it's called for the nonce;
>>if you have a better name for it by all means produce it and I'll change
>>my catalog entry.
>
> Are you writing a book or something? You must have a lot of time on
> your hands. In a discrete universe motion is necessarily
> probabilistic. How else would the Pythagorean theorem hold at the
> macroscopic level?
Interesting. What kind of lattice are you postulating here?
Square? Quasi-random-gaseous?
> Even a photon's motion is probabilistic unless the
> motion happens to be in a single degree of freedom (a single changing
> coordinate). In which case there are only jumps and no rests in that
> coordinate.
>
>> No, "Savain's Super Sexy Spacetime System" isn't
>>quite explicative enough. :-) )
>
> I don't believe in spacetime. It is a useless and fictitious construct
> that adds nothing to comprehension.
Fine; you find another such word that starts with the letter "S". :-)
>
>>PPJT will have to at least try to attempt Compton scattering.
>
> No. That's an engineering problem, IMO. I'm only interested in
> fundamental issues such as the cause of motion, the electric and
> magnetic fields and gravity.
OK, so what *is* the cause of motion and the origin of the electroweak
force and gravity?
>
> Louis Savain
>
> The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Autymn D. C.
empty and incompetent complaints.
Traveler wrote:
> There is neither space nor time. There are only particles, their
> properties and their interactions. Position is an intrinsic property
> of a particle. Motion is just a change in a positional property. Time
> is an abstract evolution parameter.
Provide the proof that properties and their fields can be separated,
any more than a cause and an effect can be. Either both or neither
must be reified. You want the whys and hows, but what happens when you
don't find a first cause? Because you wouldn't accept the field as
another kind of particle, extended nonetheless, you wouldn't find the
loop.
> What universal time? There is only a single interaction interval which
> is on the order of "Planck time." I will have the correct fundamental
> interval soon. Right now, I am too busy with other matters.
Try the complement to Planck time and length. Would it be de Sitter?
BTW, extraneous punctuation goes outside the quotes. Americans have
the indefensible habit of writing the wrong way because their
tupewriters' hammers would snap off if they put the mark after the
quote, where it belonged. And I tupe tupe instead of type because the
Romans corrupted the Greek letter upsilon into a y, and the French
corrupted the u sound into a iu or yu sound.
> Math is for engineers and its utility comes mainly when one needs to
> quantify macroscopic phenomena. It is not needed in order to
maths and fenomena, on the same count
> understand nature at its fundamental level, i.e., the individual
level;
> particle level. In fact, math is a hindrance. Understanding has to do
> with causes and effects at the particle level. This is missing in both
> Newtonian and Einsteinian "physics."
logic then?
> Are you writing a book or something? You must have a lot of time on
> your hands. In a discrete universe motion is necessarily
> probabilistic. How else would the Pythagorean theorem hold at the
> macroscopic level? Even a photon's motion is probabilistic unless the
> motion happens to be in a single degree of freedom (a single changing
> coordinate). In which case there are only jumps and no rests in that
> coordinate.
Welcherweg? If the fabric of space is made of threads, then on the
smallest scale diagonals are only approximations and bends are still
modelled mathematically, though with a step function. Where's the
probability?
> I don't believe in spacetime. It is a useless and fictitious construct
> that adds nothing to comprehension.
Spacetime is just a degenerate particle sea. Where, when, and how do
your particles end and start?
-Aut
geraldk...@hotmail.com
Albert did not replace Newton's concepts,Albert highlighted Newton's
unethical maneuverings in exactly the right places so the best thing
that happened to astronomy was relativity,not because of its validity
(for it is homocentric tinsel) but because it is just an irritating
extension of Newtonian framehopping.
richard miller
"Odysseus" <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:42CCA610...@yahoo-dot.ca...
No, that must have been Hawkwind (or Horsewind as my disparaging mates might
say) with thier Quark, Strangeness, ...
and Charm
richard miller
> In article <1120599959.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mark Martin" <qed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [crap]
>
> ahaha... another ass kisser heard from.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
It is certainly worrying that this pikey ('traveller' i.e. tax sponging
loffer) has a fascination with kissing bottoms. There's not much one can say
after that is there? some Physics wouldn't go amiss. Hang'em? Ironically, I
have agreed in the past with the state of software. Nevermind.
I notice it is not so much bottoms of humans, rather those of cross-breed
horses/donkeys. Oh dear me, he really does seem to be in a perilous,
beastialty state.
Tom Capizzi
<geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120762567.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I don't see why you are obsessed with Newton and relativity.
If there were a difference in results from choice of reference
frame, then we could detect absolute speed. Unless you can
do that, get another soapbox.
geraldk...@hotmail.com
Newton thought he was defining time but all he was doing was defining
the standard pace by which all other motions are compared with. See -
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions"
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
Newton started framehooping with something very different than what the
Equation of Time dictates, for he simply transfered Flamsteed's
sidereal format to a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency,he
cheated in other words.
Suit yourself if you want to go along the incorrect Newtonian
maneuver but I assure you that by the time of Mach,the theorists had'nt
the foggiest notion what Newton meant by the Equation of Time and
neither do you,at least for the moment.
You will crack up laughing when you get to the bottom of it ,truly !.
Traveler
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Stop swearing, you filthy retard. Clobber people with information, not
>empty and incompetent complaints.
Fuck you, asshole. If you don't like my style, put me in your
killfile. I carefully chose my irreverent style for a reason.
Spacetime physics and much QM is all about politics and image. Nothing
infuriates a politician more than getting no fucking respect.
>Traveler wrote:
>> There is neither space nor time. There are only particles, their
>> properties and their interactions. Position is an intrinsic property
>> of a particle. Motion is just a change in a positional property. Time
>> is an abstract evolution parameter.
>
>Provide the proof that properties and their fields can be separated,
>any more than a cause and an effect can be. Either both or neither
>must be reified.
So-called fields are nothing more than a huge number of moving
particles interacting with our instruments. It's all particles.
> You want the whys and hows, but what happens when you
>don't find a first cause?
Only effects need causes. A cause needs a cause only if it's also an
effect.
> Because you wouldn't accept the field as
>another kind of particle, extended nonetheless, you wouldn't find the
>loop.
I have no idea what you babbling about here.
>> What universal time? There is only a single interaction interval which
>> is on the order of "Planck time." I will have the correct fundamental
>> interval soon. Right now, I am too busy with other matters.
>
>Try the complement to Planck time and length. Would it be de Sitter?
Planck time and length were both obtained via dimensional analysis.
They are highly suspect, IMO.
>BTW, extraneous punctuation goes outside the quotes. Americans have
>the indefensible habit of writing the wrong way because their
>tupewriters' hammers would snap off if they put the mark after the
>quote, where it belonged. And I tupe tupe instead of type because the
>Romans corrupted the Greek letter upsilon into a y, and the French
>corrupted the u sound into a iu or yu sound.
Yeah, I got something for you to punctuate. Bend over.
[cut]
>> Are you writing a book or something? You must have a lot of time on
>> your hands. In a discrete universe motion is necessarily
>> probabilistic. How else would the Pythagorean theorem hold at the
>> macroscopic level? Even a photon's motion is probabilistic unless the
>> motion happens to be in a single degree of freedom (a single changing
>> coordinate). In which case there are only jumps and no rests in that
>> coordinate.
>
>Welcherweg? If the fabric of space is made of threads, then on the
>smallest scale diagonals are only approximations and bends are still
>modelled mathematically, though with a step function. Where's the
>probability?
I believe in neither space nor time. They are abstract concepts.
>> I don't believe in spacetime. It is a useless and fictitious construct
>> that adds nothing to comprehension.
>
>Spacetime is just a degenerate particle sea. Where, when, and how do
>your particles end and start?
This is bullshit, of course. A particle sea is a collection of
particles with various intrinsic properties including positional
properties. Spacetime is a fictitious math trick in the tradition of
ptolemaic epicycles. It has no counterpart in nature. Nothing moves in
spacetime. Particles have no size and space (distance) is an abstract
illusion of the mind resulting from the way particles interact and the
way the brain interprets sensory signals. Leibniz already knew this
400 years ago. Nonspatiality and nontemporality should be among the
primary rules of physics. The universe is ONE, as its name implies.
Traveler
<wall...@engr.orst.edNOSPAMu> wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>> In article <h8Hye.126057$_o.21073@attbi_s71>, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
>> <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ah, I'm sorry I answered you. Your case is worse than I had realised.
>>>
>>>Peace, Stephen
>>
>>
>> I suggest you go to the corner meat market and get yourself a
>> backbone. ahahaha... and while you're at it, get yourself another
>> neuron to replace the one between your ears. In the meantime, just
>> fuck off. Ass kissing jackass. ahaha... AHAHAHA...
>>
>> Physics is so much Phucking Phun! ahahaha...
>>
>> Louis Savain
>
>So, you explain it. If Einstein was so...flawed, or whatever you are
>saying, and if you also think Newtonian physics is a load of crap, what
>do you have to replace or improve upon it?
I did not say that either Einsteinian or Newtonian physics was a load
of crap. I say they are chicken-shit math engineering with very little
in the way of causal explanation.
>Anyone can say anything is a load of crap, but if they don't have
>anything to constructively add to the field, then I see it as just bitching.
I have been saying and writing a lot of things for a while and many
have benefited from my ideas. They tell me so.
>why don't you write a textbook on "why things move".
Never. Besides, it is easy to explain why things move/change. All
changes in nature are due to particle interactions. Two particles may
interact only if they have equal positions. An interaction is nature's
way of correcting a violation in a conservation principle. That is
all. No need to write a book for that. Now, the consequences of causal
motion would indeed fill a book. The first consequence is that we are
moving in an immense 4-D ocean of highly energetic particles organized
as a lattice and initially at rest. What are these particles, you ask?
Answer: photons.
> If it makes a
>dime's worth of sense, and/or advances the field in any way, I'll do
>what I can to see it gets published. Not that I expect much, but I'm
>always open.
I don't fucking care what you expect. I publish all my stuff on my
website and that's good enough for me. If you don't like it, don't
read it. Anybody is free to copy everything on my site. Heck, I don't
even want or need credit.
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Louis Savain
Traveler
The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Traveler
><trav...@nospam.net>
> wrote
>on Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:08:50 -0400
><nejnc11q75gena323...@4ax.com>:
>> In article <01urp2-...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>, The Ghost In
>> The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>>
>> [cut]
>>
>>>To boil this down:
>>>
>>>[1] No movement in spacetime. Movement in space, yes, but not in time.
>>
>> There is neither space nor time. There are only particles, their
>> properties and their interactions. Position is an intrinsic property
>> of a particle. Motion is just a change in a positional property. Time
>> is an abstract evolution parameter.
>
>Hmm...needs more seasoning. :-)
What seasoning?
>Please indicate what is a "particle property", and give some examples
>thereof.
Most particle properties are associated with one of the four degrees
of freedom (time is not one of them). The positional property of every
particle is a four-vector, i.e., it consists of four coordinate
variables. Particles can have up to four "faces" (what physicists
erroneously call spin. A "face" in my nomenclature is a direction.
Photons only have one face, meaning they can face in only two
directions. A particle can have different forms of energy including
mass and kinetic energy. Photons only have kinetic energy. Only
energies of the same type and face can interact.
>>>[2] Universal time.
>>
>> What universal time? There is only a single interaction interval which
>> is on the order of "Planck time." I will have the correct fundamental
>> interval soon. Right now, I am too busy with other matters.
>
>Ah, well, in that case why are you here?
I post on usenet as part of my strategy of showing utter contempt and
disrespect for spacetime physicists and their chicken-shit Star-trek
physics: wormholes, black holes, time travel, geometric gravity,
etc...
>>>[3] Math is fine but insufficient.
>>
>> Math is for engineers
>
>Three guesses what my employment is. But never mind that.
I have no problem with engineering. I just don't like it when people
confuse physics with engineering.
>> and its utility comes mainly when one needs to
>> quantify macroscopic phenomena. It is not needed in order to
>> understand nature at its fundamental level, i.e., the individual
>> particle level.
>
>Uh huh. And how does one construct a particle accelerator
>without math, again?
Fuck you, Ghost. Do you have a reading comprehension or do you think
you're funny?
>> In fact, math is a hindrance. Understanding has to do
>> with causes and effects at the particle level. This is missing in both
>> Newtonian and Einsteinian "physics."
>
>It may very well be missing, at that. What is *not* missing is
>the ability to predict (and exploit for profit) certain phenomena,
>such as the modern transistor (which can be found in the billions
>in any suitably large electronic device, such as a computer, in
>submicron form).
It's 99% engineering. Even bugs and bacteria have predictive theories
which allow them to survive. Whoodipeedee-fucking-do!
>>>OK. I want a more detailed explanation of Probabilistic Particle Jump
>>>Theory, please. (I'm assuming that's what it's called for the nonce;
>>>if you have a better name for it by all means produce it and I'll change
>>>my catalog entry.
>>
>> Are you writing a book or something? You must have a lot of time on
>> your hands. In a discrete universe motion is necessarily
>> probabilistic. How else would the Pythagorean theorem hold at the
>> macroscopic level?
>
>Interesting. What kind of lattice are you postulating here?
>Square? Quasi-random-gaseous?
What are you, a fucking moron? I have written many times that we are
moving in a 4-D lattice consisting of photons initially at rest. Yes,
even photons need interactions to move. At every discrete position in
the lattice, there is a huge number of photons having different energy
levels. Particles must interact with the photons in the lattice in
order to move. The energy of the interactions is proportional to the
average speed of a particle. All particles are moving in the fourth
dimension of the lattice at c. As a result of this motion,
interactions with certain photons give rise to the electric field.
Motion in the other three dimensions give rise to the magnetic field.
>> Even a photon's motion is probabilistic unless the
>> motion happens to be in a single degree of freedom (a single changing
>> coordinate). In which case there are only jumps and no rests in that
>> coordinate.
>>
>>> No, "Savain's Super Sexy Spacetime System" isn't
>>>quite explicative enough. :-) )
>>
>> I don't believe in spacetime. It is a useless and fictitious construct
>> that adds nothing to comprehension.
>
>Fine; you find another such word that starts with the letter "S". :-)
I don't fucking care about that crap. Get a life.
>>>PPJT will have to at least try to attempt Compton scattering.
>>
>> No. That's an engineering problem, IMO. I'm only interested in
>> fundamental issues such as the cause of motion, the electric and
>> magnetic fields and gravity.
>
>OK, so what *is* the cause of motion
Motion is caused by interactions. Yep, it's Aristotle all over again.
Mock if you are a fucking imbecile. This is the primary reason for the
aether. Motion is proof of the aether (the lattice of photons). Deny
at your own detriment. The aether does not resist motion as the
clueless aetherists keep insisting; it makes it possible. Not lattice
= no motion. So let's hope it's a very big lattice indeed. If we run
out of lattice, everything comes to a complete and sudden halt.
*Acausal* motion will go down as the most stupid blunder in the
history of science, worse than the flat earth conjecture. Mark my
words.
> and the origin of the electroweak
>force and gravity?
Gravity is the result of a violation of energy conservation having to
do with electric interactions. These are associated with the fourth
dimension. There is only so much energy (photons) available in the
lattice to propel particles at c in the fourth dimension. Sometimes
(say, when two or three particles are interacting because they have
equal positions) there is not enough energy to propel all three
simultaneously. But the nature of 4th-dimensional motion is such that
energy is temporarily borrowed and must be repaid at the earliest
opportunity. Gravity is the repayment process. It is a non-local
(instantaneous) energy conservation phenomenon.
Newton was right to assume that gravity is instantaneous even though
he did not know why. This is the reason that Newtonian gravity is so
incredibly accurate. Add clock slowing (which is also due to energy
conservation) into the mix and it's near unbeatable. The rest of GR is
not needed.
Having said that, there is also a gravitational effect resulting from
motion in the other three dimensions (again an energy conservation
process) but it is very slight unless the particle is moving near the
speed of light. This, too, would need to be added to the Newtonian
gravity formula to make it complete.
Tom Capizzi
<geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120847672.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> To Tom
>
> Newton thought he was defining time but all he was doing was defining
> the standard pace by which all other motions are compared with. See -
>
Newton stated that he was defining terms in the sense he intended for them
in his subsequent usage. If you disagree with his definition, what would you
substitute for it? In any case, it is the way he meant the term to be
understood
when he used it. It isn't his fault if you want the term to mean something
else.
>
> "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
> equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
> truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
> for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
> more accurate deducing of the celestial motions"
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
>
> Newton started framehooping with something very different than what the
> Equation of Time dictates, for he simply transfered Flamsteed's
> sidereal format to a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency,he
> cheated in other words.
>
How do you define "framehooping"? For that matter, what is the Equation of
Time? And even if you are correct about Flamsteed, (documentation, please)
it does not follow that Newton cheated. Is that your opinion, or is it just
another disagreement about definitions?
> Suit yourself if you want to go along the incorrect Newtonian
> maneuver but I assure you that by the time of Mach,the theorists had'nt
> the foggiest notion what Newton meant by the Equation of Time and
> neither do you,at least for the moment.
>
But you do? Please enlighten us.
> You will crack up laughing when you get to the bottom of it ,truly !.
>
I don't find physics phuny.
Art Deco
Nice rant, what do you do for an encore?
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
"It's less a process of "convertion" it's about the reality of matter and
energy (all 8 [!] kinds of matter) ... and yes, that's how "they do it".
We {aliens} call it phase-tuning or simply phase-ing.
And no, you will have to find it out all by yourself. And yes, we
{aliens} will make sure your technical advancement will no longer be
faster than your spiritual one ... we'd rather let you perish on this
planet. That's a promise, you monkey-fu*kers.
HTH.
C."
-- Charles D. "Chuckweasel" Bohne's award-winning alien technology
"That's what you expect from people who think that the
cyberworld isn't "RL"."
-- Dr. David Tholen, Psychic Astrologer
Nick
Its in the space!!!
Autymn D. C.
> Fuck you, asshole. If you don't like my style, put me in your
> killfile. I carefully chose my irreverent style for a reason.
> Spacetime physics and much QM is all about politics and image. Nothing
> infuriates a politician more than getting no fucking respect.
Don't call me an asshole because you're one. Swearers are
brain-damaged, retarded liars who would be the kind to use a killfile
or block feature, and they're ignored by whomever they're criticising.
Your messages are ruined by your disgusting words, and you write like
many dykes I've read. And swearers probably aren't afraid that I
should beat their heads in until they learn how to talk right.
> So-called fields are nothing more than a huge number of moving
> particles interacting with our instruments. It's all particles.
particles + properties = fields
> Only effects need causes. A cause needs a cause only if it's also an
> effect.
That's trivial. Why are things different?
> I have no idea what you babbling about here.
It doesn't matter if you don't like the field, because your particles
don't change what it is.
> Planck time and length were both obtained via dimensional analysis.
> They are highly suspect, IMO.
Try a degenerate particle whose wavelength is the universe's width.
> Yeah, I got something for you to punctuate. Bend over.
> [cut]
Va te faire renversé en le milieu de l'autoroute, farfelu.
> I believe in neither space nor time. They are abstract concepts.
So is probability.
> This is bullshit, of course. A particle sea is a collection of
> particles with various intrinsic properties including positional
> properties. Spacetime is a fictitious math trick in the tradition of
> ptolemaic epicycles. It has no counterpart in nature. Nothing moves in
> spacetime. Particles have no size and space (distance) is an abstract
> illusion of the mind resulting from the way particles interact and the
> way the brain interprets sensory signals. Leibniz already knew this
> 400 years ago. Nonspatiality and nontemporality should be among the
> primary rules of physics. The universe is ONE, as its name implies.
The counterpart is the charge, of course. You can't know what you
can't prove. Epicycles can be eliminated by changing the reference
frame. What eliminates spacetime and other mathematical tricks? There
are no illusions; everything looks like how it's supposed to. However,
there are delusions, of the mind.
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
Really? The rest of this paragraph doesn't explain anything:
>All
>changes in nature are due to particle interactions.
Why is that? And why do particles interact?
>Two particles may
>interact only if they have equal positions.
Why?
>An interaction is nature's
>way of correcting a violation in a conservation principle.
Why do conservation principles hold?
Now, you might say that any idiot can take _any_ explanation
and just insert the word "why?" after every sentence. But
if I were you I'd avoid saying that, for strategic reasons...
>That is
>all. No need to write a book for that. Now, the consequences of causal
>motion would indeed fill a book. The first consequence is that we are
>moving in an immense 4-D ocean of highly energetic particles organized
>as a lattice and initially at rest. What are these particles, you ask?
>Answer: photons.
>
>> If it makes a
>>dime's worth of sense, and/or advances the field in any way, I'll do
>>what I can to see it gets published. Not that I expect much, but I'm
>>always open.
>
>I don't fucking care what you expect. I publish all my stuff on my
>website and that's good enough for me. If you don't like it, don't
>read it. Anybody is free to copy everything on my site. Heck, I don't
>even want or need credit.
>
>Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>
>Louis Savain
>
>The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
************************
David C. Ullrich
EL
> EL wrote:
> > [Traveler wrote]
> > > Einstein Had a Poor Understanding of His Own Theories.
> > >
> > [EL]
> > Even Bilge said so.......!
>
> that statement (if indeed he did make that statement).
[EL]
Oh yes he did, and it left me puzzled.
EL
>
>
>
>
> > I am not sure, but is that really true?
> >
> > EL
double d
mal-adapted crank who worked too hard and just got lucky with a couple
of wild guesses. 99% of genius is sweat, you know.
Mark, PhD
EquityValue Investments
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/equityvalue?hl=en
Androcles
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1120890012.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Traveler wrote:
> Fuck you, asshole. If you don't like my style, put me in your
> killfile. I carefully chose my irreverent style for a reason.
> Spacetime physics and much QM is all about politics and image. Nothing
> infuriates a politician more than getting no fucking respect.
Don't call me an asshole because you're one. Swearers are
brain-damaged, retarded liars who would be the kind to use a killfile
or block feature, and they're ignored by whomever they're criticising.
Your messages are ruined by your disgusting words, and you write like
many dykes I've read. And swearers probably aren't afraid that I
should beat their heads in until they learn how to talk right.
Egads...
"learn to talk right"...
How about "learn to speak correctly", hmm...
AND should we really begin a sentence with a conjunction?
BUT I don't think so.
THEN again, you might.
SO I'll do the same.
You really gain nothing by answering the arsehole back, the rest of us
reading his words can tell he's an arsehole.
Androcles.
Traveler
Ullrich <ull...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:02:48 -0400, Traveler <trav...@nospam.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <bL-dnfLGIN0...@comcast.com>, k wallace
>><wall...@engr.orst.edNOSPAMu> wrote:
>>
>>>Traveler wrote:
>>>> In article <h8Hye.126057$_o.21073@attbi_s71>, Stephen Montgomery-Smith
>>>> <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
[cut]
>>>why don't you write a textbook on "why things move".
>>
>>Never. Besides, it is easy to explain why things move/change.
>
>Really? The rest of this paragraph doesn't explain anything:
Well, surely you did not expect me to write an ontology of existence
in a usenet message, did you?
>>All
>>changes in nature are due to particle interactions.
>
>Why is that?
Because everything comes from nothing and is made of nothing. This
means that the universe is a yin-yang universe and is thus made of
complementary particles/entities. The conservation of nothing is the
mother of all conservation principles.
> And why do particles interact?
To conserve nothing. An interaction is a correction to a violation of
nothing.
>>Two particles may
>>interact only if they have equal positions.
>Why?
Particles that have equal positions must not have properties that
violate the conservation of nothing for that position.
>>An interaction is nature's
>>way of correcting a violation in a conservation principle.
>
>Why do conservation principles hold?
Because everything is nothing and nature must try to correct any
violation to this principle. Why? Because, if it did not correct the
violations, that would change the nature of the universe being made of
nothing.
>Now, you might say that any idiot can take _any_ explanation
>and just insert the word "why?" after every sentence.
I would never say that because I think this is precisely what is
missing in current physics. Physicists hate why-type questions because
they are clueless.
> But
>if I were you I'd avoid saying that, for strategic reasons...
Strategic reasons? What the hell is that?
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
Ok, I'll spell it out, since irony seems to fly right over
your head.
Complaining that this or that theory is nothing but
a description of reality that doesn't explain _why_
things are the way they are is simply stupid.
Because regardless of what explanation anyone
gives for anything one can still ask why that's
the explanation - the sort of ultimate explanation
you want is a priori impossible.
Which is why physicists ignore those why questions -
they prefer to deal with questions that can be
answered. A description of how things are is the
most that one can expect from science.
>Louis Savain
>
>The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
************************
David C. Ullrich
The Ghost In The Machine
<art_...@127.0.0.1>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:28:14 -0600
<080720052228144174%art_...@127.0.0.1>:
> Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
[snip for brevity; see prior post]
>>The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
>>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>
> Nice rant, what do you do for an encore?
>
This explains some of the *how* of his theory, in broad
sweeps. Since he has (apparently) postulated a cubic
lattice of nonmoving photons I can look into that in my
analysis. Since I'm not familiar with such things as the
ultraviolet catastrophe and blackbody radiation (I know of
them, but that's all) it's far from clear exactly how this
lattice will interact, both with itself, other particles,
and such, or what can be predicted given this knowledge.
Since in another post he's mentioned "conservation of nothing"
(interesting phraseology, that), I'm not entirely sure how to
reconcile a photon lattice with nothing, unless the nothing is
the photon lattice. Admittedly, this is a philosophical point.
schoe...@gmail.com
If you can't show why physical science cannot break the a posteriori
barrier then state your assumptions, assumer of things all wrong.
Art Deco
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> Because everything comes from nothing and is made of nothing. This
> means that the universe is a yin-yang universe and is thus made of
> complementary particles/entities. The conservation of nothing is the
> mother of all conservation principles.
Traveler has an interesting view of the universe, but he seems to be
bringing attention to his views by somehow suggesting that his point of
view is in conflict with Einstein and/or Newton.
For example, he seems to assert that motion is impossible. Now clearly
he doesn't mean that motion is actually impossible as a lay person
understands it (I mean, just look out the window - there are lots of
things moving) and so surely he means that he is disagreeing with motion
in some more technical sense.
So he is saying that Einstein and Newton had fundementally flawed views
of time and space. But my impression is that they were not attempting
to explain these from a philisophical point of view (and if they were
that is surely not the genius of their work) but rather that they were
presenting a bunch of equations as to how to do calculations with them -
equations that have subsequently proved very useful to the rest of us.
Traveler has an interesting web site (sorry I don't recall the URL, but
look at his other posts to find it). In one place he takes a bunch of
off the cuff remarks by various scientists, and as a result labels them
things like "Trekkies." Great scientists, just like the rest of us,
like to wax philisophical, and I'm sure that sometimes they get beyond
themselves, but to judge the bulk of their work on this basis is surely
flawed.
Finally, Traveller has a tendency to use bad language. While he is
offending only our cultural mores, it will have the effect of obscuring
his message.
Best, Stephen
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> Finally, Traveller has a tendency to use bad language. While he is
> offending only our cultural mores, it will have the effect of obscuring
> his message.
Oops, I meant to say "While it could be argued that he is..." since I
actually think that Traveler's language is genuinely offensive. Also, I
have this sense that I didn't spell "mores" correctly.
Stephen
The Ghost In The Machine
<art_...@127.0.0.1>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Jul 2005 10:12:04 -0600
<090720051012048672%art_...@127.0.0.1>:
> The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.math, Art Deco
>><art_...@127.0.0.1>
>> wrote
>>on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:28:14 -0600
>><080720052228144174%art_...@127.0.0.1>:
>>> Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>[snip for brevity; see prior post]
>>
>>>>The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
>>>>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>>>
>>> Nice rant, what do you do for an encore?
>>>
>>
>>This explains some of the *how* of his theory, in broad
>>sweeps. Since he has (apparently) postulated a cubic
>>lattice of nonmoving photons I can look into that in my
>>analysis. Since I'm not familiar with such things as the
>>ultraviolet catastrophe and blackbody radiation (I know of
>>them, but that's all) it's far from clear exactly how this
>>lattice will interact, both with itself, other particles,
>>and such, or what can be predicted given this knowledge.
>>
>>Since in another post he's mentioned "conservation of nothing"
>>(interesting phraseology, that), I'm not entirely sure how to
>>reconcile a photon lattice with nothing, unless the nothing is
>>the photon lattice. Admittedly, this is a philosophical point.
>
> A very lonely point as well.
>
Yeah, well, he does strike me as someone who's rather
lonely, at that. But he seems to prefer showing up
(or laughing at) the Establishment as opposed to working
with Them.
Perhaps we need some of that -- but not too much. It's a bit like
manure; it's a deadly poison when concentrated but spread around
properly plants love it...
Schoenfeld
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Traveler wrote:
>
> > Because everything comes from nothing and is made of nothing. This
> > means that the universe is a yin-yang universe and is thus made of
> > complementary particles/entities. The conservation of nothing is the
> > mother of all conservation principles.
>
> Traveler has an interesting view of the universe, but he seems to be
> bringing attention to his views by somehow suggesting that his point of
> view is in conflict with Einstein and/or Newton.
In that woeful quote of his which your shamefully paraded, the
befuddled idiot Traveler suffers empirical contradiction of the extreme
prejudicial kind.
Empty vacuum requires non-nothing groundstate by mere consequence of
quantum uncertainty.
David C. Ullrich
>
>
>David C. Ullrich wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>> Complaining that this or that theory is nothing but
>> a description of reality that doesn't explain _why_
>> things are the way they are is simply stupid.
>> Because regardless of what explanation anyone
>> gives for anything one can still ask why that's
>> the explanation - the sort of ultimate explanation
>> you want is a priori impossible.
>>
>> Which is why physicists ignore those why questions -
>> they prefer to deal with questions that can be
>> answered. A description of how things are is the
>> most that one can expect from science.
>
>If you can't show why physical science cannot break the a posteriori
>barrier then state your assumptions, assumer of things all wrong.
Uh, I have no idea what you mean. In particular what is
"the a posteriori barrier"?
************************
David C. Ullrich
Autymn D. C.
> Egads...
> "learn to talk right"...
> How about "learn to speak correctly", hmm...
> AND should we really begin a sentence with a conjunction?
> BUT I don't think so.
> THEN again, you might.
> SO I'll do the same.
Can you learn how to quote right, and rightly? Does this look like
speaking? Are you seeing mouths moving? "Correctly" is nothing but
the Latin French English corruption of what Englishlings might put
"forrightly", a needless intensive of rightly, or "twirightly", an
understood and forgone dative, an adverb when I wanted an adjective as
the direct object.
> You really gain nothing by answering the arsehole back, the rest of us
> reading his words can tell he's an arsehole.
back;
That's obscurantist talk.
-Aut
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
>
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Because everything comes from nothing and is made of nothing. This
>>>means that the universe is a yin-yang universe and is thus made of
>>>complementary particles/entities. The conservation of nothing is the
>>>mother of all conservation principles.
> In that woeful quote of his which you shamefully paraded, the
> befuddled idiot Traveler suffers empirical contradiction of the extreme
> prejudicial kind.
>
> Empty vacuum requires non-nothing groundstate by mere consequence of
> quantum uncertainty.
Come come, you are talking science here. Surely Traveler is trying to
communicate at some other level.
Bilge
>> EL wrote:
>> > [Traveler wrote]
>> > > Einstein Had a Poor Understanding of His Own Theories.
>> > >
>> > [EL]
>> > Even Bilge said so.......!
>>
>> "Bilge" has a particular malicously ignorant streak, demonstrated by
>> that statement (if indeed he did make that statement).
>
>
>[EL]
>Oh yes he did, and it left me puzzled.
EL
[EL]
You may deny the fact to which I produced evidence plenty of times, but
it only means that you regret that you did or that you withdraw your
fumble, which is absolutely acceptable, but dishonest.
EL
Bilge
I stand by the statement _I_ made. I did not make the statement you
wrote above and attributed to me. What you ``showed'' was precisely
that the statement you've attributed to me is _not_ an exact quote
from anything I've actually written. If you don't quote what I've
written _exactly_, then I haven't said it. Period. I'm not going to
play some silly symanyics game where you attempt to have me defend
what _you_ wrote. Get real.
EL
> EL:
> >[Bilge wrote]
> >> EL:
> >> >Schoenfeld wrote:
> >> >> EL wrote:
> >
> >> >> > [Traveler wrote]
[EL]
I told you before that:-
{
You also miss the fact that claiming that the second postulate of SR is
unnecessary to SR is an insult to Einstein.
If it was unnecessary then why did Einstein include it as a postulate?
}
And YOU Bilge responded:-
{Because he wrote the paper in 1904, not 2004.}
Referring to Einstein.
Then you added:-
{The average graduate student has a much greater understanding of
relativity than anyone did a century ago.}
Which implies the inclusion of Einstein as one who did not understand
relativity a century ago as much as any average graduate student today.
You wrote that.
You wrote that.
I quoted you.
I quoted you.
I gave reference.
I gave reference.
You are dishonest by denial.
You are dishonest by denial.
You did write what I claim that you wrote.
You are a liar.
You are not any more the same Bilge I wrongfully respected.
Be gone.
EL
Bilge
>[Bilge wrote]
>
>> >You may deny the fact to which I produced evidence plenty of times, but
>> >it only means that you regret that you did or that you withdraw your
>> >fumble, which is absolutely acceptable, but dishonest.
>>
>> I stand by the statement _I_ made. I did not make the statement you
>> wrote above and attributed to me. What you ``showed'' was precisely
>> that the statement you've attributed to me is _not_ an exact quote
>> from anything I've actually written. If you don't quote what I've
>> written _exactly_, then I haven't said it. Period. I'm not going to
>> play some silly symanyics game where you attempt to have me defend
>> what _you_ wrote. Get real.
>
>[EL]
>
>I told you before that:-
>{
>You also miss the fact that claiming that the second postulate of SR is
>unnecessary to SR is an insult to Einstein.
statement to be an insult, but that isn't my problem. Treating facts as
insults is a lusing cause.
>If it was unnecessary then why did Einstein include it as a postulate?
>}
hold a seance and ask einstein yourself, in which case you can argue
with him about it. My guess is that after dragging back from the dead,
he won't be very chipper about playing word games.
>And YOU Bilge responded:-
>{Because he wrote the paper in 1904, not 2004.}
And...? Are you claiming that statement is false? If so, you
might be the instigator for a new fad of einstein sighting.
Send the new version of the document to the national enquirer.
>Referring to Einstein.
>
>Then you added:-
>{The average graduate student has a much greater understanding of
>relativity than anyone did a century ago.}
Which is also a fact. Are you disputing that? Do you have some
problem with the idea that 100 year old physics could possibly
become rather mundane and obvious despite being obscure and hard
to understand at the time it was proposed?
>Which implies the inclusion of Einstein as one who did not understand
>relativity a century ago as much as any average graduate student today.
And, as I said, neither did anyone else. Not only does the average
graduate student know more about relativity than anyone did in 1904,
the average graduate student can use it to a great deal more physics
than anyone ever thought existed in 1904. What's your point? Physics
students understand newtonian mechanics a great deal better than
newton did, too.
However, I think you have pointed out one thing which should be
rather obvious. You have way underestimated what the average
physics student knows because you've way overestimated the physics
you know in order to foster the notion that your anti-relativity
views are more legitimate than they are.
>You wrote that.
>You wrote that.
I never said that I didn't write what you've quoted above. What I
said that I didn't write was your own personal interpretation which
you attributed to me. Now, all you're doing is trying to obscure
the issue.
[...]
>You are dishonest by denial.
>You are dishonest by denial.
If you really think I care what someone who deliberately misquotes
me thinks about honesty, you should go reassess your ability as a
salesman.
>You did write what I claim that you wrote.
>
>You are a liar.
>
>You are not any more the same Bilge I wrongfully respected.
Do you always misquote people you respect?
Orion
> In article <90gvp2...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>, The Ghost In
> The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
> >In sci.physics, Traveler
> ><trav...@nospam.net>
> > wrote
> >on Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:08:50 -0400
> ><nejnc11q75gena323...@4ax.com>:
> >> In article <01urp2-...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>, The Ghost In
> >> The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> [cut]
> >>
> >>>To boil this down:
> >>>
> >>>[1] No movement in spacetime. Movement in space, yes, but not in time.
> >>
> >> There is neither space nor time. There are only particles, their
> >> properties and their interactions. Position is an intrinsic property
> >> of a particle. Motion is just a change in a positional property. Time
> >> is an abstract evolution parameter.
> >
> >Hmm...needs more seasoning. :-)
>
> What seasoning?
>
> >Please indicate what is a "particle property", and give some examples
> >thereof.
>
> Most particle properties are associated with one of the four degrees
> of freedom (time is not one of them). The positional property of every
> particle is a four-vector, i.e., it consists of four coordinate
> variables. Particles can have up to four "faces" (what physicists
> erroneously call spin. A "face" in my nomenclature is a direction.
> Photons only have one face, meaning they can face in only two
> directions. A particle can have different forms of energy including
> mass and kinetic energy. Photons only have kinetic energy. Only
> energies of the same type and face can interact.
>
> >>>[2] Universal time.
> >>
> >> What universal time? There is only a single interaction interval which
> >> is on the order of "Planck time." I will have the correct fundamental
> >> interval soon. Right now, I am too busy with other matters.
> >
> >Ah, well, in that case why are you here?
>
> I post on usenet as part of my strategy of showing utter contempt and
> disrespect for spacetime physicists and their chicken-shit Star-trek
> physics: wormholes, black holes, time travel, geometric gravity,
> etc...
>
> >>>[3] Math is fine but insufficient.
> >>
> >> Math is for engineers
> >
> >Three guesses what my employment is. But never mind that.
>
> I have no problem with engineering. I just don't like it when people
> confuse physics with engineering.
>
> >> and its utility comes mainly when one needs to
> >> quantify macroscopic phenomena. It is not needed in order to
> >> understand nature at its fundamental level, i.e., the individual
> >> particle level.
> >
> >Uh huh. And how does one construct a particle accelerator
> >without math, again?
>
> Fuck you, Ghost. Do you have a reading comprehension or do you think
> you're funny?
>
> >> In fact, math is a hindrance. Understanding has to do
> >> with causes and effects at the particle level. This is missing in both
> >> Newtonian and Einsteinian "physics."
> >
> >It may very well be missing, at that. What is *not* missing is
> >the ability to predict (and exploit for profit) certain phenomena,
> >such as the modern transistor (which can be found in the billions
> >in any suitably large electronic device, such as a computer, in
> >submicron form).
>
> It's 99% engineering. Even bugs and bacteria have predictive theories
> which allow them to survive. Whoodipeedee-fucking-do!
>
> >>>OK. I want a more detailed explanation of Probabilistic Particle Jump
> >>>Theory, please. (I'm assuming that's what it's called for the nonce;
> >>>if you have a better name for it by all means produce it and I'll change
> >>>my catalog entry.
> >>
> >> Are you writing a book or something? You must have a lot of time on
> >> your hands. In a discrete universe motion is necessarily
> >> probabilistic. How else would the Pythagorean theorem hold at the
> >> macroscopic level?
> >
> >Interesting. What kind of lattice are you postulating here?
> >Square? Quasi-random-gaseous?
>
> What are you, a fucking moron? I have written many times that we are
> moving in a 4-D lattice consisting of photons initially at rest. Yes,
> even photons need interactions to move. At every discrete position in
> the lattice, there is a huge number of photons having different energy
> levels. Particles must interact with the photons in the lattice in
> order to move. The energy of the interactions is proportional to the
> average speed of a particle. All particles are moving in the fourth
> dimension of the lattice at c. As a result of this motion,
> interactions with certain photons give rise to the electric field.
> Motion in the other three dimensions give rise to the magnetic field.
>
> >> Even a photon's motion is probabilistic unless the
> >> motion happens to be in a single degree of freedom (a single changing
> >> coordinate). In which case there are only jumps and no rests in that
> >> coordinate.
> >>
> >>> No, "Savain's Super Sexy Spacetime System" isn't
> >>>quite explicative enough. :-) )
> >>
> >> I don't believe in spacetime. It is a useless and fictitious construct
> >> that adds nothing to comprehension.
> >
> >Fine; you find another such word that starts with the letter "S". :-)
>
> I don't fucking care about that crap. Get a life.
>
> >>>PPJT will have to at least try to attempt Compton scattering.
> >>
> >> No. That's an engineering problem, IMO. I'm only interested in
> >> fundamental issues such as the cause of motion, the electric and
> >> magnetic fields and gravity.
> >
> >OK, so what *is* the cause of motion
>
> Motion is caused by interactions. Yep, it's Aristotle all over again.
> Mock if you are a fucking imbecile. This is the primary reason for the
> aether. Motion is proof of the aether (the lattice of photons). Deny
> at your own detriment. The aether does not resist motion as the
> clueless aetherists keep insisting; it makes it possible. Not lattice
> = no motion. So let's hope it's a very big lattice indeed. If we run
> out of lattice, everything comes to a complete and sudden halt.
>
> *Acausal* motion will go down as the most stupid blunder in the
> history of science, worse than the flat earth conjecture. Mark my
> words.
>
> > and the origin of the electroweak
> >force and gravity?
>
> Gravity is the result of a violation of energy conservation having to
> do with electric interactions. These are associated with the fourth
> dimension. There is only so much energy (photons) available in the
> lattice to propel particles at c in the fourth dimension. Sometimes
> (say, when two or three particles are interacting because they have
> equal positions) there is not enough energy to propel all three
> simultaneously. But the nature of 4th-dimensional motion is such that
> energy is temporarily borrowed and must be repaid at the earliest
> opportunity. Gravity is the repayment process. It is a non-local
> (instantaneous) energy conservation phenomenon.
>
> Newton was right to assume that gravity is instantaneous even though
> he did not know why. This is the reason that Newtonian gravity is so
> incredibly accurate. Add clock slowing (which is also due to energy
> conservation) into the mix and it's near unbeatable. The rest of GR is
> not needed.
>
> Having said that, there is also a gravitational effect resulting from
> motion in the other three dimensions (again an energy conservation
> process) but it is very slight unless the particle is moving near the
> speed of light. This, too, would need to be added to the Newtonian
> gravity formula to make it complete.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
But position and energy are also abstract. Particles don't have
positions, it's just that we can't measure both the position and
momentum of an electron without an interaction.
EL
What is your problem Bilge!
I had an impression that you finally confirmed with a method equivalent
to pulling teeth without anaesthesia.
In fact, I am certain that beginning with Einstein and ending with
Bilge, my respect to him and to you is irrelevant to my certainty that
neither him nor you do really understand some of the absurdities you
strongly hold on to as relativistic effects. If you did mean to say
that Einstein did not understand that aspect of relativity I would have
joined my vote to yours. However, it is ridiculous to claim that
Einstein did not understand what he was teaching to his students more
than green undergraduates of wanton physics.
I have disputes, but I never belittled Professor Einstein and his
accomplishments that I certainly agree with.
Only a crank would belittle men who made history.
You might have wanted to say that Einstein was not quite aware of the
consequences and implications of his theory as they have unfolded, yet
beforehand, which is too obvious to say. But to claim that he did not
understand his own theory as much as a green student is too much to
take down ones throat.
I say that the title of this thread is false. Einstein must have
understood his own theory perfectly before he formulated it or else it
could have not been born. The consequences of his theory is a totally
different issue.
Regards.
EL
Tom Capizzi
"EL" <hem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121236941.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
EL, you seem to have forgotten that this thread was started by that obscene
crackpot, Traveler.
Bilge
>What is your problem Bilge!
>I had an impression that you finally confirmed with a method equivalent
>to pulling teeth without anaesthesia.
>In fact, I am certain that beginning with Einstein and ending with
>Bilge, my respect to him and to you is irrelevant to my certainty that
>neither him nor you do really understand some of the absurdities you
>strongly hold on to as relativistic effects. If you did mean to say
>that Einstein did not understand that aspect of relativity I would have
>joined my vote to yours. However, it is ridiculous to claim that
>Einstein did not understand what he was teaching to his students more
>than green undergraduates of wanton physics.
the one sentence I did write rather than writing a paragraph that
full of statements I never made.
>I have disputes, but I never belittled Professor Einstein and his
>accomplishments that I certainly agree with.
>Only a crank would belittle men who made history.
belittling going on is coming from your own rewrites of what I
said. If you object to that belittling, stop misrepresenting what
I wrote.
>You might have wanted to say that Einstein was not quite aware of the
>consequences and implications of his theory as they have unfolded, yet
>beforehand, which is too obvious to say. But to claim that he did not
>understand his own theory as much as a green student is too much to
>take down ones throat.
>I say that the title of this thread is false.
I never said it wasn't false. My statement was very specific
and directed at your response to my statement that the second
postulate was unnecessary:
[EL]
>You also miss the fact that claiming that the second postulate of SR is
>unnecessary to SR is an insult to Einstein.
>If it was unnecessary then why did he include it as a postulate?
My exact reply was:
>Because he wrote the paper in 1904, not 2004. The average graduate
>student has a much greater understanding of relativity than anyone
>did a century ago
If you have something to say about that comment in the context
in which it was made, then do so. I'm not interested in the soap
opera you are trying to develop around your own misrepresentation
of what I actually wrote.