Lets play with Newton!
Eric Gisse
something. Today its "newton is wrong". Perhaps ill have more luck
this time.
Jos, its aparrent newtownian mechanics is something you know and love,
and something you will not give up on. You have said that newtonian
mechanics has been proven right (with snookerball references...) and
has not been proven wrong. You will not listen what any of us say
about Mercury or GPS, so i thought this might do the trick.
The standard distance equation that uses acelleration in newtonian
mechanics goes like this:
d=(1/2)(a)(t^2)
Very simple and works for most things.
Say I want to go to Proxima Centauri, and have an engine and fuel
supply that can deliver a constant acelleration of 1 g for an
indefinite amount of time. Oh, and before you say this is just a
thought experiment - keep in mind that you love thought experiments
and think SR is bunk based upon them.
Proxima is roughly 4.3 light years from earth. Given a Vi of 0, I
shall calculate how long it would take this ship to go from Earth to
Proxima. Note that I will not be stopping. Makes things easier to
calculate.
Remember, c=3x10^8m/s in a vacuum, and 1g = 9.8m/s^2
(4.3 ly)(365 ld / 1 ly)(24 lh / 1 ld)(3600 s / 1 lh)(3x10^8 m/s) =
(1/2)(9.8m/s^2)(t^2)
Solving for t^2, I get....
t^2= 8.302x10^15 s^2
t= 9.1x10^7 s, or 2.9 years
Wait.
What the fuck? 2.9 years to go to an object that is 4.3 light years
away? Hmm.
d=v/t
4.3 ly = v/2.9 years
Nothing can go faster than c in a vacuum, (that I know of), so v
should not be > 1.
v= 1.48
Intesresting, nearly 1.5 times lightspeed in a vacuum. Nothing can go
faster than light, therfore newton is flawed. All it takes is 1
contradiction. Newton has errors in its domain of applicability.
Whoops. Newtonian mechanics has no method of capping the velocity of
a massive object, but SR does. Interesting. Can you explain this
paradox away?
Since newton is wrong from my above work, i can easily reason the
rest of newton is also wrong. What velocity would a SR brick have if
it had the same kinetic energy as a brick that was moving at c in
newtonian mechanics.
The scientific community uses SR to calculare the kinetic energy of
things like protons in the acellerators. Lets show the disparity in a
mathematical form.
Newton solves for Ek by Ek= (1/2)(m)(v^2)
SR solves for Ek by Ek = (1/sqrt (1- (v^2/c^2) ) )(1/2)(m)(v^2)
Note: I am not using relativistic mass
Lets compare, and see the difference. The awnser is interesting.
Since I will set them equal to eachother, the factors (1/2) and (m)
will cancel out, leaving....
Vnewton^2 = (Vsr^2)/(1/sqrt (1 - (Vsr^2/c^2) ) )
Hmm, mass doesnt matter for this. Yay.
Since im setting Vnewton = c, I can call it c^2 now.
c^2= (Vsr^2)/(1/sqrt (1 - (Vsr^2/c^2) ) )
This is a trick i learned on this newsgroup, and now i see how it has
use.
I will now say c=1, for ease of computation. What does our equation
look like now?
1= (Vsr^2)/(1/ sqrt (1 - Vsr^2)
Oooh c^2 = 1, so things drop out! Whee.
Lets do some manipulation....
sqrt (1 - Vsr^2) = Vsr^2
More.
1 - Vsr^2 = Vsr^4
More.
1= Vsr^4 + Vsr^2
Ooooh. I can graph that.
When i do, I get a parabola shaped graph, and when i use the
intersect function on my calculator, i get .786. Facinating, if a
brick is moving at c in newtownian mechanics, it has a kinetic energy
that corrisponds to a velocity of 78.6% c in SR.
Now you see jos, If both newton and SR were right, Vsr would be 1. It
is not. Since i showed that newton is wrong from above, the only
mainstream theory we have to work with is SR. Given the body of
evidence that is showed to you so-very-often, i can also conclude that
SR is "right".
Jos, unless you can show me a flaw in my simple algebra, you can
nolnger claim newton is right.
Im willing to argue this to the end of the earth, because it
reinforces what i know and its just fun to do.
Note: I understand and acknowledge that a theory cannot be proven
correct, its just easier to say "right".
Phil Holman
"Eric Gisse" <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:m57dnu0ha0kua5vbo...@4ax.com...
Good luck.
Phil Holman
Eric Gisse
>>
>You think Jos buys into a limit of c.
>Good luck.
>
>Phil Holman
I can try. Becides, doing it the way i do it lets people comments on
what i do and expose any misconceptions or errors in my work, and
bring out new things i havent considered.
After doing that, i finally understand exactly why newtonian
mechanics and SR are incompatable.
Marco Nelissen
> Intesresting, nearly 1.5 times lightspeed in a vacuum. Nothing can go
> faster than light, therfore newton is flawed.
In Newtonian mechanics, there is no speed-limit. You are assuming
relativity in order to prove Newton wrong, which is the wrong way
to go about it. If you want to disprove Newton, you will have to
do it without relying on relativity, i.e. by doing an experiment
that directly proves Newton wrong, not by performing a thought
experiment that pits relativity against Newtonian mechanics.
josX
>For those who are not aware, every so often i try to convince josx of
>something. Today its "newton is wrong". Perhaps ill have more luck
>this time.
>
>Jos, its aparrent newtownian mechanics is something you know and love,
>and something you will not give up on.
And i shouldn't, it works /perfectly/.
> You have said that newtonian
>mechanics has been proven right (with snookerball references...) and
>has not been proven wrong. You will not listen what any of us say
>about Mercury or GPS, so i thought this might do the trick.
Correct. Where does F=m*a say Mercury can't behave like it does, and
GPS clock changes are due to their changed surroundings and not because
of SR-magic, Newton's laws predict the clocks on satalites will run
differently.
>The standard distance equation that uses acelleration in newtonian
>mechanics goes like this:
>
>d=(1/2)(a)(t^2)
>
>Very simple and works for most things.
>
>Say I want to go to Proxima Centauri, and have an engine and fuel
>supply that can deliver a constant acelleration of 1 g for an
>indefinite amount of time. Oh, and before you say this is just a
>thought experiment -
I never say such ever.
> keep in mind that you love thought experiments
>and think SR is bunk based upon them.
Don't strawman.
>Proxima is roughly 4.3 light years from earth. Given a Vi of 0, I
>shall calculate how long it would take this ship to go from Earth to
>Proxima. Note that I will not be stopping. Makes things easier to
>calculate.
Will you include possible friction.
>Remember, c=3x10^8m/s in a vacuum, and 1g = 9.8m/s^2
>
>(4.3 ly)(365 ld / 1 ly)(24 lh / 1 ld)(3600 s / 1 lh)(3x10^8 m/s) =
>(1/2)(9.8m/s^2)(t^2)
>
>Solving for t^2, I get....
>
>t^2= 8.302x10^15 s^2
>t= 9.1x10^7 s, or 2.9 years
Looks ok, except that you ignored possible friction. We have never done
this, we don't know the frictions involved. Friction might very well
be minimal, or it may very well be significant, don't know.
>Wait.
>
>What the fuck? 2.9 years to go to an object that is 4.3 light years
>away? Hmm.
Is there a problem?
You think we can't break the light-barrier until we actually do like with
the sound-barrier?
>d=v/t
>
>4.3 ly = v/2.9 years
>
>Nothing can go faster than c in a vacuum, (that I know of), so v
>should not be > 1.
Where are you getting this from, from a theory that has no proof of it's
central dogma?
>v= 1.48
>
>Intesresting, nearly 1.5 times lightspeed in a vacuum. Nothing can go
>faster than light, therfore newton is flawed.
This is your proof against Newton?
> All it takes is 1
>contradiction. Newton has errors in its domain of applicability.
Sigh.
>Whoops. Newtonian mechanics has no method of capping the velocity of
>a massive object, but SR does. Interesting. Can you explain this
>paradox away?
What paradox. Why do you put a lightbarrier there. God? Einstein?
Did Einstein try to break the lightbarrier for a long time with a lot
of different engines, and after decades he found it couldn't be done?
Or did he throw some catbones on a piece of paper, spit on his pen,
and imagined away.
I'm not bothering with the rest after this kind of mistakes.
--
jos
josX
Indeed not! :)
Not just like that. There may be high friction involved at those speeds,
but that's no different then with the soundbarrier. There is no reason
for c to be a limit "just because".
--
jos
josX
Interesting. SRists make the exact mistake they claim i make (which i
don't make at all).
What they claim often?
That i proof SR wrong by mixing in Newton.
Why they do it?
They got nothing else to say. Besides "you are right, i am wrong", which
is a pathological impossibility for any true SRist (even more impossible
for university teachers and professors i guess).
--
jos
Eric Gisse
>>Proxima is roughly 4.3 light years from earth. Given a Vi of 0, I
>>shall calculate how long it would take this ship to go from Earth to
>>Proxima. Note that I will not be stopping. Makes things easier to
>>calculate.
>
>Will you include possible friction.
There is no aether.
>
>>Remember, c=3x10^8m/s in a vacuum, and 1g = 9.8m/s^2
>>
>>(4.3 ly)(365 ld / 1 ly)(24 lh / 1 ld)(3600 s / 1 lh)(3x10^8 m/s) =
>>(1/2)(9.8m/s^2)(t^2)
>>
>>Solving for t^2, I get....
>>
>>t^2= 8.302x10^15 s^2
>>t= 9.1x10^7 s, or 2.9 years
>
>Looks ok, except that you ignored possible friction. We have never done
>this, we don't know the frictions involved. Friction might very well
>be minimal, or it may very well be significant, don't know.
Friction against what, aether? I doubt those 10 hydrogen atoms per
cubic meter or so are going to put up much of a fight.
Are you saying there is a mysterious friction that pushes against
objects leaving our star system that is signifigant enough to keep the
average velocity of an object to below c?
>
>>Wait.
>>
>>What the fuck? 2.9 years to go to an object that is 4.3 light years
>>away? Hmm.
>
>Is there a problem?
>You think we can't break the light-barrier until we actually do like with
>the sound-barrier?
Untill i have reason to believe otherwise, yes.
We had supersonic bullets in the mid 20th century, did we not? What
goes faster than light? Nothing. I welcome experimental proof of
something otherwise.
It is hard to cite experiment and SR when you disagree with both.
>>d=v/t
>>
>>4.3 ly = v/2.9 years
>>
>>Nothing can go faster than c in a vacuum, (that I know of), so v
>>should not be > 1.
>
>Where are you getting this from, from a theory that has no proof of it's
>central dogma?
Again, it is hard to cite experiment and SR when you disagree with
both.
>
>>v= 1.48
>>
>>Intesresting, nearly 1.5 times lightspeed in a vacuum. Nothing can go
>>faster than light, therfore newton is flawed.
>
>This is your proof against Newton?
A 10 min quickie with a few calculations, yes.
>
>> All it takes is 1
>>contradiction. Newton has errors in its domain of applicability.
>
>Sigh.
>
>>Whoops. Newtonian mechanics has no method of capping the velocity of
>>a massive object, but SR does. Interesting. Can you explain this
>>paradox away?
Perhaps paradox was the wrong word.
>What paradox. Why do you put a lightbarrier there. God? Einstein?
>Did Einstein try to break the lightbarrier for a long time with a lot
>of different engines, and after decades he found it couldn't be done?
>Or did he throw some catbones on a piece of paper, spit on his pen,
>and imagined away.
What goes faster than light? Why should i think otherwise?
>I'm not bothering with the rest after this kind of mistakes.
Now you know how we feel. What must i do, drag out the observations of
Mercury's orbit and see if they match SR predictions? Would you trust
my work if i did it?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
Good point, but the problem is, he will not listen to experiment. I
could dig around and find out about the first types of acellerators
and document their problems, but that is a "not tonight" type task.
Interesting challenge to prove something wrong without using something
you know is right.
Since i have not done them myself, it might be a good exercise to
learn relatvistic acelleration and deal with Mercury's orbit.
Eric Gisse
>
>Indeed not! :)
>Not just like that. There may be high friction involved at those speeds,
>but that's no different then with the soundbarrier. There is no reason
>for c to be a limit "just because".
I will ask here too, because you tend to ignore the more complicated
questions.
Friction with what?
Free space is not atmosphere.
josX
><snip>
>
>>>Proxima is roughly 4.3 light years from earth. Given a Vi of 0, I
>>>shall calculate how long it would take this ship to go from Earth to
>>>Proxima. Note that I will not be stopping. Makes things easier to
>>>calculate.
>>
>>Will you include possible friction.
>
>There is no aether.
What does aether have to do with real-world friction. Aether is an
hypothetical-voodoo material dreamed up by phycisists and the beginning
of this century because they didn't feel like doing real physics. It's
"the medium of light" and "it shortens and stretches object who move
through it". Yeah, sure dudes. How does the brandy taste.
>>>Remember, c=3x10^8m/s in a vacuum, and 1g = 9.8m/s^2
>>>
>>>(4.3 ly)(365 ld / 1 ly)(24 lh / 1 ld)(3600 s / 1 lh)(3x10^8 m/s) =
>>>(1/2)(9.8m/s^2)(t^2)
>>>
>>>Solving for t^2, I get....
>>>
>>>t^2= 8.302x10^15 s^2
>>>t= 9.1x10^7 s, or 2.9 years
>>
>>Looks ok, except that you ignored possible friction. We have never done
>>this, we don't know the frictions involved. Friction might very well
>>be minimal, or it may very well be significant, don't know.
>
>Friction against what, aether? I doubt those 10 hydrogen atoms per
>cubic meter or so are going to put up much of a fight.
Perhaps not.
>Are you saying there is a mysterious friction that pushes against
>objects leaving our star system that is signifigant enough to keep the
>average velocity of an object to below c?
No. However, the friction exists, if you're accelerating a significantly
dense body like a spacecraft, those few atoms may be like feathers in
front of a car. However, if you're accelerating lone particles, those
feathers become cars in themselves. So, i was just cutting you off before
you could drag the particle accelerators to the argument. Hint: you got
nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, i know all your moves.
>>>Wait.
>>>
>>>What the fuck? 2.9 years to go to an object that is 4.3 light years
>>>away? Hmm.
>>
>>Is there a problem?
>>You think we can't break the light-barrier until we actually do like with
>>the sound-barrier?
>
>Untill i have reason to believe otherwise, yes.
You take this on faith then. Poor you.
>We had supersonic bullets in the mid 20th century, did we not? What
>goes faster than light? Nothing. I welcome experimental proof of
>something otherwise.
Glad you asked:
Gasjet from Quasar 3C273 has traveled a distance of 25 lightyears in
8 years.
>It is hard to cite experiment and SR when you disagree with both.
Science needs positive proof, not merely the absence of negative proof.
>>>d=v/t
>>>
>>>4.3 ly = v/2.9 years
>>>
>>>Nothing can go faster than c in a vacuum, (that I know of), so v
>>>should not be > 1.
>>
>>Where are you getting this from, from a theory that has no proof of it's
>>central dogma?
>
>Again, it is hard to cite experiment and SR when you disagree with
>both.
Science needs positive proof, not merely the absence of negative proof.
>>>v= 1.48
>>>
>>>Intesresting, nearly 1.5 times lightspeed in a vacuum. Nothing can go
>>>faster than light, therfore newton is flawed.
>>
>>This is your proof against Newton?
>
>A 10 min quickie with a few calculations, yes.
ah.
>>> All it takes is 1
>>>contradiction. Newton has errors in its domain of applicability.
>>
>>Sigh.
>>
>>>Whoops. Newtonian mechanics has no method of capping the velocity of
>>>a massive object, but SR does. Interesting. Can you explain this
>>>paradox away?
>
>Perhaps paradox was the wrong word.
>
>>What paradox. Why do you put a lightbarrier there. God? Einstein?
>>Did Einstein try to break the lightbarrier for a long time with a lot
>>of different engines, and after decades he found it couldn't be done?
>>Or did he throw some catbones on a piece of paper, spit on his pen,
>>and imagined away.
>
>What goes faster than light? Why should i think otherwise?
The devil runs around sniffing peoples but. Why should i think otherwise?
>>I'm not bothering with the rest after this kind of mistakes.
>
>Now you know how we feel. What must i do, drag out the observations of
>Mercury's orbit and see if they match SR predictions? Would you trust
>my work if i did it?
No.
Newton would mathmodel Mercury's orbit until he had a rational explanation
for it. Space-curving is not an explanation for Mercury's orbit, it's an
insult. Space doesn't curve, it's the void, only object curve. Co-ordinate
systems are straight. Why do you think meter-sticks are always straight
and not curved.
--
jos
Michael J
> For those who are not aware, every so often i try to convince josx of
> something. Today its "newton is wrong". Perhaps ill have more luck
> this time.
> [...]
> Intesresting, nearly 1.5 times lightspeed in a vacuum. Nothing can go
> faster than light, therfore newton is flawed.
Eric, this is exactly the wrong way round. You cannot just assume c_0 is the
maximum possible speed in order to prove SR. In fact, the limit of c_0 is
/derived/ in SR from the fact that c_0 is constant for all IS's.
So what needs to be demonstrated is the constancy of c_0, from which the
Lorentz-transformation then follows as well as the relativistic speed limit.
For the constancy of c_0: Michelson-Morley; laser-reflecion from a mirror on
the moon.
For the Lorentz-transformation: muons crossing the atmosphere; the fact that
particle accelerators work at all; the fact that particle collisions yield
the energies they are supposd to.
We have had that over and over again. Trouble is, Jos doesn't have the
brains to comprehend indirect evidence. He rejects everything he can't
imagine with his little mind, that's why he also sees paradoxes where there
aren't any.
Ciao
M
josX
><snip>
>>Indeed not! :)
>>Not just like that. There may be high friction involved at those speeds,
>>but that's no different then with the soundbarrier. There is no reason
>>for c to be a limit "just because".
>
>I will ask here too, because you tend to ignore the more complicated
>questions.
Which question did i ignore.
>Friction with what?
Space is not empty.
Friction with molecules, subatomic particles, even light if it turns
out to be particles, friction against muons etc.
>Free space is not atmosphere.
I know of only one place where "free space" exists. Guess where.
--
jos
josX
><snip>
>>Indeed not! :)
>>Not just like that. There may be high friction involved at those speeds,
>>but that's no different then with the soundbarrier. There is no reason
>>for c to be a limit "just because".
>
>I will ask here too, because you tend to ignore the more complicated
>questions.
Which question did i ignore.
>Friction with what?
Space is not empty.
Friction with molecules, subatomic particles, even light if it turns
out to be particles, friction against muons etc.
>Free space is not atmosphere.
I know of only one place where "free space" exists. Guess where.
--
jos
josX
>"Eric Gisse" <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org>:
>
>> For those who are not aware, every so often i try to convince josx of
>> something. Today its "newton is wrong". Perhaps ill have more luck
>> this time.
>> [...]
>> Intesresting, nearly 1.5 times lightspeed in a vacuum. Nothing can go
>> faster than light, therfore newton is flawed.
>
>Eric, this is exactly the wrong way round. You cannot just assume c_0 is the
>maximum possible speed in order to prove SR. In fact, the limit of c_0 is
>/derived/ in SR from the fact that c_0 is constant for all IS's.
I don't think it's /derived/ at all. The theory hits paradox at c, so
nothing must go faster.
>So what needs to be demonstrated is the constancy of c_0, from which the
>Lorentz-transformation then follows as well as the relativistic speed limit.
Lorentz-transformations hit paradox at c, even worse paradoxes for >c.
>For the constancy of c_0: Michelson-Morley; laser-reflecion from a mirror on
>the moon.
No, and no.
MM doesn't proof multiobserver constancy (1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-
-constancy-in-a-vacuum), Moon-mirror reflections don't proof multiobserver
/constancy/.
>For the Lorentz-transformation: muons crossing the atmosphere;
A joke of an argument. The muons are racing through all kinds of stuff,
they are not "merely observers at rest in their frame".
> the fact that
>particle accelerators work at all
...has nothing to do with SR. Just put big magnets in a circle and blast
away.
> the fact that particle collisions yield
>the energies they are supposd to.
Say who, the faithfull?
Or unbiased scientists, who only believe on evidence, and never on faith
alone. Because: where were those particle-accelerators when relativity
got adopted? They did'nt exist.
>We have had that over and over again. Trouble is, Jos doesn't have the
>brains to comprehend indirect evidence.
read "we can't brainwash this dude in accepting us as authorities on this
matter".
> He rejects everything he can't
>imagine with his little mind, that's why he also sees paradoxes where there
>aren't any.
There are so many paradoxes that your mind segfaults, gives up, and starts
worshipping the "proper authorities" on the matter.
--
jos
josX
>On 5 Sep 2002 07:14:52 GMT, Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl>
>wrote:
>>Eric Gisse <jowrREM...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>> Intesresting, nearly 1.5 times lightspeed in a vacuum. Nothing can go
>>> faster than light, therfore newton is flawed.
>>
>>In Newtonian mechanics, there is no speed-limit. You are assuming
>>relativity in order to prove Newton wrong, which is the wrong way
>>to go about it. If you want to disprove Newton, you will have to
>>do it without relying on relativity, i.e. by doing an experiment
>>that directly proves Newton wrong, not by performing a thought
>>experiment that pits relativity against Newtonian mechanics.
>
>Good point, but the problem is, he will not listen to experiment.
I would, IF it was done.
None is done to confirm the basis of the whole modern physics structure:
Postulate-2 of relativity: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-
-in-a-vacuum. It's a fantasy, and it cannot even work.
> I
>could dig around and find out about the first types of acellerators
>and document their problems, but that is a "not tonight" type task.
Here is a tonight-type task: admit you're wrong, and have accepted pure
paradox as scientific facts. Also admit you are guilty of deluding people.
Then again, that might be the task of a lifetime for you.
>Interesting challenge to prove something wrong without using something
>you know is right.
Yeah... i'm eagerly awaiting your fumbles :).
>Since i have not done them myself, it might be a good exercise to
>learn relatvistic acelleration and deal with Mercury's orbit.
Watch this people. This is not about them, it is about *you*, and your
*gullability*. Is there a limit to it, or not, that's what we're going
to find out. ermm, we already found out sortof, but most don't understand
SR so it wasn't an honest chance for you.
Are you going to demand evidence for claims, or are you going to go ahead
and believe anything they tell you, even pure paradox, even though you
know why it is wrong.
No one knows what you will do. They hope you will listen to them regardless
of what they say, i hope you think for yourself. What will happen...?!
I hope you suprise us.
--
jos
Andy
<SNIP>
>> the fact that
>>particle accelerators work at all
>
>
> ...has nothing to do with SR. Just put big magnets in a circle and blast
> away.
>
>
>> the fact that particle collisions yield
>>the energies they are supposd to.
Another, somewhat more subtle effect and confirmation of SR is this;
here at DESY we can accelerate electron, positron and proton bunches in
our HERA machine. Of course, at rest these bunches would become
separated due to electrostatic repulsion between the like-charged
particles, but when we accelerate them to 27.5 GeV (i.e. highly
relativistic), the rate at which they separate is much lower, from our
lab frame. Time dilation, you see. As a result we see a tighter beam
than we would if SR didn't apply.
Andy
josX
Why was Relativity accepted back then, where was your evidence back then.
Muons?
Nobody had seen them
Particle accelerators?
Nobody had seen them
MMX?
Doesn't proof it
You are btw lying: you would see a tighter electron beam whether you
believed in SR or not.
The problem with SR is not that you can't fantasyze some shrapnel
"proof" from all over physics that happens to co-inside with it.
The problem is, everything you say is already suspect, because what you
say comes from a group of people who have accepted SR on faith back then.
Your pseudo-proof for timedilation doesn't resolve the paradoxes of SR.
You use it to delude people into thinking there "is something to it",
however minute and that therefore "the scientists can do how they please".
It's like asking hells-angles to provide the proof that their friends
didn't commit a robery. You be damn sure they figure something.
You, the entire physics community is in the suspect-bench here. We don't
need proof from you, we need your admission that you cannot resolve the
paradoxes in your theory that your group adopted as science on faith
alone. I seriously think that we would be doing science a favor by burning
down the universities, that's the state of things here. Radical? Not as
radical as SR.
--
jos
Spaceman
>Intesresting, nearly 1.5 times lightspeed in a vacuum. Nothing can go
>faster than light, therfore newton is flawed.
<ROFLOL>
such great wisdom,.
"just say it. and it's so"
Hey Eric.
FTL has not been disproven,
you can not "just say" nothing can go FTL.
therefore.
you are the flawed one here.
186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps
basic math states you are wrong!
FTL is possible.
fix your equations to use FTL speeds.
and guess what.
They will work.
DUH
You must be the silly fool that thinks asteroid time is running slow
so you have "extra time: before it hits the Earth because it is
moving close to or above lightspeed.
In fact your crap tends to say if it were moving FTL
it would slow (and "even reverse in time:?)
<ROFLOL>
smash!
you just smashed into the Earth at FTL and you thought
you had a few more seconds..
HA HA!
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>You think Jos buys into a limit of c.
>Good luck.
That is the correct term!
"buys into"
<LOL>
Prove this wrong so you are correct about lightspeed.
186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps.
HA HA!
basic math wins again.
FTL is possible.
and basic math proves it every day.
Spaceman
>I can try. Becides, doing it the way i do it lets people comments on
>what i do and expose any misconceptions or errors in my work, and
>bring out new things i havent considered.
The errors are that you won't allow FTL.
you are the ignorant mechancially illiterate fool
that has no clue about clock malfunctions.
FTL has
No mass(net weight) increase.
and
No time rate change.
You lose!
http://www.realspaceman.com/ftl.htm
Spaceman
>Indeed not! :)
>Not just like that. There may be high friction involved at those speeds,
>but that's no different then with the soundbarrier. There is no reason
>for c to be a limit "just because".
>--
Yup,
"just because" and
"buy into"..
should be pretty good clues for those not brainwashed so bad.
:)
Infinite mass bologna and such will start next.
although "it is all wrong too"
energy gains along with velocity.
mass remains the same.
They lose all around.
They are all mechanically illiterate it seems,
so they probably will never "get it"
:)
poor lost sub particles..
lost in "spacetime"
Spaceman
>I know of only one place where "free space" exists. Guess where.
I know I know!
SRists heads!
Spaceman
>I will ask here too, because you tend to ignore the more complicated
>questions.
>
>Friction with what?
>
Friction with the electrons that "fill space"
>Free space is not atmosphere.
Free space is full of electrons and smaller stuff.
you lose again.
Spaceman
>In Newtonian mechanics, there is no speed-limit. You are assuming
>relativity in order to prove Newton wrong, which is the wrong way
>to go about it. If you want to disprove Newton, you will have to
>do it without relying on relativity, i.e. by doing an experiment
>that directly proves Newton wrong, not by performing a thought
>experiment that pits relativity against Newtonian mechanics.
>
Ok,
Marco,
you gain one point in reality on that one.
but you still need to research a clocks fault
for "your relatvity studies."
If you have not researched a clock,
You have not researched relatvity at all basically.
for it all is based upon a "clock malfunction"
and that is why it is doomed to remain thoery only ..
and "part wrong" forever.
Spaceman
>There is no aether.
There is a space full of electrons!
I don't call it that either.
I call it outerspace.
I suppose next you will say,
there is no "space full of electrons".
<LOL>
>Friction against what, aether? I doubt those 10 hydrogen atoms per
>cubic meter or so are going to put up much of a fight.
What about all the free electrons?
you love to ignore what "must be there" huh?
>Are you saying there is a mysterious friction that pushes against
>objects leaving our star system that is signifigant enough to keep the
>average velocity of an object to below c?
Not at all.
there is some stuff that may slow it down,
but there is no "stuff" that is proven to stop (limit to LS)
things moving at high speeds.
Your limitation of other objects motion,
is a wall that does not really exist.
josX
>>From: jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX)
>
>>I know of only one place where "free space" exists. Guess where.
>
>I know I know!
>SRists heads!
Right, in more ways then one.
--
jos
Spaceman
>Eric, this is exactly the wrong way round. You cannot just assume c_0 is the
>maximum possible speed in order to prove SR. In fact, the limit of c_0 is
>/derived/ in SR from the fact that c_0 is constant for all IS's.
>
>So what needs to be demonstrated is the constancy of c_0, from which the
>Lorentz-transformation then follows as well as the relativistic speed limit.
Why is the "c" in Lorentz transforms?
What does lightpseed have to do with anything elses speed (except how it's
viewed)
viewing and observations are limited to light.
motion is not.
your detection limits are not "objects limits.
wake up!
Spaceman
>Time dilation, you see.
NOPE!
time dilations are SciFi.
time can not be a reason (cause) for anything.
you lose.
grelbr
Please, guys, put this in sci.physics.relativity.
grelbr
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
><snip>
>
>>Is there a problem?
>>You think we can't break the light-barrier until we actually do like with
>>the sound-barrier?
>
>Untill i have reason to believe otherwise, yes.
>
>We had supersonic bullets in the mid 20th century, did we not?
We had supersonic bullets in the 19th century.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Michael J. Strickland
josx of
> something. Today its "newton is wrong". Perhaps ill have more
luck
> this time.
>
and love,
> and something you will not give up on. You have said that
newtonian
> mechanics has been proven right (with snookerball
references...) and
> has not been proven wrong. You will not listen what any of us
say
> about Mercury or GPS, so i thought this might do the trick.
>
> The standard distance equation that uses acelleration in
newtonian
> mechanics goes like this:
>
> d=(1/2)(a)(t^2)
>
> Very simple and works for most things.
>
> Say I want to go to Proxima Centauri, and have an engine and
fuel
> supply that can deliver a constant acelleration of 1 g for an
> indefinite amount of time. Oh, and before you say this is just
a
> thought experiment - keep in mind that you love thought
experiments
> and think SR is bunk based upon them.
>
> Proxima is roughly 4.3 light years from earth. Given a Vi of
0, I
> shall calculate how long it would take this ship to go from
Earth to
> Proxima. Note that I will not be stopping. Makes things
easier to
> calculate.
>
>
> (4.3 ly)(365 ld / 1 ly)(24 lh / 1 ld)(3600 s / 1 lh)(3x10^8
m/s) =
> (1/2)(9.8m/s^2)(t^2)
>
> Solving for t^2, I get....
>
> t^2= 8.302x10^15 s^2
> t= 9.1x10^7 s, or 2.9 years
>
>
> What the fuck? 2.9 years to go to an object that is 4.3 light
years
> away? Hmm.
>
>
> 4.3 ly = v/2.9 years
>
> Nothing can go faster than c in a vacuum, (that I know of),
so v
> should not be > 1.
Wrong. Postulated but never proven and this is the most serious
problem with relativity.
...
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services quali...@att.net
703-560-7380
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Gisse
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>><snip>
>>>Indeed not! :)
>>>Not just like that. There may be high friction involved at those speeds,
>>>but that's no different then with the soundbarrier. There is no reason
>>>for c to be a limit "just because".
>>
>>I will ask here too, because you tend to ignore the more complicated
>>questions.
>
>Which question did i ignore.
Just a habit ive observed.
>
>>Friction with what?
>
>Space is not empty.
>Friction with molecules, subatomic particles, even light if it turns
>out to be particles, friction against muons etc.
Suprisingly enough, your ideas somewhat mesh with reality.
Yes those things you mention do exist in space but are of an
insignifigant concern, interstellar hydrogen is measured in molecules
per cubic meter, radiation pressure from sunlight falls off at the
square of the distance, and solar wind is a gentle push.
Until you pass the heliopause or if you go "against the current", so
to speak, the force acting upon you will at the very least, make you
go faster.
>>Free space is not atmosphere.
>
>I know of only one place where "free space" exists. Guess where.
Since your reply is civil and has merit, i will not mention where.
Eric Gisse
>I would, IF it was done.
>None is done to confirm the basis of the whole modern physics structure:
>Postulate-2 of relativity: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-
>-in-a-vacuum. It's a fantasy, and it cannot even work.
I must be high, i almost understand what your saying.
Postulate 2 says that the laws of physics work in all intertial
reference frames.
Your "experiment" is unable to be done. I can too think of many
experiments that could falsify SR, like sending a signal faster than
light. I could go on saying that the device cannot work with our
current technology, but that would be rather inane.
This might not be what you have had in mind, but ill shoot anyways.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way
tests
>> I
>>could dig around and find out about the first types of acellerators
>>and document their problems, but that is a "not tonight" type task.
>
>Here is a tonight-type task: admit you're wrong, and have accepted pure
>paradox as scientific facts. Also admit you are guilty of deluding people.
If i am wrong, then i am wrong. Though i doubt you have the facilities
to prove it to anyone but yourself and spaceman.
SR is not pure paradox, does it hurt when you pull such large ideas
out of your ass?
Again, make SR falsify itself, really. Name one experiment that has
been done, that falsifys the theory. I say this again, the experiment
has to have been done. You could claim uncle al's experiment falsifys
SR, but it hasnt been done, much like your experiment. I egarly await
the results of both.
>
>Then again, that might be the task of a lifetime for you.
>
>>Interesting challenge to prove something wrong without using something
>>you know is right.
>
>Yeah... i'm eagerly awaiting your fumbles :).
>
>>Since i have not done them myself, it might be a good exercise to
>>learn relatvistic acelleration and deal with Mercury's orbit.
>
>Watch this people. This is not about them, it is about *you*, and your
>*gullability*. Is there a limit to it, or not, that's what we're going
>to find out. ermm, we already found out sortof, but most don't understand
>SR so it wasn't an honest chance for you.
Yes jos, its all about me, you discovered my secret plan.
Im tired of watching you confuse newbies to this group, so i am trying
to make you stop.
Im tired of watching your postings fuck up otherwise good posts by
other people.
Yes, its all about me. This is also an exercise for me, i like it.
>Are you going to demand evidence for claims, or are you going to go ahead
>and believe anything they tell you, even pure paradox, even though you
>know why it is wrong.
Are you going to listen to evidence when it is presented, or are you
going to shrug it off as "biased", "wrong", "has nothing to do with
SR", or ignore it?
>
>No one knows what you will do. They hope you will listen to them regardless
>of what they say, i hope you think for yourself. What will happen...?!
Who is they?
>I hope you suprise us.
...and for my next trick, monkeys will fly out of my armpits.
Eric Gisse
>>There is no aether.
>
>What does aether have to do with real-world friction. Aether is an
>hypothetical-voodoo material dreamed up by phycisists and the beginning
>of this century because they didn't feel like doing real physics. It's
>"the medium of light" and "it shortens and stretches object who move
>through it". Yeah, sure dudes. How does the brandy taste.
Aether was a reasonable idea, but a wrong idea which has been
circumvented.
<snip>
>No. However, the friction exists, if you're accelerating a significantly
>dense body like a spacecraft, those few atoms may be like feathers in
>front of a car. However, if you're accelerating lone particles, those
>feathers become cars in themselves. So, i was just cutting you off before
>you could drag the particle accelerators to the argument. Hint: you got
>nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, i know all your moves.
Can you calculate how hard those atoms would hit your spacecraft? Can
you back up your calculations with observations?
>>>>Wait.
>>>>
>>>>What the fuck? 2.9 years to go to an object that is 4.3 light years
>>>>away? Hmm.
>>>
>>>Is there a problem?
>>>You think we can't break the light-barrier until we actually do like with
>>>the sound-barrier?
>>
>>Untill i have reason to believe otherwise, yes.
>
>You take this on faith then. Poor you.
So you refuse to believe the work of anyone else, unless it supports
you?
>>We had supersonic bullets in the mid 20th century, did we not? What
>>goes faster than light? Nothing. I welcome experimental proof of
>>something otherwise.
>
>Glad you asked:
>Gasjet from Quasar 3C273 has traveled a distance of 25 lightyears in
>8 years.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=quasar+3C273+relativity+superluminal&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Oooh interesting.
http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Quasars.html
"noone belives this to be the case" in reference to superluminal
motion. Good enough for me, lets see what else i can find.
This one explains in much more detail, and with some math.
http://msowww.anu.edu.au/~geoff/AFD/Relativistic_Applications.pdf
I do not have this paper onhand, but if this quasar did not support SR
why did John Baez add it? Search for 3C273.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Are these people wrong? I know your awnser, so why are they wrong?
>>It is hard to cite experiment and SR when you disagree with both.
>
>Science needs positive proof, not merely the absence of negative proof.
What happens when you have both?
<snip>
>
>No.
Since you "know" its wrong, you will not listen to the argument?
>Newton would mathmodel Mercury's orbit until he had a rational explanation
>for it. Space-curving is not an explanation for Mercury's orbit, it's an
>insult. Space doesn't curve, it's the void, only object curve. Co-ordinate
>systems are straight. Why do you think meter-sticks are always straight
>and not curved.
You deny SR, GR, QM, gotcha.
Intuitive explanations of reality resulted in Elculdian space and
Newtownian mechanics.
Can you explain the hallmark experiment of GR, done in 1916?
During a solar ecclipse, scientists observed the edge of the sun and
noticed there were stars there that were behind the sun. Einstein
predicted this, and that granted his new theory much attention.
BTW, you cannot "tweak" SR/GR until you get the awnser you want,
either you get it or you dont.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
I know, im just trying a new approach, but i cant help but use aspects
from SR that have been proven. Bad habit :-P
I appreciate the input, this is another reason why i do this in usenet
instead of over email.
Eric Gisse
<quali...@att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Wrong. Postulated but never proven and this is the most serious
>problem with relativity.
That it is called a theory?
Marco Nelissen
> Interesting. SRists make the exact mistake they claim i make (which i
> don't make at all).
>
> What they claim often?
> That i proof SR wrong by mixing in Newton.
Indeed, that is what you do: all of the devices you have "invented"
in order to detect light or synchronize clocks required some form
of faster-than-light signaling, or assumed fully Newtonian mechanics
(i.e. no length contraction or time dilation). Thus, you mixed Newton
into relativity.
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Gisse wrote:
>>
> Aether was a reasonable idea, but a wrong idea which has been
> circumvented.
Not so much wrong, as unnecessary. Aether raises more questions than it
answers. You will notice that Lorentz got the right answers using aether.
Bob Kolker
Eric Gisse
I fully admit i dont know the history of physics, so keep that in
mind.
Isnt it true that relativity made aether useless because even if it
was there, it worked just as well?
Didnt the MMX experiment show, that if aether actually exists, it does
not affect light as far as we can tell?
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Gisse wrote:
>
>> Didnt the MMX experiment show, that if aether actually exists, it does
> not affect light as far as we can tell?
>
The negative result of MMX tells us we cannot determine our velocity wrt
to the aether, so the aether (assuming that it exists) cannot be used as
a privileged frame of reference.
SR assumes every inertial frame is equally privileged which means every
inertial frame is equally non privileged.
Bob Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen
The thing about a theory is that it can be "fixed" by adding auxiliary
hypotheses, as Kuhn had talked about. So we had the Maxwellian aether
which was stiffer than steel, but matter could pass through it unimpeded.
Measurements of stellar aberration reassured them in that view, and was
consistent with Fizeau's measurment of light dragging in flowing water,
which seemed to indicate some interaction with a drag coefficient o 0.48,
an auxiliary hypothesis. But the null results of the Michelson-Morley
wxperiment were a surprise because it seemed to imply an aether that gets
dragged along with the Earth. So Lorentz proposed a shortening of matter
in the direction of aether flow, another auxiliary hypothesis.
It was pretty much abandoned before they had to add more auxiliary
hypotheses that dealt with time dilation, the fact that a particle's
kinetic energy can increase without bound even while its speed is below c,
and I don't know what else.
But the thing is, an aether theory can be pounded on and made to work, if
you add enough stuff to it. It's an unsatisfying way to build a theory,
which is why it was abandoned for the two simple postulates of special
relativity. And by "simple" I mean they weren't specifically inserted to
answer an experimental problem.
But because of this certain arbitrariness of theories there's always room
for someone to come on to sci.physics and push an aether theory or
something, and with some legitimacy. You can't *really* say he's wrong,
and he can always claim it would work if as much effort had been put into
that as had been put into relativity.
And then there's blatant cranks that don't even know what problems
relativity solved, and think they can just do away with Einstein and his
speed limit and everything will go back to the mechanics and the
Maxwellian aether of 1860.
--
"Knowing how to use your power tools properly will greatly reduce the risk
of personal injury." -- Norm Abram
tj Frazir
IS ,,,,, C+ posible FTL . E+E at C ......
Mater is a eddie in space ,,wile sevral eddies orbit the low they made
and as a hole make intence waves in space called electrons but are waves
made by eddies . Mater is boyant in energy under presure
............................
Mater is boyant in energy under presure and energy reacts with energy at
C .
A void of energy presure is a black hole will form behind energy at C
is an intence low in energy presure a void of energy .
Te black hole would at it at the point it exceads C . andd indce energy
dragl it back to C and no more problem at C .
Not enough energy presure to have an eddie in if te drag makes a void
of energy behind it.
The universe dont pull its self out in al directions it pushes out and
is still pushing out .
Energy is used to push out ,,energy under presure expands and is
identical to conservation. Gravity is a push to less energy.
josX
>On 5 Sep 2002 09:26:49 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>Indeed not! :)
>>>>Not just like that. There may be high friction involved at those speeds,
>>>>but that's no different then with the soundbarrier. There is no reason
>>>>for c to be a limit "just because".
>>>
>>>I will ask here too, because you tend to ignore the more complicated
>>>questions.
>>
>>Which question did i ignore.
>
>Just a habit ive observed.
I have no such habbit. In fact, i reply to everything.
>>>Friction with what?
>>
>>Space is not empty.
>>Friction with molecules, subatomic particles, even light if it turns
>>out to be particles, friction against muons etc.
>
>Suprisingly enough, your ideas somewhat mesh with reality.
>
>Yes those things you mention do exist in space but are of an
>insignifigant concern, interstellar hydrogen is measured in molecules
>per cubic meter, radiation pressure from sunlight falls off at the
>square of the distance, and solar wind is a gentle push.
Come again: "radiation pressure" ?
Photons do have mass then. SR=falsified because even within SR we now
can attach a coordinate system to a photon. GR=falsified because light
must be infinitely heavy according to it's mass-increase with velocity.
>Until you pass the heliopause or if you go "against the current", so
>to speak, the force acting upon you will at the very least, make you
>go faster.
Now who is ignoring the problem eh?
>>>Free space is not atmosphere.
>>
>>I know of only one place where "free space" exists. Guess where.
>
>Since your reply is civil and has merit, i will not mention where.
In SRists head: free space is a fantasy.
--
jos
josX
><snip>
>>I would, IF it was done.
>>None is done to confirm the basis of the whole modern physics structure:
>>Postulate-2 of relativity: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-
>>-in-a-vacuum. It's a fantasy, and it cannot even work.
>
>I must be high, i almost understand what your saying.
>
>Postulate 2 says that the laws of physics work in all intertial
>reference frames.
See readers? SRists don't know their own theories, the waffle and they
bark, but don't even know properly what they are defending besides "us,
phycisists".
>Your "experiment" is unable to be done. I can too think of many
>experiments that could falsify SR, like sending a signal faster than
>light. I could go on saying that the device cannot work with our
>current technology, but that would be rather inane.
If postulate-2 is untested, then all of modern physics crumbles with it.
FTL signals are already "fact" in SR/GR theories: wormholes.
>This might not be what you have had in mind, but ill shoot anyways.
>
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way
>tests
>
>>> I
>>>could dig around and find out about the first types of acellerators
>>>and document their problems, but that is a "not tonight" type task.
>>
>>Here is a tonight-type task: admit you're wrong, and have accepted pure
>>paradox as scientific facts. Also admit you are guilty of deluding people.
>
>If i am wrong, then i am wrong. Though i doubt you have the facilities
>to prove it to anyone but yourself and spaceman.
>
>SR is not pure paradox, does it hurt when you pull such large ideas
>out of your ass?
>
>Again, make SR falsify itself, really. Name one experiment that has
>been done, that falsifys the theory. I say this again, the experiment
>has to have been done. You could claim uncle al's experiment falsifys
>SR, but it hasnt been done, much like your experiment. I egarly await
>the results of both.
God has neither been falsified, and the case of his existance is supported
by the existance of "the world", and miracles, just ask the Church.
The case of God is stronger then the case for SR, because of paradoxes in SR,
and because it claims to be science.
>>Then again, that might be the task of a lifetime for you.
>>
>>>Interesting challenge to prove something wrong without using something
>>>you know is right.
>>
>>Yeah... i'm eagerly awaiting your fumbles :).
>>
>>>Since i have not done them myself, it might be a good exercise to
>>>learn relatvistic acelleration and deal with Mercury's orbit.
>>
>>Watch this people. This is not about them, it is about *you*, and your
>>*gullability*. Is there a limit to it, or not, that's what we're going
>>to find out. ermm, we already found out sortof, but most don't understand
>>SR so it wasn't an honest chance for you.
>
>Yes jos, its all about me, you discovered my secret plan.
>
>Im tired of watching you confuse newbies to this group, so i am trying
>to make you stop.
>
>Im tired of watching your postings fuck up otherwise good posts by
>other people.
>
>Yes, its all about me. This is also an exercise for me, i like it.
>
>>Are you going to demand evidence for claims, or are you going to go ahead
>>and believe anything they tell you, even pure paradox, even though you
>>know why it is wrong.
>
>Are you going to listen to evidence when it is presented, or are you
>going to shrug it off as "biased", "wrong", "has nothing to do with
>SR", or ignore it?
The evidence *has* nothing to do with SR.
>>No one knows what you will do. They hope you will listen to them regardless
>>of what they say, i hope you think for yourself. What will happen...?!
>
>Who is they?
SRists/phycisists.
>>I hope you suprise us.
>
>...and for my next trick, monkeys will fly out of my armpits.
Make sure you present evidence before trying to pass it off as scientific
fact.
--
jos
josX
Except when we pseudosolve the twin paradox. Then "anything goes if it
can draw in a believer" codespeak: ``make them understand SR''.
--
jos
josX
Where is Newton or FTL-signalling in the twin-paradox.
Where is FTL signalling in the rolling-iron-bar clock synchronization,
where is the Newton that SR would not agree with.
Why do you have FTL signalling in your own theories: wormholes.
--
jos
Spaceman
>I fully admit i dont know the history of physics, so keep that in
>mind.
OK,
that is actually no problem,
The history of the "clock"
is what you should start with.
and please...
pay attention to it's faults.
History proved relatvity wrong long ago.
when ships rocking "mad clocks malfunction"
today .
the "rocking" is just a different motion change.
but ..
still the same old "clock fault"
>Isnt it true that relativity made aether useless because even if it
>was there, it worked just as well?
Aether is useless until you tell "what aether is made of"
and Aether (space) full of free electrons "is far from useless though"
In fact,
it seems to be the true facts about "supposed vacuum"
vacuum energy is another "reason" for space full of free electrons"
>Didnt the MMX experiment show, that if aether actually exists, it does
>not affect light as far as we can tell?
The MMX proved nothing except "the medium light travels in on Earth"
must travel with Earth.
hence the null result.
the medium is dragged with Earth and help in place
by Earths gravity.
MMX was doomed to fail to detect motion,
just as a tennis ball has no clue about the speed of the train when constant.
Uncle Al
[snip]
> In SRists head: free space is a fantasy.
[snip]
Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
carries four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied?
http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
This URL cures josX infections.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Randy Poe
> Come again: "radiation pressure" ?
> Photons do have mass then.
I thought the experiment was king for you. Are you going to believe
the lying conspirators on this one?
The only direct thing we know from the experiment is that light
gives pressure. The connection to mass is theory-dependent.
By the way, do you believe there are such things as atoms
or molecules? Why? Do you think anybody's ever, as you say,
taken one to a bar?
- Randy
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>josX wrote:
>> Come again: "radiation pressure" ?
>> Photons do have mass then.
>
>the lying conspirators on this one?
>
>The only direct thing we know from the experiment is that light
>gives pressure. The connection to mass is theory-dependent.
>
times, i.e.
Light has momentum and exerts pressure *in classical physics*
Light has no mass *in classical physics*.
Momentum *is not* mv in classical physics. Momentum is a spatial
derivative of the Lagrangian. For massive particles this *happens* to
be mv. For other systems, it may be other things.
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Come again: "radiation pressure" ?
>> Photons do have mass then.
>
>I thought the experiment was king for you. Are you going to believe
>the lying conspirators on this one?
>
>The only direct thing we know from the experiment is that light
>gives pressure. The connection to mass is theory-dependent.
How does a thing give pressure without mass/momentum, what is against
the hypotheses that light is a particle with some mass, pressure votes
for it. It also falsifies GR, is that where your reservation is coming
from with regard to the mass of photons ?
>By the way, do you believe there are such things as atoms
>or molecules? Why? Do you think anybody's ever, as you say,
>taken one to a bar?
I do believe it because there are experiments *directly* supporting it,
i know for example about experiments on oil, and that the mass of the
oil droplets always had a common denomenator, which votes for quantitization.
Now with super microscopes (tunneling etc) we aparently can even see them.
I have no reason for direct distrust as this also involves chemistry
and doesn't appear to be a half-hearted attempt to keep SR/GR kite flying.
--
jos
Eric Gisse <<
<snip>
>
>>Your "experiment" is unable to be done. I can too think of many
>>experiments that could falsify SR, like sending a signal faster than
>>light. I could go on saying that the device cannot work with our
>>current technology, but that would be rather inane.
>
>If postulate-2 is untested, then all of modern physics crumbles with it.
>
>FTL signals are already "fact" in SR/GR theories: wormholes.]
No, wormholes are possible solutions to the feild equations. Nothing
more.
They are not fact. No direct or indirect evidence has ever been
observed.
Can you distinguish between the 3 kinds of wormholes theorized and
explain why each one can and cannot work?
Twit.
<snip>
>>Again, make SR falsify itself, really. Name one experiment that has
>>been done, that falsifys the theory. I say this again, the experiment
>>has to have been done. You could claim uncle al's experiment falsifys
>>SR, but it hasnt been done, much like your experiment. I egarly await
>>the results of both.
>
>God has neither been falsified, and the case of his existance is supported
>by the existance of "the world", and miracles, just ask the Church.
>The case of God is stronger then the case for SR, because of paradoxes in SR,
>and because it claims to be science.
....and the pieces fall into place.
Awhile back i noticed that you had a particular brand of fanaticism
that was usually attributed to religious fundamentalists, but now it
all makes sense.
God and SR have no relation, one is philosophy and one is science.
<snip>
>
>The evidence *has* nothing to do with SR.
Then what theory does all the evidence we post support if not SR?
>>>No one knows what you will do. They hope you will listen to them regardless
>>>of what they say, i hope you think for yourself. What will happen...?!
>>
>>Who is they?
>
>SRists/phycisists.
Why? You have yet to explain why physicists spend literally trillions
of dollars on equipment that they say is based on applications of SR,
if it is false. You have yet to explain how the devices we show to you
as examples work without SR.
>>>I hope you suprise us.
>>
>>...and for my next trick, monkeys will fly out of my armpits.
>
>Make sure you present evidence before trying to pass it off as scientific
>fact.
Aparrently you do reply to everything.
Spaceman
>God and SR have no relation,
WRONG!
Both are religions of "Gods".
Relatvity has "the atomic clock"
and most other religions just have "a God instead"
They are related more than you know.
the clock malfunctioned,
and you have worshipped that malfunction
without question!
<LOL>
HA HA!
>Then what theory does all the evidence we post support if not SR?
Mine!
"free electrons fill space (vacuum)"
:)
all your experiments that "actually took place"
back me up 100%
HA HA!
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse >ks...@uas.alaska.edu>" <<<REEEMOVE> wrote in message news:27shnu8hoje97oifp...@4ax.com...
> On 06 Sep 2002 07:47:21 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
[snip]
> >Make sure you present evidence before trying to pass it off as scientific
> >fact.
>
> Aparrently you do reply to everything.
If it has to do with physics, yes.
If you want him to swallow it, talk something else.
For instance, he has not replied to this one:
| > I tried to start a thread on sci.physics.research, it couldn't slip
| > through the moderation, even though i tried to be somewhat balanced
| > and interesting, merely asking for removal of SR and fixing of Maxwell.
|
| Perhaps you were not balanced and interesting enough.
| Perhaps you should have included a diagram in your post.
| Perhaps you should have told them about your formula
| for air resistance: F = m*a.
| Perhaps you should have explained the Lorentz
| transformation in English.
| Perhaps you should have explained about the dimension
| of gamma.
| Perhaps you should have told them that every physicist
| is metally ill, or a lying son of a bitch.
| Perhaps you should have told them that you were
| planning to repeat your view until it becomes right by
| the sheer force of repitition.
| Perhaps you should have told them that your view is
| totally backed by James Driscoll The Lesser.
| Perhaps you should have drawn their attention to the
| number of references you have on
| http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
| Or perhaps not.
|
| Dirk Vdm
You see, it's not about physics *and* it "presents evidence".
Of course, he might be tempted to reply to it after all now.
We'll see.
Good luck ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>You see, it's not about physics *and* it "presents evidence".
>Of course, he might be tempted to reply to it after all now.
>We'll see.
You won't post my retraction though huh?
Sad ass reporter.
Lying as long as he can now.
Your webpage is sad Dirk,
It only prove you still have no clue
about "how clocks work"
BTW:
You are a mechancially illiterate dufeball too.
so.
you probably never will "learn about clocks faults"
Poor Dirk the Jerk,
his best physics is full of lying.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020906144352...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >From: "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com
>
> >You see, it's not about physics *and* it "presents evidence".
> >Of course, he might be tempted to reply to it after all now.
> >We'll see.
>
> You won't post my retraction though huh?
I Was talking to Eric about jos. Where do you get the daft
idea that I was talking to or about you, the Village Idiot?
Dirk Vdm
josX
>In article <3D78B8F1...@atl.lmco.com>, Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
>>josX wrote:
>>> Come again: "radiation pressure" ?
>>> Photons do have mass then.
>>
>>I thought the experiment was king for you. Are you going to believe
>>the lying conspirators on this one?
>>
>>The only direct thing we know from the experiment is that light
>>gives pressure. The connection to mass is theory-dependent.
>>
>It is worth repeating what has already been posted here countless
>times, i.e.
>
>Light has momentum and exerts pressure *in classical physics*
>Light has no mass *in classical physics*.
>Momentum *is not* mv in classical physics. Momentum is a spatial
>derivative of the Lagrangian. For massive particles this *happens* to
>be mv. For other systems, it may be other things.
In classical mechanics, momentum is mass having speed.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
Dirk Van de moortel
> >In article <3D78B8F1...@atl.lmco.com>, Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> writes:
> >>josX wrote:
> >>> Come again: "radiation pressure" ?
> >>> Photons do have mass then.
> >>
> >>I thought the experiment was king for you. Are you going to believe
> >>the lying conspirators on this one?
> >>
> >>The only direct thing we know from the experiment is that light
> >>gives pressure. The connection to mass is theory-dependent.
> >>
> >It is worth
- but obviously not to josX -
> repeating what has already been posted here countless
> >times, i.e.
> >
> >Light has momentum and exerts pressure *in classical physics*
> >Light has no mass *in classical physics*.
> >Momentum *is not* mv in classical physics. Momentum is a spatial
> >derivative of the Lagrangian. For massive particles this *happens* to
> >be mv. For other systems, it may be other things.
>
> In classical mechanics, momentum is mass having speed.
Right, like in classical mechanics Air resistance is F = m*a.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >> Come again: "radiation pressure" ?
> >> Photons do have mass then.
> >
> >I thought the experiment was king for you. Are you going to believe
> >the lying conspirators on this one?
> >
> >The only direct thing we know from the experiment is that light
> >gives pressure. The connection to mass is theory-dependent.
>
> How does a thing give pressure without mass/momentum, what is against
> the hypotheses that light is a particle with some mass, pressure votes
> for it.
It separates momentum from mass.
> It also falsifies GR, is that where your reservation is coming
> from with regard to the mass of photons ?
Since it's very easy to look up the relativistic formula
for momentum, it's pretty easy to verify that p is not
equal to mv and p can be nonzero when m is zero. So it's
pretty silly to say that falsifies GR or SR, since SR
clearly gives a formula that allows this to be.
> >By the way, do you believe there are such things as atoms
> >or molecules? Why? Do you think anybody's ever, as you say,
> >taken one to a bar?
>
> I do believe it because there are experiments *directly* supporting it,
Supporting it? You mean indirect evidence?
What about DIRECT proof? Who ever saw a water molecule?
> i know for example about experiments on oil, and that the mass of the
> oil droplets always had a common denomenator, which votes for quantitization.
What does that have to do with the existence of little atoms?
> Now with super microscopes (tunneling etc) we aparently can even see them.
Yes, but the atomic theory is a hundred years older than that. You
believed it long before there were such things.
Why?
> I have no reason for direct distrust
No? You say science requires proof. Isn't this science?
> as this also involves chemistry
Two words: Rutherford experiment. Physics or chemistry?
Do you know how Rutherford "proved" there was an atomic nucleus? Do
you have any idea how indirect an experiment that was?
Do you think anyone's ever seen an atomic nucleus?
They have a number for the angle formed by the bonds in H2O.
Do you think anybody's every held up a little protractor to
measure that angle? How did they "proof" that?
josX
>On 06 Sep 2002 07:47:21 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
><snip>
>>>Your "experiment" is unable to be done. I can too think of many
>>>experiments that could falsify SR, like sending a signal faster than
>>>light. I could go on saying that the device cannot work with our
>>>current technology, but that would be rather inane.
>>
>>If postulate-2 is untested, then all of modern physics crumbles with it.
>>
>>FTL signals are already "fact" in SR/GR theories: wormholes.]
>
>No, wormholes are possible solutions to the feild equations. Nothing
>more.
You say they won't make FTL signalling possible?
>They are not fact. No direct or indirect evidence has ever been
>observed.
Ofcourse not. They are fiction, as is 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-
-constancy-in-a-vacuum. Fiction is what phycisists like, because it's easy
to produce.
>Can you distinguish between the 3 kinds of wormholes theorized and
>explain why each one can and cannot work?
>
>Twit.
Is this the kind of blabber phycisists argue about while sucking money ?
><snip>
>
>>>Again, make SR falsify itself, really. Name one experiment that has
>>>been done, that falsifys the theory. I say this again, the experiment
>>>has to have been done. You could claim uncle al's experiment falsifys
>>>SR, but it hasnt been done, much like your experiment. I egarly await
>>>the results of both.
>>
>>God has neither been falsified, and the case of his existance is supported
>>by the existance of "the world", and miracles, just ask the Church.
>>The case of God is stronger then the case for SR, because of paradoxes in SR,
>>and because it claims to be science.
>
>....and the pieces fall into place.
>
>Awhile back i noticed that you had a particular brand of fanaticism
>that was usually attributed to religious fundamentalists, but now it
>all makes sense.
>
>God and SR have no relation, one is philosophy and one is science.
God is religion. SR is insanity. Newton is science. Maxwell is halfdone
science. Particle-accelerators are magnets blasting particles despite
friction, mass increase might well be because there get particles sucked
into the stream, muons are an unrelated phenomenon (muons notice their
speed through the atmosphere and are not 'at rest'), clocks react to
different environments, different clocks in different ways, some experiments
involving clocks may be rigged by the faithfull to keep their flock
coming to them.
><snip>
>>
>>The evidence *has* nothing to do with SR.
>
>Then what theory does all the evidence we post support if not SR?
Newton: he can mathmodel everything.
>>>>No one knows what you will do. They hope you will listen to them regardless
>>>>of what they say, i hope you think for yourself. What will happen...?!
>>>
>>>Who is they?
>>
>>SRists/phycisists.
>
>Why? You have yet to explain why physicists spend literally trillions
>of dollars on equipment that they say is based on applications of SR,
>if it is false. You have yet to explain how the devices we show to you
>as examples work without SR.
I just read about a satalite going into space build in my home town.
The project cost: 150 million Euro.
>>>>I hope you suprise us.
>>>
>>>...and for my next trick, monkeys will fly out of my armpits.
>>
>>Make sure you present evidence before trying to pass it off as scientific
>>fact.
>
>Aparrently you do reply to everything.
I want change.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> I have no such habbit. In fact, i reply to everything.
Then please answer each of these questions:
- where is the proof that your TV is a mind control device?
- where is the proof that aliens from Zeta exist?
Marco Nelissen
> Marco Nelissen wrote:
>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>> Interesting. SRists make the exact mistake they claim i make (which i
>>> don't make at all).
>>>
>>> What they claim often?
>>> That i proof SR wrong by mixing in Newton.
>>
>>Indeed, that is what you do: all of the devices you have "invented"
>>in order to detect light or synchronize clocks required some form
>>of faster-than-light signaling, or assumed fully Newtonian mechanics
>>(i.e. no length contraction or time dilation). Thus, you mixed Newton
>>into relativity.
>
> Where is Newton or FTL-signalling in the twin-paradox.
There is none, which is why the twin paradox works out perfectly. It is
not until you try your custom blend of relativity and Newton that things
start to go wrong...
> Where is FTL signalling in the rolling-iron-bar clock synchronization,
I told you already: in order for the bar to be straight in all frames
of reference, it would need to be infinitely rigid, i.e. the speed of
sound in the bar would have to be infinite.
> where is the Newton that SR would not agree with.
?
> Why do you have FTL signalling in your own theories: wormholes.
wormholes are shortcuts. At no time is the speed of light exceeded.
josX
Yup.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Randy Poe wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>> Come again: "radiation pressure" ?
>>>> Photons do have mass then.
>>>
>>>I thought the experiment was king for you. Are you going to believe
>>>the lying conspirators on this one?
>>>
>>>The only direct thing we know from the experiment is that light
>>>gives pressure. The connection to mass is theory-dependent.
>>
>>How does a thing give pressure without mass/momentum, what is against
>>the hypotheses that light is a particle with some mass, pressure votes
>>for it.
>
>It separates momentum from mass.
I suggest you pick up a hammer ...
>>It also falsifies GR, is that where your reservation is coming
>>from with regard to the mass of photons ?
>
>Since it's very easy to look up the relativistic formula
>for momentum, it's pretty easy to verify that p is not
>equal to mv and p can be nonzero when m is zero. So it's
>pretty silly to say that falsifies GR or SR, since SR
>clearly gives a formula that allows this to be.
Here, a formula that allows for water to be tapped directly from
the Sun, now we all have water!
Water = 1/2 * (pipe-diameter / pip-length^2)^.5 * 1-liter
All you need to do is point your pipe at the sun. This formula
allows for water to be tapped from the Sun!
>>>By the way, do you believe there are such things as atoms
>>>or molecules? Why? Do you think anybody's ever, as you say,
>>>taken one to a bar?
>>
>>I do believe it because there are experiments *directly* supporting it,
>
>Supporting it? You mean indirect evidence?
No direct evidence, one on one.
>What about DIRECT proof? Who ever saw a water molecule?
Perhaps we did with tunneling microscopes. In any event, i never said
credible hypotheses were outside the realm of science. I only always say
that SR is not a credible hypotheses because it's falsified, and i also
say it's not a scientific fact to build a theory on top because it has
not been verified.
>>i know for example about experiments on oil, and that the mass of the
>>oil droplets always had a common denomenator, which votes for quantitization.
>
>What does that have to do with the existence of little atoms?
?
>> Now with super microscopes (tunneling etc) we aparently can even see them.
>
>Yes, but the atomic theory is a hundred years older than that. You
>believed it long before there were such things.
>
>Why?
Because they used their heads, instead of destroying them like the SRists
are fond off.
>> I have no reason for direct distrust
>
>No? You say science requires proof. Isn't this science?
It is. Did they build 100 years of totally weird and unwarranted
theories on top of the atom-hypotheses? Is the atom hypotheses unthinkable?
Is the atom-theory paradoxical? No, no, no. Did they claim it as fact
immediately after the idea popped up? No.
>> as this also involves chemistry
>
>Two words: Rutherford experiment. Physics or chemistry?
>
>Do you know how Rutherford "proved" there was an atomic nucleus? Do
>you have any idea how indirect an experiment that was?
>
>Do you think anyone's ever seen an atomic nucleus?
>
>They have a number for the angle formed by the bonds in H2O.
>Do you think anybody's every held up a little protractor to
>measure that angle? How did they "proof" that?
Ofcourse not. However, the idea is credible, non-paradoxical, and
more or less proof exists which is directed at the exact problem.
Muons hardly are a proof directed at 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-
-constancy-in-a-vacuum, neither are particles in accelerators and neither
are cesium clocks in GPS satalites.
--
jos
Spaceman
>It separates momentum from mass.
<ROFLOL>
that momentum of nothingess stuff huh?
<LOL>
seperate momentum from mass!
<LOL>
as usual....
TOO funny!
Eric Gisse <<
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>On 06 Sep 2002 07:47:21 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>><snip>
>>>>Your "experiment" is unable to be done. I can too think of many
>>>>experiments that could falsify SR, like sending a signal faster than
>>>>light. I could go on saying that the device cannot work with our
>>>>current technology, but that would be rather inane.
>>>
>>>If postulate-2 is untested, then all of modern physics crumbles with it.
>>>
>>>FTL signals are already "fact" in SR/GR theories: wormholes.]
>>
>>No, wormholes are possible solutions to the feild equations. Nothing
>>more.
>
>You say they won't make FTL signalling possible?
Since you subscribe to Elculdian space, this point may be lost upon
you. Wormholes are theroetical constructs that may or may not exist.
If they do, they function as a tunnel through 2 different points of
space.
You cannot outrun a photon on its own plane, but when you go around
it, you can evade the limit.
Wormholes may or may not exist, depending how accurate GTR is.
>
>>They are not fact. No direct or indirect evidence has ever been
>>observed.
>
>Ofcourse not. They are fiction, as is 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-
>-constancy-in-a-vacuum. Fiction is what phycisists like, because it's easy
>to produce.
Interesting application of words.
"They are fiction, as is 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-
>-constancy-in-a-vacuum"
Fiction differes from nonfiction by being not true.
>
>>Can you distinguish between the 3 kinds of wormholes theorized and
>>explain why each one can and cannot work?
>>
>>Twit.
>
>Is this the kind of blabber phycisists argue about while sucking money ?
No, but neither you or i are physicists by any stretch of the
imagination. Im not yet, at least.
But i do imagine if another physicist made wild claims that
contradicted known results without an explanation, would be called a
twit.
<snip>
>
>God is religion. SR is insanity. Newton is science. Maxwell is halfdone
>science. Particle-accelerators are magnets blasting particles despite
>friction, mass increase might well be because there get particles sucked
>into the stream, muons are an unrelated phenomenon (muons notice their
>speed through the atmosphere and are not 'at rest'), clocks react to
>different environments, different clocks in different ways, some experiments
>involving clocks may be rigged by the faithfull to keep their flock
>coming to them.
No, you are insanity.
Lets summarize what you think...
*Newton is correct and proven
*You think there is friction in vacuum
*Muons dont "know" they are going fast until they hit atmosphere.
*Clocks react to different enviroments
*Science falsifys data.
Is that list correct? If it is, i will address them in another post.
>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>The evidence *has* nothing to do with SR.
>>
>>Then what theory does all the evidence we post support if not SR?
>
>Newton: he can mathmodel everything.
No he cant, he is dead.
Particle acellerators, GPS, and such are centuries ahead of him.
>
>>>>>No one knows what you will do. They hope you will listen to them regardless
>>>>>of what they say, i hope you think for yourself. What will happen...?!
>>>>
>>>>Who is they?
>>>
>>>SRists/phycisists.
>>
>>Why? You have yet to explain why physicists spend literally trillions
>>of dollars on equipment that they say is based on applications of SR,
>>if it is false. You have yet to explain how the devices we show to you
>>as examples work without SR.
>
>I just read about a satalite going into space build in my home town.
>The project cost: 150 million Euro.
So you imagine that relativity is a black hole that scientists just
love to send money into, without creating any measurable results using
math that is above "everyone's" head?
<snip>
josX
>On 6 Sep 2002 20:30:26 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>>On 06 Sep 2002 07:47:21 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>>Your "experiment" is unable to be done. I can too think of many
>>>>>experiments that could falsify SR, like sending a signal faster than
>>>>>light. I could go on saying that the device cannot work with our
>>>>>current technology, but that would be rather inane.
>>>>
>>>>If postulate-2 is untested, then all of modern physics crumbles with it.
>>>>
>>>>FTL signals are already "fact" in SR/GR theories: wormholes.]
>>>
>>>No, wormholes are possible solutions to the feild equations. Nothing
>>>more.
>>
>>You say they won't make FTL signalling possible?
>
>Since you subscribe to Elculdian space
Euclid has nothing to do with our space, space is what it is because
of the world, we research it and we call that field about shapes
geometry. We study it from experiment, after enough experiment we can
do it in our heads even. Euclid has nothing to do with other then
the arrogance of thinking it is what it is because of him.
> this point may be lost upon
>you. Wormholes are theroetical constructs that may or may not exist.
>If they do, they function as a tunnel through 2 different points of
>space.
I know the scifi concept.
>You cannot outrun a photon on its own plane, but when you go around
>it, you can evade the limit.
He says "yes there is FTL signalling in our theories, but we don't want
you to use it in the debate so we hope that you won't notice that you could".
>Wormholes may or may not exist, depending how accurate GTR is.
You play with the possibility, you leave it open. That means that you
can no longer ignore paradoxes which use FTL signalling because they
could be connected by wormhole.
BTW, this wormhole is good thinking: merely stage a fake debate about total
crackpottery, and get payed for doing "research". How long are you going
to keep the debate running, indefinetely so as to milk it, or will it
someday be ""settled"" after another scifi idea can be milked.
>>>They are not fact. No direct or indirect evidence has ever been
>>>observed.
>>
>>Ofcourse not. They are fiction, as is 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-
>>-constancy-in-a-vacuum. Fiction is what phycisists like, because it's easy
>>to produce.
>
>Interesting application of words.
> "They are fiction, as is 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-
> >-constancy-in-a-vacuum"
>
>Fiction differes from nonfiction by being not true.
yes
true = correspondance with the world
>>>Can you distinguish between the 3 kinds of wormholes theorized and
>>>explain why each one can and cannot work?
>>>
>>>Twit.
>>
>>Is this the kind of blabber phycisists argue about while sucking money ?
>
>No, but neither you or i are physicists by any stretch of the
>imagination. Im not yet, at least.
I am, more then anyone graduating from university not attacking SR/GR
as they go.
>But i do imagine if another physicist made wild claims that
>contradicted known results without an explanation, would be called a
>twit.
Yes, Einstein was indeed a twit, as was Lorentz.
><snip>
>>God is religion. SR is insanity. Newton is science. Maxwell is halfdone
>>science. Particle-accelerators are magnets blasting particles despite
>>friction, mass increase might well be because there get particles sucked
>>into the stream, muons are an unrelated phenomenon (muons notice their
>>speed through the atmosphere and are not 'at rest'), clocks react to
>>different environments, different clocks in different ways, some experiments
>>involving clocks may be rigged by the faithfull to keep their flock
>>coming to them.
>
>No, you are insanity.
I guess not.
>Lets summarize what you think...
>
>*Newton is correct and proven
He is, play soccer.
>*You think there is friction in vacuum
Ofcourse.
>*Muons dont "know" they are going fast until they hit atmosphere.
Twisting. I say they notice their speed because they move at speed
through the atmosphere.
>*Clocks react to different enviroments
You are disputing this ?
>*Science falsifys data.
Aparently. So does the catholic church possibly when investigating
a miracle (then again, maybe they don't, they know their bisnis, they
know not to go too far, unlike you, you go much too far and now you are
sitting ducks).
>Is that list correct? If it is, i will address them in another post.
Go ahead.
>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>The evidence *has* nothing to do with SR.
>>>
>>>Then what theory does all the evidence we post support if not SR?
>>
>>Newton: he can mathmodel everything.
>
>No he cant, he is dead.
And now you killed his spirit. Was it for proffits ?
>Particle acellerators, GPS, and such are centuries ahead of him.
But didn't exist when relativity got adopted on faith alone.
Still, relativity is adopted on faith and brainwashing and authority
invokations alone: the evidence misses the point.
The point is: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
The second postulate, the only fact relativity adds to science, and it's
a fact that this cannot be true, it is false through absurdity.
How?
Just read the damn postulate and imagine what it means.
>>>>>>No one knows what you will do. They hope you will listen to them regardless
>>>>>>of what they say, i hope you think for yourself. What will happen...?!
>>>>>
>>>>>Who is they?
>>>>
>>>>SRists/phycisists.
>>>
>>>Why? You have yet to explain why physicists spend literally trillions
>>>of dollars on equipment that they say is based on applications of SR,
>>>if it is false. You have yet to explain how the devices we show to you
>>>as examples work without SR.
>>
>>I just read about a satalite going into space build in my home town.
>>The project cost: 150 million Euro.
>
>So you imagine that relativity is a black hole that scientists just
>love to send money into, without creating any measurable results using
>math that is above "everyone's" head?
><snip>
You don't get how a good scam works (well you do, but you pretend not to).
In order to suck money while not being noticed, you throw it at some
good cause that doesn't really exist, and then you take it. Take for
instance the two teams investigating space-curvature. Ofcourse there is
no spacecurvature, but the projects must be payed for by the taxpayer.
A simple satalite project from my home town costed 150 million euro.
Do you see the amounts we are playing with?
What if a certain satalite was designed to test curvature of space,
which doesn't exist, or wormholes. What can you do? Send up a toaster
with a few car-starting cables and a handfull of nails, make sure it
is a "really sensitive device" so it must be kept under wraps at all
times untill "the experts" install the thing. Then you fake some data
you know nobody will argue with because SR/GR are all a big lie and
everybody who knows it is in on it (except me and Spaceman and a few
others here). The magazines will rave with the great results, so the
money-donators (politicians) and university personell will not argue
with it, and all laymen will think this is "cutting edge research".
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> Awhile back i noticed that you had a particular brand of fanaticism
> that was usually attributed to religious fundamentalists, but now it
> all makes sense.
>
> God and SR have no relation, one is philosophy and one is science.
One word: Hammond. I think he may have found his first disciple in Jos.
> Aparrently you do reply to everything.
So far he hasn't replied to my request for proof that his TV really
is a mind control device, and that aliens from Zeta really do exist.
Uncle Al
[snip]
Hey, stooopid - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24 GPS satellites
carries four cesium atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied.
http://www.trimble.com/gps/satellites.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html
This URL cures josX infections.
Einstein-Cartan theory operates in Riemann-Cartan spacetime, U^4,
which is a paracompact, Hausdorff, connected, C^(infinity), and
oriented 4-dimensional manifold on which are defined a local Lorentz
metric g and a linear affine connection "cap gamma," with
gamma "an element of" GL^+ (4,R)
the set of all arbitrary linear transformations on the manifold with
positive determinants and which is metric, i.e. Dg =0. From "cap
gamma" a curvature and a torsion tensor can be obtained on U^4.
1) If the torsion tensor vanishes, Riemann-Cartan spacetime becomes
the pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, V^4;
2) If the curvature tensor vanishes, it becomes Weitzenboeck
spacetime, A^4;
3) If both tensors vanish, it becomes Minkowski spacetime, M^4.
The pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, V^4 (i.e. with a signature of (-, +,
+, +)), is the one used by GR to describe gravity.
Hey, stooopid, all your boring ignorant spewing about Einstein must
now be duplicated byte for byte to piss and moan about Weitzenboeck,
too. Metric and affine theories of gravitation give the same answers,
but affine/teleparallel theories contain no spacetime curvature.
Idiot.
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
> Euclid has nothing to do with our space, space is what it is because
> of the world, we research it and we call that field about shapes
> geometry.
Euclid was the writer (or writers, thing Bourbaki here) who anthologized
a collection of theorems proved by various and sundry Greek geometers.
He lived slightly before the time of Archimedes.
The term Euclidean pertains to geometric spaces sastisfy 5 postulates.
The fifth of these postulates says -in effect- that given a line and a
point not on the line there is one and only one line parallel to the
given line. That is not quite how Euclid expressed it, but what he
postulated is equivalent to the above. [1] Geometry, historyically, is
an idealization of earth measurments used in surveying. Practical
geometry, i.e. surveying originated in Egypt (or so it is thought). The
Greeks abstracted from practical surveying surveying and the practical
rules of thumb used by the Egyptians and Babylonians to produce a
logically structure hierarchy of idealized geomtrical propositions that
could be developed by logical proof. This was an original Greek
invention and is the essence of mathematics as we know it.
It is known there exist (abstract) spaces which do not satisfy all of
Euclid's postulates. In particular there are spaces in which no parallel
lines exist (the set of great circles on the surface of a sphere for
example) and spaces where there are in infinite number of lines parallel
to a given line through a given point. It can be shown that all of the
non-Euclidean geometries are as consistent as Euclidean geometry. We
know, from experiment, that the geomretry of space time is non-Euclidean
for for small enough regions of spacetime, Euclidean geometry is an
acceptable approximation.
In point of fact, geometry is an artifact of our imagination. It is
handy because it incorporates some of the properties found in real (i.e.
physical things) and enables us to make experimentally supported
predictions. Geometry is part of the mathematical infrastructure of
physical theories, either implicitly or explicitly.
Bob Kolker
[1] Hilbert showed that Euclid assumed more postulates than he stated,
particularly those having to do with order of points on line segments,
and the congruence of figures.
Dirk Van de moortel
"TutAmongUs@theholeintheground" <TutAm...@theheartofthecheopspyramid.hol> wrote in message
news:b1kknu8hmih7eidl3...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 19:49:59 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> Gave us:
> err... evaporation of the media comes from heat, does it not?
Well, let me put it this way: for 15 nsec-long laser pulses, the
laser fluence threshold for fast material removal is on the order
of 10 J/cm^2. As opposed to photo-chemical reaction in UV
laser ablation of organic materials, the material removal mechanism
in metals is basically thermal, via fast melting and evaporation,
However, the term "ablation" is commonly used to distinguish
from melt ejection mechanism in long pulse drilling. In this respect,
an interesting exercise would be for you to find the source of this
very text, and how it was found by yours truly in the first place.
Hth,
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Al
[snip]
> When a laser punches a hole in a steel plate, the ablation...
> err... evaporation of the media comes from heat, does it not?
Corneal reshaping with an eximer laser is wholly athermal. The
ignorant should not presume to lecture their betters. The stupid
should be allowed to die of their own hand - unless they bother you,
in which case charitable euthanasia is indicated.
Eric Gisse <<
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>On 6 Sep 2002 20:30:26 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>>>On 06 Sep 2002 07:47:21 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>>>>Your "experiment" is unable to be done. I can too think of many
>>>>>>experiments that could falsify SR, like sending a signal faster than
>>>>>>light. I could go on saying that the device cannot work with our
>>>>>>current technology, but that would be rather inane.
>>>>>
>>>>>If postulate-2 is untested, then all of modern physics crumbles with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>FTL signals are already "fact" in SR/GR theories: wormholes.]
>>>>
>>>>No, wormholes are possible solutions to the feild equations. Nothing
>>>>more.
>>>
>>>You say they won't make FTL signalling possible?
>>
>>Since you subscribe to Elculdian space
>
>Euclid has nothing to do with our space, space is what it is because
>of the world, we research it and we call that field about shapes
>geometry. We study it from experiment, after enough experiment we can
>do it in our heads even. Euclid has nothing to do with other then
>the arrogance of thinking it is what it is because of him.
Since Newton is "correct" in your mind, yes Euclid does have
relevance.
As i understand it, Euclidian space is typical "flat" space with
parallel lines and has the interior angles of a triangle add up to
180*. You disagree with curved space, and since my knowledge of
topology is limited to "curved" and "flat", i assume you mean flat.
>
>> this point may be lost upon
>>you. Wormholes are theroetical constructs that may or may not exist.
>>If they do, they function as a tunnel through 2 different points of
>>space.
>
>I know the scifi concept.
>
>>You cannot outrun a photon on its own plane, but when you go around
>>it, you can evade the limit.
>
>He says "yes there is FTL signalling in our theories, but we don't want
>you to use it in the debate so we hope that you won't notice that you could".
>
>>Wormholes may or may not exist, depending how accurate GTR is.
>
>You play with the possibility, you leave it open. That means that you
>can no longer ignore paradoxes which use FTL signalling because they
>could be connected by wormhole.
Your right, thats called a "theory". It might exist, it might not.
Read up on the debate about black holes.
>
>BTW, this wormhole is good thinking: merely stage a fake debate about total
>crackpottery, and get payed for doing "research". How long are you going
>to keep the debate running, indefinetely so as to milk it, or will it
>someday be ""settled"" after another scifi idea can be milked.
That research is called "theroetical physics".
This debate interests me so i will keep it up.
<snip>
>>>>Can you distinguish between the 3 kinds of wormholes theorized and
>>>>explain why each one can and cannot work?
>>>>
>>>>Twit.
>>>
>>>Is this the kind of blabber phycisists argue about while sucking money ?
>>
>>No, but neither you or i are physicists by any stretch of the
>>imagination. Im not yet, at least.
>
>I am, more then anyone graduating from university not attacking SR/GR
>as they go.
But you didnt graduate university...
Did you start attacking Einstein and defending Newton while in the
university?
Have you finished a basic algebra class? Trigonometry? Calculus?
<snip>
>
>>Lets summarize what you think...
>>
>>*Newton is correct and proven
>
>He is, play soccer.
No snookerball?
How does soccer prove newton? Have you played soccer in every
condition possible and at every length and composition of feild as
possible?
Unless you test every possibility you cannot prove a theory.
>>*You think there is friction in vacuum
>
>Ofcourse.
Lets try this. Friction against what? Im going to go out on a limb and
assume "static" friction like you are dragging something.
What is there in space that creates friction?
>
>>*Muons dont "know" they are going fast until they hit atmosphere.
>
>Twisting. I say they notice their speed because they move at speed
>through the atmosphere.
Okay, what about "friction" in space? Is it different from "friction"
in atmosphere?
>
>>*Clocks react to different enviroments
>
>You are disputing this ?
Not unless you say what you mean by "envrioment".
Locally 2 identical clocks will work the same no matter what speed.
Relative to someone else, is another matter.
>
>>*Science falsifys data.
>
>Aparently. So does the catholic church possibly when investigating
>a miracle (then again, maybe they don't, they know their bisnis, they
>know not to go too far, unlike you, you go much too far and now you are
>sitting ducks).
The Cathloc church is irrelevent to this discussion.
Can you name an experiment done in the last 150 years that you agree
with?
Do any of those experiments disagree with your worldview?
<snip>
>>>>>The evidence *has* nothing to do with SR.
>>>>
>>>>Then what theory does all the evidence we post support if not SR?
>>>
>>>Newton: he can mathmodel everything.
>>
>>No he cant, he is dead.
>
>And now you killed his spirit. Was it for proffits ?
Philosophy and economics are irrelevent to this discussion.
>
>>Particle acellerators, GPS, and such are centuries ahead of him.
>
>But didn't exist when relativity got adopted on faith alone.
>Still, relativity is adopted on faith and brainwashing and authority
>invokations alone: the evidence misses the point.
Your assumption of "faith alone" is getting irritating, especially
since you cant or wont back up your assertions.
Are you suprised that machinery that requires the theory of relativity
to run came AFTER the apperance of the theory?
>
>The point is: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
>The second postulate, the only fact relativity adds to science, and it's
>a fact that this cannot be true, it is false through absurdity.
>
>How?
>Just read the damn postulate and imagine what it means.
Im going to go with fermilab as a source today.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/more/light/light_page11.html
"* Postulate #2: ANY two inertial systems of reference
(systems moving with respect to each other with a constant speed (not
excluding a speed of zero) are equivalent. In other words, all the
physical laws must have the same form in every inertial system. "
I imagine what it says, interial observers have the same physical
laws. Whats wrong with that?
<snip>
>You don't get how a good scam works (well you do, but you pretend not to).
>In order to suck money while not being noticed, you throw it at some
>good cause that doesn't really exist, and then you take it. Take for
>instance the two teams investigating space-curvature. Ofcourse there is
>no spacecurvature, but the projects must be payed for by the taxpayer.
>A simple satalite project from my home town costed 150 million euro.
>Do you see the amounts we are playing with?
You are also ignorant of the economics of putting something in orbit.
Why dont you tell us about that sattelite, since most of us probably
do not know your home town or anything about that sattelite.
Your ignorance is....sad, to say the least.
>What if a certain satalite was designed to test curvature of space,
>which doesn't exist, or wormholes. What can you do? Send up a toaster
>with a few car-starting cables and a handfull of nails, make sure it
>is a "really sensitive device" so it must be kept under wraps at all
>times untill "the experts" install the thing. Then you fake some data
>you know nobody will argue with because SR/GR are all a big lie and
>everybody who knows it is in on it (except me and Spaceman and a few
>others here). The magazines will rave with the great results, so the
>money-donators (politicians) and university personell will not argue
>with it, and all laymen will think this is "cutting edge research".
You say this as if its a fact. Got any photos? Any evidence of any
kind?
Why is it that only a few university dropouts and a retarded tire
salesman know the "seeekrit" of relativity?
Anyway, your "supporters" are also idiots. Spacetard things -4 * -4 =
-16.
Have you of any of your supporters...
Graduated from High School?
Taken and passed any Algebra-level classes?
Taken and passed any Trigonometry classes?
Taken nad passed any Calculs-level classes?
None of you can even recite parts of SR right, even with google at
your disposal. Why should we believe any of you when you cant even get
your story straight yourselves?
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Euclid has nothing to do with our space, space is what it is because
>> of the world, we research it and we call that field about shapes
>> geometry.
>
>Euclid was the writer (or writers, thing Bourbaki here) who anthologized
>a collection of theorems proved by various and sundry Greek geometers.
>He lived slightly before the time of Archimedes.
>
>The term Euclidean pertains to geometric spaces sastisfy 5 postulates.
>The fifth of these postulates says -in effect- that given a line and a
>point not on the line there is one and only one line parallel to the
>given line.
So your kind was operative even at those times.
<snip>
Geometry is what it is becaus of the world. There are no such things
in true geometry, math or physics as axioms or postulates. The world
is all we need to proof anything (anything real, so that's where your
problem is: SR is not real, so you want to get away from the real world).
<snip>
--
jos
josX
>On 7 Sep 2002 06:14:15 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>>On 6 Sep 2002 20:30:26 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>>>>On 06 Sep 2002 07:47:21 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>Your "experiment" is unable to be done. I can too think of many
>>>>>>>experiments that could falsify SR, like sending a signal faster than
>>>>>>>light. I could go on saying that the device cannot work with our
>>>>>>>current technology, but that would be rather inane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If postulate-2 is untested, then all of modern physics crumbles with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>FTL signals are already "fact" in SR/GR theories: wormholes.]
>>>>>
>>>>>No, wormholes are possible solutions to the feild equations. Nothing
>>>>>more.
>>>>
>>>>You say they won't make FTL signalling possible?
>>>
>>>Since you subscribe to Elculdian space
>>
>>Euclid has nothing to do with our space, space is what it is because
>>of the world, we research it and we call that field about shapes
>>geometry. We study it from experiment, after enough experiment we can
>>do it in our heads even. Euclid has nothing to do with other then
>>the arrogance of thinking it is what it is because of him.
>
>Since Newton is "correct" in your mind, yes Euclid does have
>relevance.
No he has no relevance whatsoever besides historical value.
>As i understand it, Euclidian space is typical "flat" space with
>parallel lines and has the interior angles of a triangle add up to
>180*. You disagree with curved space, and since my knowledge of
>topology is limited to "curved" and "flat", i assume you mean flat.
This shows you where you are. You say "as i understand Euclidian space...".
This is the root of the problem.
Normal/reality geometry also has curved space: spheres, balls, cones,
saddles, everything that can be in reality. If you like you can draw
lines on these surfaces, and measure or computer proporties of them.
I think your "non-euclidian geometry" is actually just normal/reality
geometry done on a sphere's surface, and mathematicians have redefined
words like parallel to "confuse and impress".
>>> this point may be lost upon
>>>you. Wormholes are theroetical constructs that may or may not exist.
>>>If they do, they function as a tunnel through 2 different points of
>>>space.
>>
>>I know the scifi concept.
>>
>>>You cannot outrun a photon on its own plane, but when you go around
>>>it, you can evade the limit.
>>
>>He says "yes there is FTL signalling in our theories, but we don't want
>>you to use it in the debate so we hope that you won't notice that you could".
>>
>>>Wormholes may or may not exist, depending how accurate GTR is.
>>
>>You play with the possibility, you leave it open. That means that you
>>can no longer ignore paradoxes which use FTL signalling because they
>>could be connected by wormhole.
>
>Your right, thats called a "theory". It might exist, it might not.
>Read up on the debate about black holes.
I might as well read up on the debate on the virginity of Mary.
>>BTW, this wormhole is good thinking: merely stage a fake debate about total
>>crackpottery, and get payed for doing "research". How long are you going
>>to keep the debate running, indefinetely so as to milk it, or will it
>>someday be ""settled"" after another scifi idea can be milked.
>
>That research is called "theroetical physics".
>This debate interests me so i will keep it up.
What basis in reality does the debate have.
><snip>
>>>>>Can you distinguish between the 3 kinds of wormholes theorized and
>>>>>explain why each one can and cannot work?
>>>>>
>>>>>Twit.
>>>>
>>>>Is this the kind of blabber phycisists argue about while sucking money ?
>>>
>>>No, but neither you or i are physicists by any stretch of the
>>>imagination. Im not yet, at least.
>>
>>I am, more then anyone graduating from university not attacking SR/GR
>>as they go.
>
>But you didnt graduate university...
Can hardly be suprising given the situation in physics.
>Did you start attacking Einstein and defending Newton while in the
>university?
>
>Have you finished a basic algebra class? Trigonometry? Calculus?
Yes, i had 2 types of math and physics as my chosen classes and i graduated
them. I got the algebra/geometry math passed by doing a hard bonus question
on geometry. This is not relevant, because my arguments work whether i did
or didn't pass anything. The only thing is that if i didn't, i might not
have come into contact with the crackpottery of science.
><snip>
>>>Lets summarize what you think...
>>>
>>>*Newton is correct and proven
>>
>>He is, play soccer.
>
>No snookerball?
>
>How does soccer prove newton? Have you played soccer in every
>condition possible and at every length and composition of feild as
>possible?
>
>Unless you test every possibility you cannot prove a theory.
Ofcourse you can. The issue is not that it is "always and everywhere from
infinity to infinity" right. The issue is that there is a discovery here
which matches all our past experience.
It is like i am talking to completely naive people who were taught Newton
before they could walk, and then thought "but i don't believe this shit"
because they had no experience, and then they set out to infect science
and to proof Newton wrong because they were insulted.
>>>*You think there is friction in vacuum
>>
>>Ofcourse.
>
>Lets try this. Friction against what? Im going to go out on a limb and
>assume "static" friction like you are dragging something.
>What is there in space that creates friction?
Do you believe that a vacuum is truly empty ?
No subatomic particles.
No magnetic fields.
No electrical fields.
No gravity fields.
No atoms.
No molecules
Do you think the pump in the accelerator goes out towards all these particles
and grabs then saying "what are you doing here, come with me i'll escort you
out" ?
>>>*Muons dont "know" they are going fast until they hit atmosphere.
>>
>>Twisting. I say they notice their speed because they move at speed
>>through the atmosphere.
>
>Okay, what about "friction" in space? Is it different from "friction"
>in atmosphere?
Possibly the same thing.
>>>*Clocks react to different enviroments
>>
>>You are disputing this ?
>
>Not unless you say what you mean by "envrioment".
For instance the gravity field.
>Locally 2 identical clocks will work the same no matter what speed.
>Relative to someone else, is another matter.
Why. Doppler? adequately explained by our beautiful classical mechanics.
>>>*Science falsifys data.
>>
>>Aparently. So does the catholic church possibly when investigating
>>a miracle (then again, maybe they don't, they know their bisnis, they
>>know not to go too far, unlike you, you go much too far and now you are
>>sitting ducks).
>
>The Cathloc church is irrelevent to this discussion.
NOT AT ALL!
Why? You are it's next incarnation!
>Can you name an experiment done in the last 150 years that you agree
>with?
I agree with every experiment.
I just don't agree with the interpretation.
>Do any of those experiments disagree with your worldview?
No.
><snip>
>>>>>>The evidence *has* nothing to do with SR.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then what theory does all the evidence we post support if not SR?
>>>>
>>>>Newton: he can mathmodel everything.
>>>
>>>No he cant, he is dead.
>>
>>And now you killed his spirit. Was it for proffits ?
>
>Philosophy and economics are irrelevent to this discussion.
Possibly they are the heart of it. Not to forget attention and fame, the
things the naive soul thrives on.
>>>Particle acellerators, GPS, and such are centuries ahead of him.
>>
>>But didn't exist when relativity got adopted on faith alone.
>>Still, relativity is adopted on faith and brainwashing and authority
>>invokations alone: the evidence misses the point.
>
>Your assumption of "faith alone" is getting irritating, especially
>since you cant or wont back up your assertions.
Irritating because it is true.
I can back it up, i do it all the time.
>Are you suprised that machinery that requires the theory of relativity
>to run came AFTER the apperance of the theory?
No machinery requires relativity.
Oh wait, one machine does: university delusions require certain machines
to "require SR". This is a great tool in brainwashing. Ofcourse it's a lie
but why tell that the students, after all, it's so much fun to delude
everybody isn't it, while you're "the only smart one" who knows it.
Machines work because they are put together, and tried to make them work.
GPS satalites work because you send up a clock, measure what it does,
compensate and build your network around it. Easy and reliable way of
working, the only way that will ever work with unknown phenomena.
>>The point is: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
>>The second postulate, the only fact relativity adds to science, and it's
>>a fact that this cannot be true, it is false through absurdity.
>>
>>How?
>>Just read the damn postulate and imagine what it means.
>
>Im going to go with fermilab as a source today.
>http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/more/light/light_page11.html
>
> "* Postulate #2: ANY two inertial systems of reference
>(systems moving with respect to each other with a constant speed (not
>excluding a speed of zero) are equivalent. In other words, all the
>physical laws must have the same form in every inertial system. "
That is postulate-1.
>I imagine what it says, interial observers have the same physical
>laws. Whats wrong with that?
It is postulate-1. They got it wrong.
;)
I think they know they must hide postulate-2 because of it's erroneousness?
Maybe they cut it out of their website so as not to be too obvious for
laymen to find the flaws of modern physics, the broken nail from which
the whole modern physics hangs (hangs-not).
><snip>
>>You don't get how a good scam works (well you do, but you pretend not to).
>>In order to suck money while not being noticed, you throw it at some
>>good cause that doesn't really exist, and then you take it. Take for
>>instance the two teams investigating space-curvature. Ofcourse there is
>>no spacecurvature, but the projects must be payed for by the taxpayer.
>>A simple satalite project from my home town costed 150 million euro.
>>Do you see the amounts we are playing with?
>
>You are also ignorant of the economics of putting something in orbit.
>
>Why dont you tell us about that sattelite, since most of us probably
>do not know your home town or anything about that sattelite.
>
>Your ignorance is....sad, to say the least.
The satalite is irrelevant, and the project is probably clean. It is
something to measure (let me get the paper...) "HIFI", Heterodyne
Instrument for Far Infrared. To measure which substances are present
in clouds of gas and dust. It will be launched in 2007 to 1.5 million
miles away from Earth with an Ariana and will run for approx. 3 years
(then the cooling liquid will have evaporated).
The point is not this project which probably is all ok (i see no theoretical
reason why it should be a scam), the point is the amount of money involved
in these kinds of projects: 150 million Euro's. This kind of money is an
attraction to certain individuals. It should be a bigger suprise to find
a corruption scheme amongst kindergarten teachers then amongst university
personell. Measuring dustclouds in no problem, but measuring "the curvature
of space" or "try to locate wormholes", if satalites are launched for these
reasons, then i would be suspicious.
>>What if a certain satalite was designed to test curvature of space,
>>which doesn't exist, or wormholes. What can you do? Send up a toaster
>>with a few car-starting cables and a handfull of nails, make sure it
>>is a "really sensitive device" so it must be kept under wraps at all
>>times untill "the experts" install the thing. Then you fake some data
>>you know nobody will argue with because SR/GR are all a big lie and
>>everybody who knows it is in on it (except me and Spaceman and a few
>>others here). The magazines will rave with the great results, so the
>>money-donators (politicians) and university personell will not argue
>>with it, and all laymen will think this is "cutting edge research".
>
>You say this as if its a fact. Got any photos? Any evidence of any
>kind?
Yes: university books teaching SR, university personell pretending that
SR works and is valid.
>Why is it that only a few university dropouts and a retarded tire
>salesman know the "seeekrit" of relativity?
All students are have a minion attitude.
>Anyway, your "supporters" are also idiots. Spacetard things -4 * -4 =
>-16.
He doesn't actually say that, he says it could be that way.
>Have you of any of your supporters...
>
>Graduated from High School?
yes
>Taken and passed any Algebra-level classes?
yes (3/7th of my graduation was physics/mathematics)
>Taken and passed any Trigonometry classes?
part of mathematics
>Taken nad passed any Calculs-level classes?
Calculus has errors in it's leading chapters (axioms), first fix those
then i migth bother.
>None of you can even recite parts of SR right, even with google at
>your disposal. Why should we believe any of you when you cant even get
>your story straight yourselves?
It is you who gets it wrong.
--
jos
Spaceman
>Do you think the pump in the accelerator goes out towards all these particles
>and grabs then saying "what are you doing here, come with me i'll escort you
>out" ?
Hey you!
you billions and billions of free electrons.
Get out of that vacuum chamber!
I'm reporting you all!
<LOL>
Eric Gisse
<snip>
>><snip>
>>>>Lets summarize what you think...
>>>>
>>>>*Newton is correct and proven
>>>
>>>He is, play soccer.
>>
>>No snookerball?
>>
>>How does soccer prove newton? Have you played soccer in every
>>condition possible and at every length and composition of feild as
>>possible?
>>
>>Unless you test every possibility you cannot prove a theory.
>
>Ofcourse you can. The issue is not that it is "always and everywhere from
>infinity to infinity" right. The issue is that there is a discovery here
>which matches all our past experience.
>
>It is like i am talking to completely naive people who were taught Newton
>before they could walk, and then thought "but i don't believe this shit"
>because they had no experience, and then they set out to infect science
>and to proof Newton wrong because they were insulted.
So you are on a quest...? Fun!
I guess you have gone too far to listen to reasonable argument.
>
>>>>*You think there is friction in vacuum
>>>
>>>Ofcourse.
>>
>>Lets try this. Friction against what? Im going to go out on a limb and
>>assume "static" friction like you are dragging something.
>>What is there in space that creates friction?
>
>Do you believe that a vacuum is truly empty ?
Classical vacuum has been proven false, so no.
>No subatomic particles.
>No magnetic fields.
>No electrical fields.
>No gravity fields.
>No atoms.
>No molecules
>
>Do you think the pump in the accelerator goes out towards all these particles
>and grabs then saying "what are you doing here, come with me i'll escort you
>out" ?
The question is "is that what you think it does?"
Pump technology is not something ive looked over.
>>>>*Muons dont "know" they are going fast until they hit atmosphere.
>>>
>>>Twisting. I say they notice their speed because they move at speed
>>>through the atmosphere.
>>
>>Okay, what about "friction" in space? Is it different from "friction"
>>in atmosphere?
>
>Possibly the same thing.
If this were my Physics class in high school, i would not hesitate to
call you "fucking STUPID" in front of the whole class, becuase thats
what you are.
>>>>*Clocks react to different enviroments
>>>
>>>You are disputing this ?
>>
>>Not unless you say what you mean by "envrioment".
>
>For instance the gravity field.
Correct. Mustve been a fluke, lets see if your right 2 times in a row.
>>Locally 2 identical clocks will work the same no matter what speed.
>>Relative to someone else, is another matter.
>
>Why. Doppler? adequately explained by our beautiful classical mechanics.
Oh?
Can you cite an experiment that supports your assertion?
<snip>
>>Can you name an experiment done in the last 150 years that you agree
>>with?
>
>I agree with every experiment.
>I just don't agree with the interpretation.
Fair enough.
Guess the scientists do the experiments "right" but since they are
"biased" they interpet the results to their favor.
Can you kindly reinterpet these experiments?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
>>Do any of those experiments disagree with your worldview?
>
>No.
That says it all, really. Not one experiment done in a century and a
half that jos agrees with goes against his worldview. Facinating.
<snip>
>>Philosophy and economics are irrelevent to this discussion.
>
>Possibly they are the heart of it. Not to forget attention and fame, the
>things the naive soul thrives on.
How much are scientists paid again?
<snip>
>>Are you suprised that machinery that requires the theory of relativity
>>to run came AFTER the apperance of the theory?
>
>No machinery requires relativity.
Assertion lamblasted by reality. Bzzt.
>Oh wait, one machine does: university delusions require certain machines
>to "require SR". This is a great tool in brainwashing. Ofcourse it's a lie
>but why tell that the students, after all, it's so much fun to delude
>everybody isn't it, while you're "the only smart one" who knows it.
I will not address conspiracy theorys anymore....
>Machines work because they are put together, and tried to make them work.
>GPS satalites work because you send up a clock, measure what it does,
>compensate and build your network around it. Easy and reliable way of
>working, the only way that will ever work with unknown phenomena.
Are you for real?
Your saying they callibrate it after they launch by sending a CLOCK up
there?
Sigh.
>>>The point is: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
>>>The second postulate, the only fact relativity adds to science, and it's
>>>a fact that this cannot be true, it is false through absurdity.
>>>
>>>How?
>>>Just read the damn postulate and imagine what it means.
>>
>>Im going to go with fermilab as a source today.
>>http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/more/light/light_page11.html
>>
>> "* Postulate #2: ANY two inertial systems of reference
>>(systems moving with respect to each other with a constant speed (not
>>excluding a speed of zero) are equivalent. In other words, all the
>>physical laws must have the same form in every inertial system. "
>
>That is postulate-1.
>
>>I imagine what it says, interial observers have the same physical
>>laws. Whats wrong with that?
>
>It is postulate-1. They got it wrong.
>;)
Theres only two. Lets try the other one.
* Postulate #1: The speed of light in a vacuum is the highest
possible speed by which information can be exchanged between two
events.
>I think they know they must hide postulate-2 because of it's erroneousness?
>Maybe they cut it out of their website so as not to be too obvious for
>laymen to find the flaws of modern physics, the broken nail from which
>the whole modern physics hangs (hangs-not).
Conspiracy theory ignored. You didnt even look at my source.
>
>><snip>
>>>You don't get how a good scam works (well you do, but you pretend not to).
>>>In order to suck money while not being noticed, you throw it at some
>>>good cause that doesn't really exist, and then you take it. Take for
>>>instance the two teams investigating space-curvature. Ofcourse there is
>>>no spacecurvature, but the projects must be payed for by the taxpayer.
>>>A simple satalite project from my home town costed 150 million euro.
>>>Do you see the amounts we are playing with?
>>
>>You are also ignorant of the economics of putting something in orbit.
>>
>>Why dont you tell us about that sattelite, since most of us probably
>>do not know your home town or anything about that sattelite.
>>
>>Your ignorance is....sad, to say the least.
>
So the satellite had nothing to do with your rantings.
<snip>
>
>>>What if a certain satalite was designed to test curvature of space,
>>>which doesn't exist, or wormholes. What can you do? Send up a toaster
>>>with a few car-starting cables and a handfull of nails, make sure it
>>>is a "really sensitive device" so it must be kept under wraps at all
>>>times untill "the experts" install the thing. Then you fake some data
>>>you know nobody will argue with because SR/GR are all a big lie and
>>>everybody who knows it is in on it (except me and Spaceman and a few
>>>others here). The magazines will rave with the great results, so the
>>>money-donators (politicians) and university personell will not argue
>>>with it, and all laymen will think this is "cutting edge research".
>>
>>You say this as if its a fact. Got any photos? Any evidence of any
>>kind?
>
>Yes: university books teaching SR, university personell pretending that
>SR works and is valid.
No, i asked for evidence of garbage being put into satellites.
Try again.
>>Why is it that only a few university dropouts and a retarded tire
>>salesman know the "seeekrit" of relativity?
>
>All students are have a minion attitude.
>
>>Anyway, your "supporters" are also idiots. Spacetard things -4 * -4 =
>>-16.
>
>He doesn't actually say that, he says it could be that way.
You really do live on river De Nile, dont you?
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=20020901173912...@mb-ba.aol.com
Thank you Dirk v.!
>>Have you of any of your supporters...
>>
>>Graduated from High School?
>
>yes
Thats a start.
>
>>Taken and passed any Algebra-level classes?
>
>yes (3/7th of my graduation was physics/mathematics)
What were those classes, exactly? Did any of them go into detail about
physics, beyond "F=ma" ?
>>Taken and passed any Trigonometry classes?
>
>part of mathematics
>
>>Taken nad passed any Calculs-level classes?
>
>Calculus has errors in it's leading chapters (axioms), first fix those
>then i migth bother.
Excuse me? You saw an axiom and decided calculs wasnt worth your time?
I see why you didnt get too far, now.
Unlike SR/GR, i have a book onhand for this. Math through distance
is....different. Poking through the first chapter which is a review
of basic algebra, there are several assumptions made when dealing with
numbers.
What is your problem with axioms in math?
>
>>None of you can even recite parts of SR right, even with google at
>>your disposal. Why should we believe any of you when you cant even get
>>your story straight yourselves?
>
>It is you who gets it wrong.
Doubtful. I dont need conspiracy theorys to explain things.
josX
>On 8 Sep 2002 09:10:52 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
><snip>
>>><snip>
>>>>>Lets summarize what you think...
>>>>>
>>>>>*Newton is correct and proven
>>>>
>>>>He is, play soccer.
>>>
>>>No snookerball?
>>>
>>>How does soccer prove newton? Have you played soccer in every
>>>condition possible and at every length and composition of feild as
>>>possible?
>>>
>>>Unless you test every possibility you cannot prove a theory.
>>
>>Ofcourse you can. The issue is not that it is "always and everywhere from
>>infinity to infinity" right. The issue is that there is a discovery here
>>which matches all our past experience.
>>
>>It is like i am talking to completely naive people who were taught Newton
>>before they could walk, and then thought "but i don't believe this shit"
>>because they had no experience, and then they set out to infect science
>>and to proof Newton wrong because they were insulted.
>
>So you are on a quest...? Fun!
No, i am doing whatever i do.
>I guess you have gone too far to listen to reasonable argument.
Not at all, present it and i will /examine/.
>>>>>*You think there is friction in vacuum
>>>>
>>>>Ofcourse.
>>>
>>>Lets try this. Friction against what? Im going to go out on a limb and
>>>assume "static" friction like you are dragging something.
>>>What is there in space that creates friction?
>>
>>Do you believe that a vacuum is truly empty ?
>
>Classical vacuum has been proven false, so no.
So, then a vacuum must be like low density air right ?
Something for the light to travel relative to. BTW, not merely talking
about molecules here, also about subatomic particles and fields.
So you admit there is no free-space. You know you are breaking phycisists
laws ?
We better call "phycics laws", "phycisists laws" :). That is more close
to what they are these days. Rules that govern the brainwashing routine,
and the content for the brainwashing.
>>No subatomic particles.
>>No magnetic fields.
>>No electrical fields.
>>No gravity fields.
>>No atoms.
>>No molecules
>>
>>Do you think the pump in the accelerator goes out towards all these particles
>>and grabs then saying "what are you doing here, come with me i'll escort you
>>out" ?
>
>The question is "is that what you think it does?"
>Pump technology is not something ive looked over.
Ofcourse it doesn't.
How do particle accelerators proof lightspeed constancy ?
They don't but it's a handy diversion to deploy on the NG to confuse and
conquer ?
>>>>>*Muons dont "know" they are going fast until they hit atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>>Twisting. I say they notice their speed because they move at speed
>>>>through the atmosphere.
>>>
>>>Okay, what about "friction" in space? Is it different from "friction"
>>>in atmosphere?
>>
>>Possibly the same thing.
>
>If this were my Physics class in high school, i would not hesitate to
>call you "fucking STUPID" in front of the whole class, becuase thats
>what you are.
I would smile knowing... no i wouldn't smile. There is no honor in
beating mere teachers.
>>>>>*Clocks react to different enviroments
>>>>
>>>>You are disputing this ?
>>>
>>>Not unless you say what you mean by "envrioment".
>>
>>For instance the gravity field.
>
>Correct. Mustve been a fluke, lets see if your right 2 times in a row.
Gravity is what makes clocks get off their callibration, it has nothing
to do with GR. The only thing that makes GR relevant in this is the reason
it provides for phycisists to rig their experiments, and that the acceptance
of GR proves phycisists are untrusted faithfull (or corrupt migth less
well trusting people think).
>>>Locally 2 identical clocks will work the same no matter what speed.
>>>Relative to someone else, is another matter.
>>
>>Why. Doppler? adequately explained by our beautiful classical mechanics.
>
>Oh?
>Can you cite an experiment that supports your assertion?
Go to your local hospital, wait until you hear a sirene going past.
><snip>
>>>Can you name an experiment done in the last 150 years that you agree
>>>with?
>>
>>I agree with every experiment.
>>I just don't agree with the interpretation.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>Guess the scientists do the experiments "right" but since they are
>"biased" they interpet the results to their favor.
This is the case yes.
>Can you kindly reinterpet these experiments?
>
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Why don't you post it.
And, "the person pointign out the flaw must know all the secrets of
the universe otherwise we won't be botherable"?
>>>Do any of those experiments disagree with your worldview?
>>
>>No.
>
>That says it all, really. Not one experiment done in a century and a
>half that jos agrees with goes against his worldview. Facinating.
Correct. By my very worldview this cannot happen.
><snip>
>>>Philosophy and economics are irrelevent to this discussion.
>>
>>Possibly they are the heart of it. Not to forget attention and fame, the
>>things the naive soul thrives on.
>
>How much are scientists paid again?
How much do research projects cost again?
Didn't i show one for 150 million euro just in my home town here ?
How many more can you ask the politicians for your pseudoresearch at
particle accelerators that they wouldn't have a chance of finding out ?
><snip>
>>>Are you suprised that machinery that requires the theory of relativity
>>>to run came AFTER the apperance of the theory?
>>
>>No machinery requires relativity.
>
>Assertion lamblasted by reality. Bzzt.
All machinery is made working by experimenting with the devices and the
principles. You phycisists are merely piggy-backing SR/GR on space
influences on the clocks (lower gavity for instance) and drag in
accelerators (and call that relativistic addition of velocities). And
you found a single particle muon which behaviour you could exploit. That
is the length of your evidence for the worst **** this century!
And it wasn't even available when the garbage we discuss was accepted as
the official reading of facts.
>>Oh wait, one machine does: university delusions require certain machines
>>to "require SR". This is a great tool in brainwashing. Ofcourse it's a lie
>>but why tell that the students, after all, it's so much fun to delude
>>everybody isn't it, while you're "the only smart one" who knows it.
>
>I will not address conspiracy theorys anymore....
Does that mean you believe miracles do happen and that God exists like
the catholic priests have found out ?
>>Machines work because they are put together, and tried to make them work.
>>GPS satalites work because you send up a clock, measure what it does,
>>compensate and build your network around it. Easy and reliable way of
>>working, the only way that will ever work with unknown phenomena.
>
>Are you for real?
>
>Your saying they callibrate it after they launch by sending a CLOCK up
>there?
>
>Sigh.
Retard. They send up a clock to see what it does, then make things work.
WHATEVER Pukehead. I didn't work on those satalites so i don't know how
they fixed it. But i know SR is a complete and utter lie from beginning
to end like no other, so i know they didn't use it.
>>>>The point is: 1way-1beam-multiobserver-lightspeed-constancy-in-a-vacuum.
>>>>The second postulate, the only fact relativity adds to science, and it's
>>>>a fact that this cannot be true, it is false through absurdity.
>>>>
>>>>How?
>>>>Just read the damn postulate and imagine what it means.
>>>
>>>Im going to go with fermilab as a source today.
>>>http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/more/light/light_page11.html
>>>
>>> "* Postulate #2: ANY two inertial systems of reference
>>>(systems moving with respect to each other with a constant speed (not
>>>excluding a speed of zero) are equivalent. In other words, all the
>>>physical laws must have the same form in every inertial system. "
>>
>>That is postulate-1.
>>
>>>I imagine what it says, interial observers have the same physical
>>>laws. Whats wrong with that?
>>
>>It is postulate-1. They got it wrong.
>>;)
>
>Theres only two. Lets try the other one.
>
> * Postulate #1: The speed of light in a vacuum is the highest
>possible speed by which information can be exchanged between two
>events.
That's number 2. Anyway, do you realize this cannot happen ?
Oops! i just read what you wrote there (i thought it was the correct
postulate, silly me, after i saw "the speed of light").
No dude, that is not postulate-2, keep on searching ;).
You don't even know what you are defending stupid.
>>I think they know they must hide postulate-2 because of it's erroneousness?
>>Maybe they cut it out of their website so as not to be too obvious for
>>laymen to find the flaws of modern physics, the broken nail from which
>>the whole modern physics hangs (hangs-not).
>
>Conspiracy theory ignored. You didnt even look at my source.
Why should i having the Master at my desk (Einstein).
Just an example. So many people lying in physics, you think this doesn't
extend it's way into the economics ? If so you must be pretty naive.
>>>Why is it that only a few university dropouts and a retarded tire
>>>salesman know the "seeekrit" of relativity?
>>
>>All students are have a minion attitude.
>>
>>>Anyway, your "supporters" are also idiots. Spacetard things -4 * -4 =
>>>-16.
>>
>>He doesn't actually say that, he says it could be that way.
>
>You really do live on river De Nile, dont you?
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=20020901173912...@mb-ba.aol.com
>
>Thank you Dirk v.!
>
>>>Have you of any of your supporters...
>>>
>>>Graduated from High School?
>>
>>yes
>
>Thats a start.
Have you passed kindergarten ?
Franz didn't, so he will need to do catching up as is selfevident.
>>>Taken and passed any Algebra-level classes?
>>
>>yes (3/7th of my graduation was physics/mathematics)
>
>What were those classes, exactly? Did any of them go into detail about
>physics, beyond "F=ma" ?
You don't understand the Dutch system of 1992/3 probably, but they were
mathematics-A, B and physics.
Enough about me, no more period.
>>>Taken and passed any Trigonometry classes?
>>
>>part of mathematics
>>
>>>Taken nad passed any Calculs-level classes?
>>
>>Calculus has errors in it's leading chapters (axioms), first fix those
>>then i migth bother.
>
>Excuse me? You saw an axiom and decided calculs wasnt worth your time?
Somewhat correct yes.
>I see why you didnt get too far, now.
I don't want to learn from logical retards.
>Unlike SR/GR, i have a book onhand for this. Math through distance
>is....different. Poking through the first chapter which is a review
>of basic algebra, there are several assumptions made when dealing with
>numbers.
>
>What is your problem with axioms in math?
Axioms are not the reason for math to be what it is.
Did you know that a+b=b+a is an axiom?
It is not true because of axiom but because of experiment.
Same for geometry, same for the rest of the silly axioms, same for
physics.
You don't need no axioms (unless you are in a semi-religious scam).
>>>None of you can even recite parts of SR right, even with google at
>>>your disposal. Why should we believe any of you when you cant even get
>>>your story straight yourselves?
>>
>>It is you who gets it wrong.
>
>Doubtful. I dont need conspiracy theorys to explain things.
I can default to stupidity: all phycisists are minions and retards, only
a select few have the average brainpower to realize the truth.
There, it is closer to the truth no doubt.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:algeou$bdd$4...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> Axioms are not the reason for math to be what it is.
> Did you know that a+b=b+a is an axiom?
> It is not true because of axiom but because of experiment.
You have dog shit between your ears.
Whether a+b = b+a depends on the set that contains
a and b and on the definition of "+".
Perhaps you could have a try in sci.math.
Or perhaps better, in sci.math.research.
Perhaps you can be balanced and interesting enough.
Perhaps you can include a diagram in your post.
Perhaps you can tell them about your formula for air
resistance: F = m*a.
Perhaps you can explain the Lorentz transformation in English.
Perhaps you can explain about the dimension of gamma.
Perhaps you can tell them that every mathematician is mentally ill,
or a lying son of a bitch.
Perhaps you can tell them that you are planning to repeat your
view until it becomes right by the sheer force of repetition.
Perhaps you can tell them that your view is totally backed by
James Driscoll The Lesser.
Perhaps you can draw their attention to the number of references
you have on
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Or perhaps not.
Dirk Vdm
Edward Green
> For those who are not aware, every so often i try to convince josx of
> something. Today its "newton is wrong". Perhaps ill have more luck
> this time. ...
In other words, you aren't really addressing josx at all, but are
playing to the rafters. I mean the heavens. Or something.
Ok. That must be the appeal of Usenet ... I'm not really talking to
you either. :-)
Usenet is like the Algonquin round table, except fortunately we have
much more time to think of clever rejoinders. ;)
Eric Gisse
>Eric Gisse wrote:
>>On 8 Sep 2002 09:10:52 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
<snip>
See what you have been missing, sci.math.
Number theory is a foreign thing to me, anyways, but most of this post
can speak for itself.
>>>>Taken nad passed any Calculs-level classes?
>>>
>>>Calculus has errors in it's leading chapters (axioms), first fix those
>>>then i migth bother.
>>
>>Excuse me? You saw an axiom and decided calculs wasnt worth your time?
Oops, calculus.
>
>Somewhat correct yes.
>
>>I see why you didnt get too far, now.
>
>I don't want to learn from logical retards.
>
>>Unlike SR/GR, i have a book onhand for this. Math through distance
>>is....different. Poking through the first chapter which is a review
>>of basic algebra, there are several assumptions made when dealing with
>>numbers.
>>
>>What is your problem with axioms in math?
>
>Axioms are not the reason for math to be what it is.
>Did you know that a+b=b+a is an axiom?
>It is not true because of axiom but because of experiment.
>Same for geometry, same for the rest of the silly axioms, same for
>physics.
>
>You don't need no axioms (unless you are in a semi-religious scam).
As i said, i have my calculus book on hand for this. What exactly is
"wrong" with it. What axiom bothers you? If it exists i can find it
and you can explain how you "sucessfully" debunked SR, GTR, QM, and
any theory of math or science that uses postulates or axioms.
josX
They are not needed.
> What axiom bothers you?
All.
> If it exists i can find it
>and you can explain how you "sucessfully" debunked SR, GTR, QM, and
>any theory of math or science that uses postulates or axioms.
I guess.
I can debunk:
SR/GR/QM(uncertainty)/Math-axioms/Geometry-axioms
Herman Trivilino
> See what you have been missing, sci.math.
Thanks. It's no surprise, but it does verify that JosX suffers from the
same syndrome we ocasionally see at the local community college where I
teach. Success at a community college is the last chance. If you can't
make it there you can't make it anywhere ...
> >>>>Taken nad passed any Calculs-level classes?
> >>>
> >>>Calculus has errors in it's leading chapters (axioms), first fix those
> >>>then i migth bother.
Here's the syndrome in a nutshell: The student can't pass the course, the
source of the problem is either internal (a fault of the student) or
external (a fault of something other than the student). JosX chooses the
latter, choosing the subject matter itself, along with everyone who claims
to understand it or teach it, as the external agent responsible for his
failures.
Here's my prediction: At the college he attended he had a reputation for
criticizing, in some detail, every aspect of the professors he could think
of, including appearance. He has similar academic problems with language
skills courses (evident from the way he writes) and blames those problems
on something external to himself as well. He is either on mood-altering
medication now, or will need to be at some point in his life. Otherwise,
his dysfunction will continue to interfere with his ability to have
friends, a family life, and a job.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Randy Poe
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
>
> >It separates momentum from mass.
>
> <ROFLOL>
> that momentum of nothingess stuff huh?
> <LOL>
> seperate momentum from mass!
Yep, as I suspected, "LOL" and "ROFLOL" in Spaceman talk
stand for some words meaning "I haven't the foggiest idea
what you just said."
- Randy
Spaceman
translation,
My name is Randy and I think momentum can be made of nothingess!
DUH!!!
Bob Pease
"Herman Trivilino" <phys...@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote in message
news:3d7c98cc$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> "Eric Gisse" <[REMOVE]ks...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote ...
>
> > See what you have been missing, sci.math.
>
> Thanks. It's no surprise, but it does verify that JosX suffers from the
> same syndrome we ocasionally see at the local community college where I
> teach. Success at a community college is the last chance. If you can't
> make it there you can't make it anywhere ...
>
> > >>>>Taken nad passed any Calculs-level classes?
> > >>>
> > >>>Calculus has errors in it's leading chapters (axioms), first fix
those
> > >>>then i migth bother.
>
> Here's the syndrome in a nutshell: The student can't pass the course, the
> source of the problem is either internal (a fault of the student) or
> external (a fault of something other than the student). JosX chooses the
> latter, choosing the subject matter itself, along with everyone who claims
> to understand it or teach it, as the external agent responsible for his
> failures.
>
> Here's my prediction: At the college he attended he had a reputation for
> criticizing, in some detail, every aspect of the professors he could think
> of, including appearance. He has similar academic problems with language
> skills courses (evident from the way he writes) and blames those problems
> on something external to himself as well. He is either on mood-altering
> medication now, or will need to be at some point in his life. Otherwise,
> his dysfunction will continue to interfere with his ability to have
> friends, a family life, and a job.
The Community Colleges Have to put up with this type of person to some
extent.
The Faculty is usually a mixed bag of political feather-bedders and persons
of integrity with standards.
( same as Uni??)
As one example, I had to put up with guys in Excel classes who really
couldn't deal with the concept of widening a column if you saw stars.
One of them in particular was a wet-brained drunk whose mother had to point
him down the hall.
Amazingly, he had received C's and B's from previous instructors who said,
when I asked them "What th' Hay-hull??" said, well he's a nice guy and
sometimes you gotta give folks a break.
Joe had serious intention of getting a job as a Accountant .
He presented as his "Project" a HAND-Written calculation of his GPA ( in
Excel" class, yet,) and was pissed off when I told him he should drop the
course.
Anyway, when JosX types show up at the Dept Chair to complain about "Calcluz
be a lye" stuff, the get the
"Hmm.. Interesting!! treatment , and then are given the bureaucratic
runaround. In fairness , who has time to take this seriously??
At one instance, I interviewed a prospective student for Biochemistry.
This person had a DEGREE from a State College in "Nutrition"
Her answers to some questions.
Q. What do the initials SPDF mean
A. I don't Know
Q. That's a little tough, I Admit, let me ask something simpler.. Do you
Know how to measure the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat?
A. NO
Q. What's a joule?
A. same as a gem.. Diamonds and Stuff.
Q. No . Mean a Joule of energy.
A. Never heard of it.
Q. What's a Calorie?
A. Something about food
Q. Can you tell me more about this ?
A. Well, it is how much is in different stuff.
Q.What is an ion.
A. Don't know
Q. what is the Formula for Sodium
A. "S"
Q. What is the formula for Alcohol.
A.Don't understand the Question
Question
What grade did you get in General Chemistry
A. "C"
Scary thing is that she probably re-took General Chem and got another "C"
with no increase in knowledge.
Someone has to cut the slack, but it is usually after a student becomes
frustrated and disruptive, usually because of actually believing that
standards are secondary to having good feelings about your politically
correct ecological views.
Good luck JoeX but stay the hell away from people who really care about
quality.
Dr. Sidethink
Dobbs University.
josX
very amuzing all this talk
I made this rhyme for ya'll:
You guys only gall,
instead of going to the mall,
and pick y'up a soccer-ball.
Why don't you come off your university wall
with brains so small
but attitudes so tall
amaze us all
and answer our call
for evidence of lightspeed-constancy and logics fall ?
Isn't that what scientists need do
to show that what they say isn't just some more poo ?!
But they don't have a clue
and instead can only say boo
and they whine
"science is mine",
"we don't want your truth-flower",
"all we crave is calling things 'our'"
"and to have the force that we call Power"
"even if truth must stay under the cold shower"
"for as long as we please"
"our lives must be at ease"
"all we need is some grease"
"and the world will be at peace"
"with us you win no plea"
"because what we care for is monie".
"we rule the universities with our lies"
"and we do not here your cries"
"because you are cranks"
"and that's why we don't say thanks"
"for helping us out of our shit"
"because we want to be the ones that hit"
"and our words always fit"
"they are the pinacle of wit"
"we killed science, now it is of us"
"you must crawl or we will have a fuss"
"now get out of our physics bus"
"you crank/moron/un-educatable nutcase flush"
"evidence is not required"
"we run bisnis and everybody is hired"
"our usenet-teams grow never tired"
"because we got everything wired"
"to our big old mainframe"
"to worship Einstein and his fame"
"you all will be the same"
"and play in our game"
"so we decide who will be lame"
"and dance for us in your reference-frame"
But they are wrong
because we are strong.
And they fail
and we will prevail.
We're already winning
and we see them spinning
empty clothes and hollow threads
so they will sleep on cold bunkbeds.
--
jos
Bob Pease
Very good, Jos
Excellent reprise of Discordian Crappola
you have mad your point extremely clear!
As the Maitre D. in Ferris Bueller rightly disclaimed.
"I weep for today's youth"
Dr. Sidethink
Ex-Hippie and lifelong Beatnik who remembers when your crappola was in a
formative but still rational stage.
Thinh Tran
example, read:
Mathematics - The loss of certainty, Morris Kline, Oxford University
Press 1980.
According to the cover of the book, Dr. Kline was the late Professor
Emeritus of Mathematics, the Courant Institute of Mathematical
Sciences, University of New York.
The problems with the axioms of Calculus is covered in the Chapter
"The Illogical Development: The Morass of Analysis" pp 127-152.
Basically the concept of differentials (e.g., dx) is of great suspect,
and no one has been able to make Calculus rigorous.
I'm not sure how available this book is. I found one copy of it at a
Borders bookstore in St Paul, MN.
Regards, Thinh Tran
www.thinhtran.com
PoorRichard
upon which the calculus was initially developed. But things worked, so
mathematicians swept some issues under the rug, for a while. Things changed
in the 19th century.
You should read: The History of the Calculus & its Conceptual Development by
Boyer [ISBN: 0-486-60509-4]
"Thinh Tran" <thinhv...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:54187164.02090...@posting.google.com...
TB
Wow! Good job, Jos! Very clever use of rhyming. You need to work on your
meter a bit, but that is harder to do -- especially when combined with a
rhyme scheme. I think Spacedork has his work cut out for him if he wants
to maintain his status as sci.physic Poet Laureate!!
-- TB
Andy Spragg
briefly to the front of the queue on Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:05:34 -0500,
and nailed this to the shed door:
^ "Eric Gisse" <[REMOVE]ks...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote ...
^
^ > See what you have been missing, sci.math.
^
^ Thanks. It's no surprise, but it does verify that JosX suffers from the
^ same syndrome we ocasionally see at the local community college where I
^ teach. Success at a community college is the last chance. If you can't
^ make it there you can't make it anywhere ...
It's-up-to-you, JosX, JosXXXXXXX ....
Andy
--
sparge at globalnet point co point uk
"Personally, I would rather share the road
with a good driver with 80mg/l
than some of the clowns I see every day cold sober"
Martin Dixon, uk.rec.sheddizen
Porky Pig Jr
> I have the book. The chapter you point out discusses the shaky foundations
> upon which the calculus was initially developed. But things worked, so
> mathematicians swept some issues under the rug, for a while. Things changed
> in the 19th century.
>
> You should read: The History of the Calculus & its Conceptual Development by
> Boyer [ISBN: 0-486-60509-4]
>
>
I remember reading the book on calculus by Richard Currant, many years
ago. Still remember the paragraph on 'shaky foundations of calculus'
and that as a matter of fact it was a tremendous luck for the whole
history of mathematical development that - as you've said '
mathematicians swept some issues under the rug', for a while of
course.
I also remember reading something like 'why the ancient Greeks haven't
developed the calculus?' the answer is that their way of thinking was
mostly axiomatic and systematic type, very logical, very methodical,
very precise. Calculus on the other hand was developed primarily as a
result from 'pressure from the real world', like the necessity to
calculate the volumes'.
Patrick Reany
Porky Pig Jr wrote:
As I recall, Osgoode complained that the
differential was a ghost of a disappearing
quantity, or some such. I think the main
problem the ancients would have had with
calculus is their reluctance to admit even
a formal actual infinity. They preferred to
venture only to potential infinity.
You might also like the book Mathematics,
the Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline.
Patrick
josX
Thanks, yea i think it came out nicely.
--
jos
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 10:52 AM, thinhv...@cs.com (Thinh Tran) said:
>The problems with the axioms of Calculus is covered in the Chapter
>"The Illogical Development: The Morass of Analysis" pp 127-152.
>Basically the concept of differentials (e.g., dx) is of great
>suspect, and no one has been able to make Calculus rigorous.
No. He's talking about Newton's original concept of fluxions, and
Calculus has long since been made rigorous, subject to the usual
undecidability issues.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
PoorRichard
prevented them from 'putting it all together'. By the way, the book is a
dover re-print so it is cheap.
"Porky Pig Jr" <porky_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:56cfb0e3.0209...@posting.google.com...
Bob Pease
u dudz is dumm
'so howcum
you dont be cool
and go to skool
to learn the facts
and play yer axe
at yo home
on a comb
made by Bausch and Lomb
in some dome.
I know this don't have no meter
Neider
does yer Peter.
I cud do better to make my piont
If I just had a stronger joint
this shit bee;s weak but it DO peak
During Math Class
on yer ass fast
they dont do no thinkin' in there
becuase they puffin the wrong air!
So there!
be square
see if I care!!
bite me ,huh..
DUH DUH DU DUH
Thih shti be stronger than i thunk
butits better than bein; drooonk!
Mcjoop ab is tood
whatever, DOOD!!
Respectfully submitted
RJ sidethink
Professor of Poetyr
Dobbs University