Re: Still based on Postulates, Not Facts

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 4, 5:41 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/05/2013 7:05 AM, Wade Jenkins wrote:

> > What other proofs do I need, since even they admit that Relativity is
> > based on Postulates, not based on Facts.
>
> > This is to say, that those TWO Postulates are just that, POSTULATES, not
> > Facts. A theory needs to be based on FACTS, not Postulates, in order to be
> > right!
>
> You misunderstand the situation. A theory will model an infinity of
> possible scenarios, but there can only be a finite number of facts,
> since each fact has to be established by an experiment. So there can
> never be a single theory that fits all the known facts - one can always
> conceive of multiple theories, all of which fit the known facts, but
> which make differing predictions about scenarios that haven't be tested.

Unfortunately for self-styled physicists, all experiments so far have
not distinguished the predictions of SR and its antitheses where the
antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist. So, according to PD’s
(aka Sylvia Else) account above, SR has not been verified. That is
the only possible conclusion if one abides by the scientific
methodology. <shrug?

> So one can never definitively specify a theory based on a finite set of
> facts. Instead, one has to seek a theory that seems most likely to
> resist falsification by future experiments.

And a hypothesis that is falsified by the twins’ paradox and more is
not such a candidate. <shrug>

> To do this with relativity, Einstein idenitified two postulates that
> were consistent with the experiments done to date, and then used them to
> find a theory that would be likely to resist falsification. So far, it
> has done so perfectly.

Koobee Wublee has no problems with these assumptions, but Koobee
Wublee needs to see experiments that justify these speculations.
Calling the wild-ass guesses as postulates does not help. These
postulates are still wild-ass guesses. Please show a single
experimental result that support SR and falsify its antitheses.
<shrug>

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/6/13 12:01 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Unfortunately for self-styled physicists, all experiments so far have
> not distinguished the predictions of SR and its antitheses where the
> antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist.

Use Occam's razor.

[Poutnik]

Koobee Wublee posted Sun, 5 May 2013 22:01:40 -0700 (PDT)

>
> Unfortunately for self-styled physicists, all experiments so far have
> not distinguished the predictions of SR and its antitheses where the
> antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist.

None of hypotheses of stationary, partially nor fully dragged aether
fit all the experiments.



--
Poutnik

[Koobee Wublee]

> > antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist. So, according to PD’s
> > (aka Sylvia Else) account above, SR has not been verified. That is
> > the only possible conclusion if one abides by the scientific
> > methodology. <shrug>
>

> > And a hypothesis that is falsified by the twins’ paradox and more
> > is not such a candidate. <shrug>
>

> > Koobee Wublee has no problems with these assumptions, but Koobee
> > Wublee needs to see experiments that justify these speculations.
> > Calling the wild-ass guesses as postulates does not help. These
> > postulates are still wild-ass guesses. Please show a single
> > experimental result that support SR and falsify its antitheses.
> > <shrug>
>

> Use Occam's razor.

Well, SR’s antitheses do not require the assumptions of the validity
to the principle of relativity. Thus, SR’s antitheses have fewer
speculations. However, Occam’s razor is not according to scientific
methods. You need experimentations for verifications. Sam is as
usually clueless. The best word to describe Sam is that Sam is indeed
a moron. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 5, 10:30 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> On 5/6/13 12:01 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Unfortunately for self-styled physicists, all experiments so far have
> > not distinguished the predictions of SR and its antitheses where the

> > antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist. So, according to PD’s
> > (aka Sylvia Else) account above, SR has not been verified. That is
> > the only possible conclusion if one abides by the scientific
> > methodology. <shrug>
>

> > And a hypothesis that is falsified by the twins’ paradox and more
> > is not such a candidate. <shrug>
>

> > Koobee Wublee has no problems with these assumptions, but Koobee
> > Wublee needs to see experiments that justify these speculations.
> > Calling the wild-ass guesses as postulates does not help. These
> > postulates are still wild-ass guesses. Please show a single
> > experimental result that support SR and falsify its antitheses.
> > <shrug>
>

> None of hypotheses of stationary, partially nor fully dragged aether
> fit all the experiments.

Also unfortunately for you, your nagging does not apply. <shrug>

[Poutnik]

Koobee Wublee posted Sun, 5 May 2013 22:37:41 -0700 (PDT)

> >
> > None of hypotheses of stationary, partially nor fully dragged aether
> > fit all the experiments.
>
> Also unfortunately for you, your nagging does not apply. <shrug>

Also unfortunately for you, you have no support for that.


--
Poutnik

[Koobee Wublee]

Silly for Poutnik. No one including Koobee Wublee has to support
Poutnik’s speculations. Poutnik is on its own to indulge in its own
bullshit. <shrug>

[Poutnik]

Koobee Wublee posted Sun, 5 May 2013 23:28:15 -0700 (PDT)

>
> On May 5, 11:03 pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee posted Sun, 5 May 2013 22:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > > > None of hypotheses of stationary, partially nor fully dragged aether
> > > > fit all the experiments.
> >
> > > Also unfortunately for you, your nagging does not apply. <shrug>
> >
> > Also unfortunately for you, you have no support for that.
>
> Silly for Poutnik. No one including Koobee Wublee has to support

> Poutnik?s speculations.

Silly for Koobee Wublee.
Koobee Wublee has to support his own ether speculations
as not yet refuted antithesis.


--
Poutnik

[hanson]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Unfortunately for self-styled physicists, all experiments so far have
not distinguished the predictions of SR and its antitheses where the
antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist.
>

"Sam Wormley" wrote:
Use Occam's razor.
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, Occam's razor shows that already 60+ years ago
__ Einstein himself became a RELATIVITY DENIER __
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
Sam, why are you still proselytizing for it, after Einstein
declared SR/GR 2b useless crap, and Koobee Wublee
has shown you the mathematical details where Einstein
fucked up, and finally gave up.
>
Move into the present, Sam. Stop egging on folks like
the physics crank does in his "Minute physics" that you
often post about. -- He is an Einstein Dingleberry who
likes to worship Albert's sphincter, just like the Islamists
believe in "Allah Akbar" or the Evangelicals believe in
the return of their Jesus... none of which have any basis
in reality... Thanks for the laughs though, Sam.
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

[Henry Wilson]

I'll support him.

> --
> Poutnik

[Henry Wilson]

At least aether theory would work if there was an aether. Einstein's
crap relies on an aether but denies its existence.

> --
> Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Henry Wilson posted Mon, 6 May 2013 04:01:06 -0700 (PDT)

>
> On May 6, 4:03�pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee posted Sun, 5 May 2013 22:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >
> > > > None of hypotheses of stationary, partially nor fully dragged aether
> > > > fit all the experiments.
> >

> > > Also unfortunately for you, your nagging does not apply. ďż˝<shrug>

> >
> > Also unfortunately for you, you have no support for that.
>
> I'll support him.

Well, your person can serve as evidence for other things,
but not here.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Henry Wilson posted Mon, 6 May 2013 04:04:00 -0700 (PDT)

> On May 6, 4:38�pm, Poutnik <pout...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> > Silly for Koobee Wublee.
> > Koobee Wublee has to support his own ether speculations
> > as not yet refuted antithesis.
>
> At least aether theory would work if there was an aether. Einstein's
> crap relies on an aether but denies its existence.
>

misinterpretation.


--
Poutnik

[Sylvia Else]

On 6/05/2013 3:01 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On May 4, 5:41 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 5/05/2013 7:05 AM, Wade Jenkins wrote:
>
>>> What other proofs do I need, since even they admit that Relativity is
>>> based on Postulates, not based on Facts.
>>
>>> This is to say, that those TWO Postulates are just that, POSTULATES, not
>>> Facts. A theory needs to be based on FACTS, not Postulates, in order to be
>>> right!
>>
>> You misunderstand the situation. A theory will model an infinity of
>> possible scenarios, but there can only be a finite number of facts,
>> since each fact has to be established by an experiment. So there can
>> never be a single theory that fits all the known facts - one can always
>> conceive of multiple theories, all of which fit the known facts, but
>> which make differing predictions about scenarios that haven't be tested.
>
> Unfortunately for self-styled physicists, all experiments so far have
> not distinguished the predictions of SR and its antitheses where the

> antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist. So, according to PD�s

> (aka Sylvia Else) account above, SR has not been verified. That is
> the only possible conclusion if one abides by the scientific
> methodology. <shrug?

Strictly speaking, when science talks about verification, it confirming
the predictions of a theory, rather than confirming that the theory is
correct.

The version of aether theory that fits the experimental facts is
necessarily not distinguishable from special relativity, but it's an odd
theory that posits the existence of the aether, but otherwise ends up
saying absolutely nothing about it.

>
>> So one can never definitively specify a theory based on a finite set of
>> facts. Instead, one has to seek a theory that seems most likely to
>> resist falsification by future experiments.
>

> And a hypothesis that is falsified by the twins� paradox and more is

> not such a candidate. <shrug>

As has been pointed out ad nauseam on this group, the twin paradox is
not a real paradox in the sense of containing a contradiction, and it
does not falsify special relativity.

Sylvia.

[Wade Jenkins]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> the twin paradox is not a real paradox

Why then you call it paradox?

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 6, 5:16 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 6/05/2013 3:01 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Unfortunately for self-styled physicists, all experiments so far have
> > not distinguished the predictions of SR and its antitheses where the

> > antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist. So, according to PD’s

> > (aka Sylvia Else) account above, SR has not been verified. That is
> > the only possible conclusion if one abides by the scientific
> > methodology. <shrug?
>
> Strictly speaking, when science talks about verification, it confirming
> the predictions of a theory, rather than confirming that the theory is
> correct.

<shrug>

> The version of aether theory that fits the experimental facts is
> necessarily not distinguishable from special relativity, but it's an odd
> theory that posits the existence of the aether, but otherwise ends up
> saying absolutely nothing about it.

So, you can decide a hypothesis is true or false by deciding if it is
odd or not. There is no point to continue. That explains PD’s
position. So, when did these idiots took over science? <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

Koobee Wublee also likes to add that given two hypotheses that satisfy
all experimental verifications, the way the self-styled physicists
choose which is the valid one is “Mickey Minnie Mighty Maul, what is
the valid theory of them all” You got to be fvcking kidding Koobee
Wublee, but that is true. The self-styled physicists do not know what
they are fvcking doing! <shrug>

[Sylvia Else]

The word "paradox" is used not only to describe situations where a
genuine contradiction exists, but also those situations in which it
appears initially, but wrongly, that there must be a contradiction, and
indeed even situations which are just highly counterintuitive. The
"paradoxes" in special relativity are of the latter kinds, there being
no genuine contradictions in special relativity.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 7/05/2013 8:02 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On May 6, 5:16 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 6/05/2013 3:01 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately for self-styled physicists, all experiments so far have
>>> not distinguished the predictions of SR and its antitheses where the

>>> antitheses of SR say the Aether must exist. So, according to PD�s

>>> (aka Sylvia Else) account above, SR has not been verified. That is
>>> the only possible conclusion if one abides by the scientific
>>> methodology. <shrug?
>>
>> Strictly speaking, when science talks about verification, it confirming
>> the predictions of a theory, rather than confirming that the theory is
>> correct.
>
> <shrug>
>
>> The version of aether theory that fits the experimental facts is
>> necessarily not distinguishable from special relativity, but it's an odd
>> theory that posits the existence of the aether, but otherwise ends up
>> saying absolutely nothing about it.
>
> So, you can decide a hypothesis is true or false by deciding if it is

> odd or not. There is no point to continue. That explains PD�s

> position. So, when did these idiots took over science? <shrug>
>
>

The odd thing is describing it as a aether theory when it says nothing
about the aether, and indeed only requires the aether to exist because
the theory's author says it does.

In developing an aether theory, one posits that it exists, and
constructs a mathematical model around it. But then, in order to make
the theory fit the experimental results, one has to modify the model in
such a way as to eliminate its references to the aether. One is then
forced to conclude that either the aether doesn't really exist, or that
it is intrinsically undetectable. For the purposes of physics, they're
one and the same.

Sylvia.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 6, 9:31 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 7/05/2013 8:02 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > So, you can decide a hypothesis is true or false by deciding if it is

> > odd or not. There is no point to continue. That explains PD s

> > position. So, when did these idiots took over science? <shrug>
>
> The odd thing is describing it as a aether theory when it says nothing
> about the aether, and indeed only requires the aether to exist because
> the theory's author says it does.

No, if Sylvia Else aka Paul Draper even bothers to understand the
mathematical models involved, she/he/it will realize there is no
direct statement to the existence of the Aether. These hypotheses
only indicate the existence of the absolute frame of reference where
all observations are based off of. Why does that sound odd? It just
happens that the only way to accept the existence of the absolute
frame of reference is to predict the existence of the Aether as well.
<shrug>

This is what science is all about. It is to explore the unknown.
From observations, you come up with hypotheses to explain these
observations, and with speculations that these hypotheses are based on
is fine. You then design experiments to test if observations match
the predictions based on these hypotheses. You do that until only one
hypothesis is left, and that is the current champion. What if
Ampere’s Ampere’s law was rejected in the first place because it was
odd? Yes, there would be no electromagnetism. <shrug>

So, PD, you are still full of shit. <shrug>

> In developing an aether theory, one posits that it exists, and
> constructs a mathematical model around it. But then, in order to make
> the theory fit the experimental results, one has to modify the model in
> such a way as to eliminate its references to the aether. One is then
> forced to conclude that either the aether doesn't really exist, or that
> it is intrinsically undetectable. For the purposes of physics, they're
> one and the same.

That is the example of bullshit. Scientists don’t decide if a
hypothesis is odd or not and reject it. The ones who do are not
scientists. They are self-styled physicists with Orwellian
philosophy:

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONSPIRACY IS PEER
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** CONTRADICTION IS INMATERIAL
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

[rotchm]

> The odd thing is describing it as a aether theory when it says nothing
> about the aether, and indeed only requires the aether to exist because
> the theory's author says it does.

Not necessarily. Some do not use the ether as a ponderable media; they
use it as a preferred frame, a "scaffolding" from which to do the
calculations. It is to some a mathematical "simplification" just as
using complex numbers helps to solve many problems.

Moreover, many people/students find it easier to visualize a
ponderable media than to accept postulates (~substance vs. abstracnes)
as pushed by J.S. Bell in his 'How to t each Special Relativity". Its
all a matter of preference.

[Wade Jenkins]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> The word "paradox" is used not only to describe situations where a
> genuine contradiction exists

Since when, since Relativity? A paradox is a paradox, end of story. This
is the reason it is called a Paradox, because it must be.

[Sam Wormley]

Not so, Wade. The Twins Paradox is not a paradox at all, but an
*apparent paradox* that is a valuable teaching tool.

[Wade Jenkins]

Sam Wormley wrote:


> Not so, Wade. The Twins Paradox is not a paradox at all, but an
> *apparent paradox* that is a valuable teaching tool.

I don giva , Sam. Then call it "Apparent" in order for me to see. I never
seen paradoxes called apparent.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Webster:

Definition of PARADOX
1: a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed
to common sense and yet is perhaps true
b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory
conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3: one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly
contradictory qualities or phases

Origin of PARADOX
Latin paradoxum, from Greek paradoxon, from neuter of paradoxos contrary
to expectation,


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Wade Jenkins]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Definition of PARADOX
> 1: a tenet contrary to received opinion
> 2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed
> to common sense and yet is perhaps true
> b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
> c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory
> conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
> 3: one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly
> contradictory qualities or phases

Is it a paradox then or is it not, which one you choose. LOL.
You cant choose neither since the other tells exact contradictory.

[rotchm]

On May 7, 2:27 pm, Wade Jenkins <waj...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don giva , Sam. Then call it "Apparent" in order for me to see. I never
> seen paradoxes called apparent.

Then you are not knowledgeable. Any smart person knows thar there are
several meanings to "paradox".

It may be a contradiction or may mean an apparent contradiction.
Google define paradox

Any smart person knows that words have certain meanings within
context. In SR, the "twins paradox" is simply a title, where "paradox"
therein refers to an apparent contradiction. Every smart person knows
that. Are you saying that you are not smart enough to understand
definitions and words within contexts?

[hanson]

"Wade Jenkins" <waj...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
vagi-Sylvia Else, wrote:
The word "paradox" is used not only to describe
situations where a genuine contradiction exists
>

"Wade Jenkins" wrote:
Since when, since Relativity? A paradox is a paradox,
end of story. This is the reason it is called a Paradox,
because it must be.
>

ED Sam Wormley wrote

Not so, Wade. The Twins Paradox is not a paradox
at all, but an *apparent paradox* that is
a valuable teaching tool.
>

"Wade Jenkins" wrote:
I don giva , Sam. Then call it "Apparent" in order
for me to see. I never seen paradoxes called
apparent.
>

hanson wrote:
Wade listen. Never mind these 2 "parade-oxen".
Sam & Else are 2 Einstein Dingleberries, with
Sylvia's mind being numb from VagiSyl, and Sam
using it as a teaching tool for fools who are willing
to remain or become Einstein Dingleberries.
>
None these REL-fanatics have ever experienced a
single SR/GR event during their entire lives, except
for parroting what they read in old textbooks.
>
**** SR/GR relativity is Physics by hear-say ****
>
But like religious disciples they carry on with their
worship of Albert's sphincter, despite the fact that
Einstein recanted SR/GR already 60+ years ago, &
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
Here is more from & about Einstein, the plagiarist,
who STOLE E=mc� from Pretto, Hasenoehrl and others,
and publicly apologized for his thievery in 1907.
>
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>

[rotchm]

On May 7, 3:29 pm, Wade Jenkins <waj...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Is it a paradox then or is it not, which one you choose. LOL.
> You cant choose neither since the other tells exact contradictory.

Yes, multiple definitions of "paradox" are contradictory; the
definition of a paradox is a paradox in itself. Every knowledgeable
person knows that. Do you?

The twin paradox (TP) is a paradox in the sense its an apparent
contradiction or an unexpected result. The TP is not a paradox in the
sense of a contradiction. You didnt know that?

[hanson]

"rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
The twin paradox (TP) is a paradox in the sense its
an apparent contradiction or an unexpected result.
The TP is not a paradox in the sense of a contradiction.

You didnt know that.. ... ... poster "rotchm" happens
to be an Einstein Dingleberry?
>
hanson wrote:
... neither does poster "rotchm" know that

**** SR/GR relativity is Physics by hear-say ****

and that he, like all Einstein Dingleberries never
experienced a single SR/GR event during his entire
life, except for parroting what he read in old textbooks.
>
But like a religious disciple he carries on with his

[rotchm]

On May 7, 4:46 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> "rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The twin paradox (TP) is a paradox in  the sense its
> an apparent contradiction or an unexpected result.
> The TP is not a paradox in the sense of a contradiction.
> You didnt know that.. ... ...  poster "rotchm" happens
> to be an Einstein Dingleberry?

The word "paradox" has nothing to do with SR.

On a second note, the TP is not a paradox in the contradiction sense.
This is so not because I read it, but because performing the
appropriate math (which i did not take from a book but deduced it and
then confirmed via many math books) says so.

Moreover, physically, that is what exp's have shown.

> hanson wrote:
>
> ... neither does poster "rotchm" know that
> ****  SR/GR relativity is Physics by hear-say ***

> and that he, like all Einstein Dingleberries never
> experienced a single SR/GR event

Thats not true. Many scientist came up independently with SR and
variants. So it is not hear-say but independetly deduced.

If you do a little physics/exp's, you will see that exp's agree with
the predictions of SR.

> during his entire
> life, except for parroting what he read in old textbooks.

Wrong again. I "discovered" SR's results long before I read/learnt SR.

> But like a religious disciple he carries on with his
> worship of Albert's sphincter,

No I dont follow/agree with Einstein. I agree with SR in that it is a
consistent math and is usefull/practical for physics.

[Rock Brentwood]

"Good bye" is not a wish for God to be with ye. "Good morning" is not
an expression of a good morning. The "Renormalization group" is not a
group. "Trivial central extensions" are not (despite the prevalence of
opinion to the contrary) at all trivial.

And the "twin paradox" is not a paradox. But since you're the one who
raised the issue, then it's your idea, your project. Rename it anew.

In the meanwhile, anyone who is more linguistically attuned than a
hard-nosed blue collar worker, engineer type or anyone else one-
dimensional as someone with Asperger syndrome [1] will have a proper
understanding of the meaning of the word "idiom"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

and would not be asking such questions, lest they mark themselves as a
testosterone-overdosed, hard-nosed, ogre.

Notes:
[1] (Some characteristics of Asperger's related to the above
description)
"Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, one-sided verbosity,
restricted prosody, and physical clumsiness are typical of the
condition, but are not required for diagnosis."

Klin A (2006). "Autism and Asperger syndrome: an overview". Rev Bras
Psiquiatr 28 (suppl 1): S3–S11.

[Dono.]

On May 7, 3:24 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No I dont follow/agree with  Einstein.

Of course you don't, you are the same crank that you have always been,
PRETENDING to be a scientist but, deep down, you are just a fringe
idiot.

> I agree with SR in that it is a consistent math and is usefull/practical for physics.

You can't agree with SR and disagree with Einstein, imbecile.

[Sylvia Else]

I was trying to explain to you why you might have a misapprehension as
to the nature of the twin paradox. But apparently you want to argue
about the meaning of words, which activity is rarely enlightening.

Suffice to say that there is no real contradiction in the scenario
called (whether rightly or wrongly) the "twin paradox", and it does not
falsify special relativity.

Sylvia.

[rotchm]

> You can't agree with SR and disagree with Einstein, imbecile.

I did, so I can. Live with it.

If you misunderstood the meaning of my comments, here it is in other
words:
I dont like E's approach of SR; I find its (SR) original works sloppy.
That does not mean E was wrong...just sloppy. SR has been cleaned up
since but unfortunately there are still many sloppy works on SR and
many kranks preaching it, as you (horizontal falling rod problem for
one).

[Dono.]

On May 7, 6:53 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can't agree with SR and disagree with Einstein, imbecile.
>
> I did, so I can. Live with it.
>

Did you "publish" your disagreement with Einstein?

> I dont like E's approach of SR; I find its (SR) original works sloppy.

Coming from an ignorant like you, this is rich.

[rotchm]

On May 7, 10:47 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On May 7, 6:53 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You can't agree with SR and disagree with Einstein, imbecile.
>
> > I did, so I can. Live with it.
>
> Did you "publish" your disagreement with Einstein?

Just a s much as J.S. Bell "How to teach SR..." did.

> > I dont like E's approach of SR; I find its (SR) original works sloppy.
>
> Coming from an ignorant like you, this is rich.

Well, many here and in the literature has agreed that E's original
work on SR was sloppy. Not wrong per say, but sloppy.

[hanson]

Einstein Dingleberry "rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>
"rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
The twin paradox (TP) is a paradox in the sense its
an apparent contradiction or an unexpected result.
The TP is not a paradox in the sense of a contradiction.
You didnt know that.. ... ... poster "rotchm" happens
to be an Einstein Dingleberry?
>

"rotchm" flip/flopped & wrote:
The word "paradox" has nothing to do with SR.
>

hanson wrote:
IOW you say "Yes, no, yes, no, yes, yes, but nooo"
ROFLMAO

>
"rotchm" wrote:
On a second note, the TP is not a paradox in the
contradiction sense. This is so not because I read it,
but because performing the appropriate math (which i
did not take from a book but deduced it and then
confirmed via many math books) says so.
>

hanson wrote:
Ahhh, I see:... "to book or not to book" that is the
question, n'est pas.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...

>
"rotchm" wrote:
Moreover, physically, that is what exp's have shown.
>

hanson initially wrote and repeats:
... but poster "rotchm" does know that

**** SR/GR relativity is Physics by hear-say ***

and that rotchm, like all Einstein Dingleberries never
experienced a single SR/GR event in his own life

>
"rotchm" wrote:
Thats not true. Many scientist came up independently
with SR and variants. So it is not hear-say but
independetly deduced.
>

hanson wrote:
We are not talking about scientists. We are talking
about YOU, rotchm, a parrot who brainwashed himself
with REL crap and doesn't even know what it is.
*** So what personal event was there in YOUR life
*** that you were not able to overcome without SR.

>
"rotchm" wrote:
If you do a little physics/exp's, you will see that exp's
agree with the predictions of SR.
>

hanson wrote:
LOL, rotchm, you are parroting and you don't even
realize it. You are a splendid example of an Einstein
Dingleberry.
>
hanson earlier wrote:
during his entire life, rotchm was parroting what he
read in old textbooks.

>

"rotchm" wrote:
Wrong again. I "discovered" SR's results long before

I read/learnt SR. [1]
>
hanson wrote:
Come again!... AHAHAHA... and I just discovered that
"rotchm" = "Recites Only Total Crap, Having Megalomania"
>
hanson earlier wrote:
But like a religious disciple "rotchm" carries on with his

worship of Albert's sphincter,
>

"rotchm" wrote:
No I dont follow/agree with Einstein.
>

hanson wrote:
but you certainly give the unavoidable impression
that you love to bask the warm breeze of Albert's
Gedanken farts, being an Einstein Dingleberry
in Albert's rectal hair.. despite the fact that

Einstein recanted SR/GR already 60+ years ago, &
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
Here is more from & about Einstein, the plagiarist,
who STOLE E=mc� from Pretto, Hasenoehrl and others,
and publicly apologized for his thievery in 1907.
>
<http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
<http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric>
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>

"rotchm" wrote:
I agree with SR in that it is a consistent math
>

hanson wrote:
BFD, elliptic/hyperbolic/cone-sectn math was invented
many centuries before SR. To boot it is NOT
consistent with SR at all. Figure out why.
If you can't then posters Androcles or Koobee
Wublee will clean your clock that is ticking too slow...
ahahaha...
>
"rotchm" wrote:
and SR is usefull/practical for physics.
>
hanson wrote:
Where so, and how? ... except of course in the
minds of Einstein Dingleberies who worship
Albert's sphincter and then claim to be a bigger
one then Einstein's was.... like you just did.
See above in [1]
>
Thanks for the laughs, you splendid Dreidel
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

[rotchm]

> LOL, rotchm, you are parroting

Nope. I concluded before I read any S books. So you are wrong again.

>  during his entire life, rotchm was parroting what he
> read in old textbooks.

Nope. You are wrong again.

> Come again!... AHAHAHA... and I just discovered that
> "rotchm" = "Recites Only Total Crap, Having Megalomania"

Only in your mind.

> But like a religious disciple "rotchm" carries on with his
> worship of Albert's sphincter,

Nope. You are wrong again.

> but you certainly give the unavoidable impression
> that you love to bask the warm breeze of Albert's

Thats may be the impression left in deluded minds as yours.
Query: How much $ have you made with your delusions?
How # girlfriends have you acquired with your delusions?
Have you your own dwelling and terrains?
...

Answers. No you dont...
You need to live in the real world to get real stuff.

> BFD, elliptic/hyperbolic/cone-sectn math was invented
> many centuries before SR.

Yes it was. So?

> > and SR  is usefull/practical for physics.

> Where so, and how? ...

E=mc2 and BOOM, your dead. Thats quite practical.

> Thanks for the laughs, you splendid Dreidel
> ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

Simple minds are easily impressed. Do you still clap your hands and
pee yourself when you see Elmo?

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 7, 6:37 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Thing is, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of the
> aether.

Could the reason be that the Aether was assumed not to exist, and no
one has tried to look for it? <shrug>

> It was an invention, designed to be the medium in which
> electromagnetic waves propagate, but all attempts to discover anything
> about it failed.

What attempts? The MMX? The MMX tried to discover the absolute frame
of the reference and not the Aether directly. The null results
actually indicate a success to the MMX given all the transforms that
say the absolute frame of reference must exist satisfy the very null
results of the same MMX. <shrgu>

> One can argue that the results of all experiments
> relating to the aether can be explained away by reference to Lorentz,
> and that those results therefore do not prove that the aether doesn't
> exist, but one should surely be left wondering whether it was ever
> needed in the first place, particularly now that other fields appear in
> quantum field theory.

This is completely wrong. In the very mathematics, the absolute frame
of reference must exist for the Lorentz’s work to be true in the first
place. It is the self-styled physicists who have fvcked up on the
understanding of Lorentz’s work. <shrug>

> Physics is about contructing mathematical models.

Yes, that is true. However, these models must be verified by
experiments. If all the experiments verify two hypotheses that are
antithesis to each other, these experiments do not count. Understand
that, PD? <shrug>

> A viable model of
> space-time can be constructed without needing to invent the aether.

This is absolutely nonsense since all Lorentz’s infinite transforms
that say the Aether must exist also can be concisely written into a
single equation for each transform that is. Spacetime also apply to
all transforms that say the Aether must exist. In fact, Larmor’s
transform is very must like the Lorentz transform except that Larmor’s
transform must be referenced back to the absolute frame of reference
in every single observation. The spacetime of Larmor’s transform is
exactly identical to the spacetime of the Lorentz transform while
Larmor’s transform and the Lorentz transform are drastically different
mathematical model of the real world. <shrug>

> The latter is just an unnecessary complication.

It is only PD’s opinion. <shrug>

[Dono.]

On May 7, 8:31 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 10:47 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 6:53 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You can't agree with SR and disagree with Einstein, imbecile.
>
> > > I did, so I can. Live with it.
>
> > Did you "publish" your disagreement with Einstein?
>
> Just a s much as J.S. Bell "How to teach SR..." did.
>

He published it, you DID NOT.

> > > I dont like E's approach of SR; I find its (SR) original works sloppy.
>
> > Coming from an ignorant like you, this is rich.
>
> Well, many here and in the literature has agreed that E's original
> work on SR was sloppy.  Not wrong per say, but sloppy.

You are in no position to judge, you are just a pretender.

[hanson]

"rotchm" = "Recites Only Total Crap, Having Megalomania"

and being a "Real Old Total Crank Holding Moron, who
proves to be a sordid Einstein Dingleberry as is seen in his

paragraph below, in which he wrote:
>
SR is usefull/practical for physics.

E=mc2 and BOOM, your dead.
Thats quite practical.
>

hanson wrote:
Einstein stole "E=mc2" and for the "Boom",
all Einstein did was to sign a letter to FDR.
SR has NOTHING to do with an A-bomb
except that it makes "Boom" in the mind of
"rotchm" who "Recites Only Total Crap, Having
Megalomania"
>

Thanks for the laughs, you splendid Dreidel
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>

BTW, here is what wen were talkinng about:
>
hanson wrote:
"rot" you certainly give the unavoidable impression

that you love to bask the warm breeze of Albert's

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/05/2013 3:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On May 7, 6:37 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> Thing is, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of the
>> aether.
>
> Could the reason be that the Aether was assumed not to exist, and no
> one has tried to look for it? <shrug>
>
>> It was an invention, designed to be the medium in which
>> electromagnetic waves propagate, but all attempts to discover anything
>> about it failed.
>
> What attempts? The MMX? The MMX tried to discover the absolute frame
> of the reference and not the Aether directly.

Those experiments were attempts to meausure the Earth's motion relative
to the aether. At the time, no one was thinking about frames of reference.

> The null results
> actually indicate a success to the MMX given all the transforms that
> say the absolute frame of reference must exist satisfy the very null
> results of the same MMX. <shrgu>

The null results lead people to try to explain them in terms of changes
in distances and times, as an attempt to allow the aether to exist.

>
>> One can argue that the results of all experiments
>> relating to the aether can be explained away by reference to Lorentz,
>> and that those results therefore do not prove that the aether doesn't
>> exist, but one should surely be left wondering whether it was ever
>> needed in the first place, particularly now that other fields appear in
>> quantum field theory.
>
> This is completely wrong. In the very mathematics, the absolute frame

> of reference must exist for the Lorentz�s work to be true in the first

> place. It is the self-styled physicists who have fvcked up on the

> understanding of Lorentz�s work. <shrug>

Lorentz's derivations clearly make no sense unless you start with an
aether, but the resulting equations stand on their own, and are either
falsified, or verified, by experiment. As it turns out, and Einstein
showed, you can reached those same equations by a different line of
thinking that does not require the aether as a starting point.

>
>> Physics is about contructing mathematical models.
>
> Yes, that is true. However, these models must be verified by
> experiments. If all the experiments verify two hypotheses that are
> antithesis to each other, these experiments do not count.

Why would they not count? All it means is that the results say nothing
about which the underlying hypotheses is correct. They would still
support, or in the event, falsify, the mathematical model.

Sylvia.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 7, 10:53 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 8/05/2013 3:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > What attempts? The MMX? The MMX tried to discover the absolute frame
> > of the reference and not the Aether directly.
>
> Those experiments were attempts to meausure the Earth's motion relative
> to the aether. At the time, no one was thinking about frames of reference.

Nonsense. The concept of reference frames was well established since
Galileo 300 to 400 years ago. Only through these reference frames,
Galileo was able to claim the principle of relativity. <shrug>

> > The null results
> > actually indicate a success to the MMX given all the transforms that
> > say the absolute frame of reference must exist satisfy the very null
> > results of the same MMX. <shrgu>
>
> The null results lead people to try to explain them in terms of changes
> in distances and times, as an attempt to allow the aether to exist.

Nonsense. Before 1905, the null results of the MMX were interpreted
by Voigt, Larmor, and Lorentz to modify the known mathematical model
of that time, the Galilean transform, into something that would
satisfy these null results. According to the nature of the MMX, all
measurements must reference back to the absolute frame of reference.
It was Poincare in 1905 who realized that if the two observers were to
move in parallel to each other, the absolute speeds of the observers
drop out, and the result is the Lorentz transform. However, in
general, that is not the case. Again, the Aether is the consequence
of the transforms where all must fall back to the absolute frame of
reference without any exceptions. The Aether is not assumed to exist
in the first place. However, the nature of the null results of the
MMX must start with the absolute frame of reference. <shrug>

> > In the very mathematics, the absolute frame

> > of reference must exist for the Lorentz s work to be true in the first

> > place. It is the self-styled physicists who have fvcked up on the

> > understanding of Lorentz s work. <shrug>

>
> Lorentz's derivations clearly make no sense unless you start with an
> aether,

Nonsense. Koobee Wublee has already addressed that. <shrug>

> but the resulting equations stand on their own, and are either
> falsified, or verified, by experiment.

They have been verified by experiments since so far all experiments
that satisfy SR also satisfy the existence of the absolute frame of
reference which is SR’s antithesis. <shrug>

> As it turns out, and Einstein
> showed, you can reached those same equations by a different line of
> thinking that does not require the aether as a starting point.

Another nonsense. Voight’s, Larmor’s, and Lorentz’s works certain did
not. <shrug>

> > ... these models must be verified by

> > experiments. If all the experiments verify two hypotheses that are
> > antithesis to each other, these experiments do not count.
>
> Why would they not count?

PD, we went through this issue multiple times already. Because
accepting 2 hypotheses that are antitheses to each other that is
verified by all experiments so far does not adequately identify which
one is valid and which one is falsified. This should be common
sense. Why is it common sense? Well, talk to grade school kids.
<shrug>

>All it means is that the results say nothing
> about which the underlying hypotheses is correct. They would still
> support, or in the event, falsify, the mathematical model.

All that circular bullshit remain bullshit. Every single hypothesis
must be verified by experiments that validate nothing else but that
hypothesis.

[rotchm]

> Einstein stole "E=mc2" and for the "Boom",
> all Einstein did was to sign a letter to FDR.
> SR has NOTHING to do with an A-bomb

>

> Here is more from & about Einstein, the plagiarist,
> who STOLE

<G>, you seem quite fond or obsessed with Einstein.

I, on the other hand, dont care what he did...he was a plagiarist,
liar and sloppy mathematician.
However, SR does imply E=mc2 and SR does make correct predictions and
SR is mathematically consistent.

[rotchm]

On May 8, 1:18 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:

> He published it, you DID NOT.

Believe what you want.
It is not because you are a failure that others have to be.

> You are in no position to judge, you are just a pretender.

I have judged and I dont pretend. My numerous publications and
accolades show you wrong. Live with it. Again, it is not because that
you are a failure that yo must wish failure onto others. You are a
very weak willed and frustrated old krank who still cant accept that
there are better people than he out there.

[rotchm]

On May 8, 1:05 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What attempts?  The MMX?  The MMX tried to discover the absolute frame
> of the reference and not the Aether directly.  The null results
> actually indicate a success to the MMX

Correct. The MMX was *intended* to discover the preferred frame but
technically its design could have not. Its deign was theoretically
insensitive to such detection and the prevailing theories (LET)
predicted a null result for the MMX, and the exp's confirmed this null
prediction.

> This is completely wrong.  In the very mathematics, the absolute frame
> of reference must exist for the Lorentz’s work

You(s) are using the word "exist" differently here. The absolute
frame "exist" as a mathematical construct. It does not exist as a
physical entity (it is not detectable).

Complex numbers have this property too: they mathematically exist, not
physically.

> > A viable model of
> > space-time can be constructed without needing to invent the aether.
>
> This is absolutely nonsense

?? SR is such a viable and verified model.


LET uses an absolute frame (AB) but also implies that it can not be
detected.
So we may ask ourselves, is there a way to conceive another model
that dispenses with an AB but still agrees with the verifiable results
of LET and empirics..? And yes, SR is such a model.

[Wade Jenkins]

rotchm wrote:

> Complex numbers have this property too: they mathematically exist, not
> physically.

Wrong, they EXISTS physically, that is why they NEED representation
mathematically. It is NOT something you can ignore!!

Pay attention to what is been told to you!

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/05/2013 11:11 PM, Wade Jenkins wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
>
>> Complex numbers have this property too: they mathematically exist, not
>> physically.
>
> Wrong, they EXISTS physically,

How would you go about falsifying that claim?

Sylvia.

[Wade Jenkins]

Rock Brentwood wrote:

> On May 6, 1:25 pm, Wade Jenkins <waj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> >  the twin paradox is not a real paradox
>>
>> Why then you call it paradox?
>
> "Good bye" is not a wish for God to be with ye. "Good morning" is not an
> expression of a good morning.

Another imbecile trying to convince me that words has no meaning, a house
is not a house, a chair is not a chair, a paradox is not a paradox.

I am surrounded by assholes!!

I delete the rest for the sake of posterity. It is so fucking stupid.

[rotchm]

On May 8, 9:11 am, Wade Jenkins <waj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
> > Complex numbers have this property too: they mathematically exist, not
> > physically.
>
> Wrong, they EXISTS physically, that is why they NEED representation
> mathematically. It is NOT something you can ignore!!

Obviously you are over-emphasizing your idioticy to rationalize your
idioticy that you cant accept.
Quite a pathetic way to survive.

[Wade Jenkins]

It is a FACT not a claim. Tight closely to the laws of Nature.

I am the man talking in fact, not in claims. Talk to somebody else talking
in claims.

[Wade Jenkins]

rotchm wrote:

> On May 8, 9:11 am, Wade Jenkins <waj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> rotchm wrote:
>> > Complex numbers have this property too: they mathematically exist,
>> > not physically.
>>
>> Wrong, they EXISTS physically, that is why they NEED representation
>> mathematically. It is NOT something you can ignore!!
>
> Obviously you are over-emphasizing your idioticy to rationalize your

Once again you emphasize your limitless Stupidity.
FOOL, you dont even bother relate to the FACTS presented to you, but rush
madly to clean up another toilet on McDonald. LOL

In Physics, Mechanics, Electronics and everything else you cannot ignore
magnitudes represented IMAGINARY, learn, Idiot!!!

[hanson]

"rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> explained again that

[Lofty Goat]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 06:00:40 -0700, rotchm wrote:

> Complex numbers have this property too: they mathematically exist, not
> physically.

True for any sort of number.

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/05/2013 11:33 PM, Wade Jenkins wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> On 8/05/2013 11:11 PM, Wade Jenkins wrote:
>>> rotchm wrote:
>>>
>>>> Complex numbers have this property too: they mathematically exist, not
>>>> physically.
>>>
>>> Wrong, they EXISTS physically,
>>
>> How would you go about falsifying that claim?
>
> It is a FACT not a claim. Tight closely to the laws of Nature.

Facts are slippery things.

Where complex numbers are concerned, it's far from clear what "exists
physically" even means, so it's a bit of a stretch to assert that they
have a physical existence.

Sylvia.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 8, 6:00 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 1:05 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > What attempts? The MMX? The MMX tried to discover the absolute frame
> > of the reference and not the Aether directly. The null results
> > actually indicate a success to the MMX
>
> Correct. The MMX was *intended* to discover the preferred frame but
> technically

Yes, Michelson seemed to be a better experimental physicist than his
offsprings. Fvcking sad, no? <shrug>

> its design could have not.

Absolutely nonsense. <shrug>

> Its deign was theoretically
> insensitive to such detection and the prevailing theories (LET)
> predicted a null result for the MMX, and the exp's confirmed this null
> prediction.

You need to bud heads with Tom Roberts on this. Tom always gets a
hard on when discussing the null results of the MMX. <shrug>

> > This is completely wrong. In the very mathematics, the absolute frame
> > of reference must exist for the Lorentz’s work
>
> You(s) are using the word "exist" differently here. The absolute
> frame "exist" as a mathematical construct. It does not exist as a
> physical entity (it is not detectable).

That is not a correct interpretation. The mathematical model that
explains the null results of the MMX should be self-evident. <shrug>

> Complex numbers have this property too: they mathematically exist, not
> physically.

That is not correct. Complex numbers in electrical engineering
dealing with power electronics actually describe the real world
phenomena of electric power. Better study up on that one. <shrug>

> > > A viable model of
> > > space-time can be constructed without needing to invent the aether.
>
> > This is absolutely nonsense
>
> ?? SR is such a viable and verified model.

Both SR and its antitheses are also verified. Why one do you pick?
<shrgu>

> LET uses an absolute frame (AB) but also implies that it can not be
> detected.

Nonsense. In the very mathematics, the antitheses of SR show exactly
how the absolute frame of reference can be detected. It helps if the
observer is traveling at high speeds against the stationary background
of the Aether which is a technology still eludes modern science for
now. <shrug>

> So we may ask ourselves, is there a way to conceive another model
> that dispenses with an AB but still agrees with the verifiable results
> of LET and empirics..? And yes, SR is such a model.

SR, the Lorentz transform, exhibits all sorts of mathematical
inconsistencies. There is no fvcking chance that SR can be a valid
hypothesis to describe the real world with the null results of the MMX
as a constraint. <shrug>

[Wade Jenkins]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> Facts are slippery things.
>
> Where complex numbers are concerned, it's far from clear what "exists
> physically" even means, so it's a bit of a stretch to assert that they
> have a physical existence.

This is because you NEVER did physics for REAL woman. As the imaginary
depicted magnitudes having as much physically existence as those depicted
as real. What a shame!

[Wade Jenkins]

:)

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

Lanczos treated special relativity with quaternions,
in _Variational Mechanics_, although I didn't comprehed it
at the time.

[hanson]

"Brian Quincy Hutchings", "1treePetrifiedForestLane"

hanson wrote:
Very good, Quincy. Now, since you claim to
comprehend the meaning of your buzz-wordery,
post some numerical example, prefferably one
that has occurred in the real world practice
of your profession as a "geometer"

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

here is one that I got from Bucky et al:
what is a physical interpretation of energy is equivalent
to the mass (converted) times the speed of light
to the second power?

now regular tetragonum was suffered in the matter.

[hanson]

of your profession as a "geometer"
>

Buzzword Brain Brian wrote:
here is one that I got from Bucky et al:
what is a physical interpretation of energy is equivalent
to the mass (converted) times the speed of light
to the second power?
now regular tetragonum was suffered in the matter.
>

hanson wrote:
Not good, Quincy. You are only loudmouthing
Buzzwords again. Bring on equations & numbers.

[hanson]

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I was just giving you (all) the oppotunity to a)
figure it out, or b)
look it up in _Synergetics_, which has an index, and
is all online.

it is fairly paradigmatic, in showing that
the whole basis of "squaring" is misallocated, although
Bucky's "resolution" is somewhat silly, two.

> what is a physical interpretation of energy is equivalent
> to the mass (converted) times the speed of light
> to the second power?

thus:
if the velocity is perpendicular to "C",
then "C" is not going to "see" any doppler shifting,
or any other relativistic effect.

thus, flames Kooby Dooby, completely outsville.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

there was no "null" result of Michelson & Morely, and
this non-null result was refined by several others; so,
theresville, Kooby Wooby Dooby.

thus:

[Sylvia Else]

Odd then, that the math of quantum mechanics has complex numbers all
over the place, but where it represents anything observable, there's a
specific requirement that it represent it by a real number.

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 9/05/2013 4:22 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> That is not correct. Complex numbers in electrical engineering
> dealing with power electronics actually describe the real world
> phenomena of electric power. Better study up on that one. <shrug>

I assume you're thinking of the use of Fourier transfroms into the
frequency domain, where complex numbers represent phase relationships
(courtesy of De Moivre's theorem). It's a useful technique, but before
you can claim that the complex numbers represent something physically
real, you have to argue that the frequency domain is physically real.
It's a bit of a stretch.

Sylvia.

[Koobee Wublee]

Can PD see?

If yes, the frequency domain is very real. <shrug>

If not, can PD hear?

If yes, the frequency domain is very real. <shrug>

If not, God helps PD. <shrug>

> It's a bit of a stretch.

Not really, PD. <shrug>

[John Gogo]

This is a healthy way of looking at the situation.

[John Gogo]

It leads to an instantaneousness within a domain.

[John Gogo]

Michelson wanted to use the concept of the speed of light to establish
a grid system of time and events. When he realized that relativity
could not be measured- he constantly tried to invent measures which
led to the rational back to Roemer.

[benj]

Yeah, that's exactly it. The problem is that people start to think that
mathematics is more real than reality. None of mathematics is real. I can
make it do anything I like so along as I'm consistent about it.

Since one is drawing an analogy between mathematical manipulations and
symbols and reality, none of mathematics is real or reality. One simply
does mathematical manipulations observe the results and POSTULATE that
this mathematical results MIGHT represent something in reality. There is
no rule that says reality MUST follow the mathematical model.

[rotchm]

On May 10, 8:42 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

> Odd then, that the math of quantum mechanics has complex numbers all
> over the place, but where it represents anything observable, there's a
> specific requirement that it represent it by a real number.
>
> Sylvia.

This idiot has NO intention to discuss science. He will use any little
psychological trick to lure you into a response... and you fell for
it.

[John Gogo]

We have a domain and I challenge anyone who is willing to define such
domain.

[John Gogo]

Mankind's eyesight has established a "loose" understanding of the way
that nature works. Our experiments have also. When are we going to
get the leverage that we need to understand - and agree much of what
we are in disagreement about.

[John Gogo]

What is the single instrument that may deliver us to the eventual
truth? Answer- it is us.

[John Gogo]

He thought he would get an overall view of the prospect of light.

[John Gogo]

When this did not happen- to Michelson it became ununderstandable.

[Koobee Wublee]

Oops, there is a possibility that PD can be color blind. In that
case, it is as good as being blind. So, go to the audio test unless
PD is tone blind too. <shrug>

[Wade Jenkins]

rotchm wrote:

>> Odd then, that the math of quantum mechanics has complex numbers all
>> over the place, but where it represents anything observable, there's a
>> specific requirement that it represent it by a real number.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> This idiot has NO intention to discuss science. He will use any little

Hey stupid, why wont you just leave in silence. Ie, three months from now
I will come and ask "Did anybody seen rotchm lately" ?? LOL

[Wade Jenkins]

benj wrote:

> Since one is drawing an analogy between mathematical manipulations and
> symbols and reality, none of mathematics is real or reality

This phrase expose you have no qualifications of any kind.

I give up, you morons are too many!

[benj]

Rephrased: I'm too ignorant to understand a word of what you say,
therefore you all must be insane! Issue is settled.

[Tom Roberts]

In all cases I know of, it is either the real part or the norm of a complex
quantity that has physical significance -- i.e. can be measured. I know of no
instrument that can directly measure a complex value.

Both the time and frequency domains are part of the MODEL, and cannot possibly
be "real".


Tom Roberts

[Jeff Bennett]

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> I assume you're thinking of the use of Fourier transfroms into the
>> frequency domain, where complex numbers represent phase relationships
>> (courtesy of De Moivre's theorem). It's a useful technique, but before
>> you can claim that the complex numbers represent something physically
>> real, you have to argue that the frequency domain is physically real.
>> It's a bit of a stretch.
>
> In all cases I know of, it is either the real part or the norm of a
> complex quantity that has physical significance -- i.e. can be measured.
> I know of no instrument that can directly measure a complex value.
>
> Both the time and frequency domains are part of the MODEL, and cannot
> possibly be "real".

You contradict yourself. "Real" means your former "physical significance".

And stop bullshitting people with your lingo, you have no idea what a
model is all about. Models are not theories. They are restricted
implementations, ought to reveal and emphasize the statics, dynamics,
features and the validity of particular assumption into/out of a specific
physical system.

Here is some examples of Models taken from the "Scientific Computation and
Mathematical Modelling" domain. I hope, this will settle the discussions
and you in the future will not make again this error.

Tell me if still is unclear and need more models from other domains as
well.

Models:

Single-turn and Multi-turn Coil Domains in 3D

E-core Transformer Using Multi-Turn Coil Domains E-core Transformer Using
Multi-Turn Coil Domains

Inductive Heating of a Copper Cylinder Inductive Heating of a Copper
Cylinder

The Magnetic Field from a Permanent Magnet The Magnetic Field from a
Permanent Magnet

Voltage Induced in a Coil by Moving Magnet Voltage Induced in a Coil by
Moving Magnet

Mutual Inductance and Induced Currents in a Multi-Turn Coil Mutual
Inductance and Induced

Magnet Falling through Copper Tube Magnet Falling through Copper Tube

Inductor in an Amplifier Circuit Inductor in an Amplifier Circuit

Induction Currents from Circular Coils Induction Currents from Circular
Coils

Magnetic Damping of Vibrating Conducting Solids

Magnetic Prospecting of Iron Ore Deposits Magnetic Prospecting of Iron Ore
Deposits

Multi-turn Coil over an Asymmetric Conductor Plate Multi-turn Coil over an
Asymmetric Conductor Plate

Modeling of a 3D Inductor Modeling of a 3D Inductor

Simulating the Moving Parts of a Generator Simulating the Moving Parts of
a Generator

A Tunable MEMS Capacitor A Tunable MEMS Capacitor

Magnetic Lens Magnetic Lens

Magnetic Signature of a Submarine Magnetic Signature of a Submarine

One-Sided Magnet and Plate One-Sided Magnet and Plate

Transient Modeling of a Capacitor in a Circuit Transient Modeling of a
Capacitor in a Circuit

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/13/13 5/13/13 10:40 AM, Jeff Bennett wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> In all cases I know of, it is either the real part or the norm of a
>> complex quantity that has physical significance -- i.e. can be measured.
>> I know of no instrument that can directly measure a complex value.
>>
>> Both the time and frequency domains are part of the MODEL, and cannot
>> possibly be "real".
>
> You contradict yourself. "Real" means your former "physical significance".

You need some understanding of the subject. Yes, two different fields,
mathematics and physics, use "real" to mean different things. This has been so
for centuries, and people are expected to know this. If you are so illiterate
that you don't know this, I cannot help you, but I can say that the Internet is
a very dangerous place for you to attempt to read until you get some minimal
education to enable you to understand what is written....

> And stop bullshitting people with your lingo, you have no idea what a

> model is all about.[...]

This is YOUR problem, not mine. It is not "bullshitting", it is how the word
"model" is used in modern physics. Yes, that is not completely in agreement with
its common definition (as is true for literally hundreds of words in the
technical vocabulary). YOUR problem, not mine.


Tom Roberts

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:AMSdnbRu1OW...@giganews.com...

In all cases I know of, it is either the real part or the norm of a complex
quantity that has physical significance -- i.e. can be measured. I know of no
instrument that can directly measure a complex value.

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

Roberts has never heard of an ammeter. He’s the kind of

idiot that thinks kVA and kW are the same thing, power factor

is beyond his understanding.

http://search.snapdo.com/?q=powe+factor&category=Web

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

*mathematica* is four big subjects; it's like,
"a pile of Imelda Marcos' shoes:
N choose 3 choose 2!"

> intention to discuss science.

[Koobee Wublee]

On May 13, 8:00 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/10/13 5/10/13 - 7:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 9/05/2013 4:22 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
> > > That is not correct. Complex numbers in electrical engineering
> > > dealing with power electronics actually describe the real world
> > > phenomena of electric power. Better study up on that one. <shrug>
>
> > I assume you're thinking of the use of Fourier transfroms into the frequency
> > domain, where complex numbers represent phase relationships (courtesy of De
> > Moivre's theorem). It's a useful technique, but before you can claim that the
> > complex numbers represent something physically real, you have to argue that the
> > frequency domain is physically real. It's a bit of a stretch.
>
> In all cases I know of, it is either the real part or the norm of a complex
> quantity that has physical significance -- i.e. can be measured. I know of no
> instrument that can directly measure a complex value.

http://www.home.agilent.com/en/pc-1000000457%3Aepsg%3Apgr/network-analyzer?&cc=US&lc=eng

http://venablecorp.com/pr-products.html

Tom, these products have been around since the 70’s, and a
professional physicist has never heard of them. LOL. <shrug>

> Both the time and frequency domains are part of the MODEL, and cannot possibly
> be "real".

Tom, if you do not understand the following, it is entirely YOUR
problem, not Koobee Wublee’s. <shrug>

** sin(x) = (e^(j x) – e^(- j x)) / (j 2)

Where

** j = sqrt(-1)

If Tom still deny the reality of frequency and phase, it is again
entirely Tom’s problem, not Koobee Wublee’s. <shrug>

[Jeff Bennett]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 5/13/13 5/13/13 10:40 AM, Jeff Bennett wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> In all cases I know of, it is either the real part or the norm of a
>>> complex quantity that has physical significance -- i.e. can be
>>> measured.
>>> I know of no instrument that can directly measure a complex value.
>>>
>>> Both the time and frequency domains are part of the MODEL, and cannot
>>> possibly be "real".
>>
>> You contradict yourself. "Real" means your former "physical
>> significance".
>
> You need some understanding of the subject. Yes, two different fields,
> mathematics and physics, use "real" to mean different things. This has
> been so for centuries, and people are expected to know this. If you are
> so illiterate that you don't know this, I cannot help you, but I can say
> that the Internet is a very dangerous place for you to attempt to read
> until you get some minimal education to enable you to understand what is
> written....

In real Physics Math is used to model Physics! LOL. Man, sad to see you
decaying at the level of a Poutnik, or you always been like that?

>
>
>> And stop bullshitting people with your lingo, you have no idea what a
>> model is all about.[...]
>
> This is YOUR problem, not mine. It is not "bullshitting", it is how the
> word "model" is used in modern physics. Yes, that is not completely in
> agreement with its common definition (as is true for literally hundreds
> of words in the technical vocabulary). YOUR problem, not mine.

No Sir, in Physics Math is used to model Physics. Reread what I wrote.
Write it down then 100 times.

Honestly, you never did a Modelling in Physics and have no idea what they
are.

[benj]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:14:12 +0000, Jeff Bennett wrote:

> No Sir, in Physics Math is used to model Physics. Reread what I wrote.
> Write it down then 100 times.
>
> Honestly, you never did a Modelling in Physics and have no idea what
> they are.

Come on guys. Physics is all about the meaning of words. It has nothing
to do with material reality or even greater reality except that all math
is real. Math is the reality and experiments are just coarse
approximations to that mathematical truth! Hence the math is real, the
experiments are not. Reality is not just material objects like rocks and
trees, but also ANYTHING I CAN THINK OF! So that includes tinkerbell,
imaginary numbers, relativity or anything else. They are all REAL. They
all exist. If they didn't exist, then I couldn't even think of them.
Science is as simple as this.

[Jeff Bennett]

I would agree to an extent. However, the relativists believe the opposite.

[hanson]

"Jeff Bennett" <jbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kmu47d$2nv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

which is why they are known as "Einstein Dingleberries"

[Elmer Wright]

Indeed. Watch for instance these two stand-up comedians here. In stead of
talking about their own achievements (none) they always default to
Einstein. I don't get it. What are trying to do by pushing Einstein?

Einstein was right, cosmological constant, equation, then he was wrong and
deleted, then right and wrong again, then came Hubble, so Einstein got
right again, till he gets wrong one more time. All that happens in Physics
must default to Einstein.

What are they trying to prove?

[Elmer Wright]

[Elmer Wright]

[Elmer Wright]

Elmer Wright wrote:
>>>> Come on guys. Physics is all about the meaning of words. It has
>>>> nothing to do with material reality or even greater reality except
>>>> that all math is real. Math is the reality and experiments are just
>>>> coarse approximations to that mathematical truth! Hence the math is
>>>> real, the experiments are not. Reality is not just material objects
>>>> like rocks and trees, but also ANYTHING I CAN THINK OF! So that
>>>> includes tinkerbell, imaginary numbers, relativity or anything else.
>>>> They are all REAL. They all exist. If they didn't exist, then I
>>>> couldn't even think of them. Science is as simple as this.
>>>
>>> I would agree to an extent. However, the relativists believe the
>>> opposite.
>>>
>> which is why they are known as "Einstein Dingleberries"
>
> Indeed. Watch for instance these two stand-up comedians here. In stead
> of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MFOf4UDcoM

[Elmer Wright]

Elmer Wright wrote:
>>>> Come on guys. Physics is all about the meaning of words. It has
>>>> nothing to do with material reality or even greater reality except
>>>> that all math is real. Math is the reality and experiments are just
>>>> coarse approximations to that mathematical truth! Hence the math is
>>>> real, the experiments are not. Reality is not just material objects
>>>> like rocks and trees, but also ANYTHING I CAN THINK OF! So that
>>>> includes tinkerbell, imaginary numbers, relativity or anything else.
>>>> They are all REAL. They all exist. If they didn't exist, then I
>>>> couldn't even think of them. Science is as simple as this.
>>>
>>> I would agree to an extent. However, the relativists believe the
>>> opposite.
>>>
>> which is why they are known as "Einstein Dingleberries"
>
> Indeed. Watch for instance these two stand-up comedians here. In stead
> of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MFOf4UDcoM

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

a theorem A. to wit, if you have never read
a proof of teh pythagorean theorem,
you can still pretend that it's true.

PS, Einstein's proof is strictly diagrammatical,
not constructive, although
it is based upon a constructive proof
that is *not* in Euclidean curriculum@gymnasium

[Sylvia Else]

When working in the frequency domain, the imaginary parts of values
relate to phase angles, and, when appropriate, describe the reactance of
things like capacitors and inductors.

Sylvia.