Exclusive Relativity. True or False?
Louis Savain
sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
years.
[Speculation]
The above is just one of the *many* solid refutations of exclusive
relativity. It is such an ingrained and chronic form of crackpottery
that it borders on the pathological. The attack on the absolute is so
absurd and so easily proven false that lately I've entertained the
suspicion that it may not be a mere oversight on the part of some of
the powers that control the dissemination of knowledge. What is it
about the knowledge of the absolute that should warrant such a
relentless, century-old campaign to suppress its acceptance.
Admittedly this is a paranoid thought but it arose from my inability to
understand how some of the most intelligent people on earth [Nobel
laureates no less] can subscribe to such blatant falsehoods and cause
countless others to do the same.
Louis Savain
-Can a peer-reviewed community be trusted to honestly critique itself?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stephen
<louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
Probably due to a total lack of physical content.
>
> Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
A more precise statement is that we find that the laws of nature do not
require the use of any such concept as 'absolute motion'. 'All motion is
relative' is the cocktail-party-philosophers' version of relativity, not
anything from a science course.
> One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
> a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
> everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
You seem to be missing some key steps in your logic; in fact you are
missing _all_ the steps, since your conclusion does not follow from
anything in relativity theory. 'Everything is relative' is postmodernism,
not science.
--
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas - Virgil.
Uncle Al
Louis Savain wrote:
>
> [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>
> Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
> One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
> a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
> everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
> The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
> been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> years.
[snip]
The Global Positioning Satellite System works to astonishing accuracy
(military version), and it is relativistically corrected nine ways
from Sunday Special and General. If you say relativity doesn't work
you are empirically wrong. The worst relativity can be is incomplete,
like Newton's work.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
J. Scott Miller
[gibberish deleted for brevity]
>
> Admittedly this is a paranoid thought but it arose from my inability to
> understand how some of the most intelligent people on earth [Nobel
> laureates no less] can subscribe to such blatant falsehoods and cause
> countless others to do the same.
Or the simpler solution - you lack the intelligence to know what relativity
does and does not say.
Experimental evidence to date favors the theories of general and special
relativity and no amount of uninformed hand waving on your part will make that
proof go away.
--
J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator Scott....@louisville.edu
Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
University of Louisville
Paul Lutus
> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
"Establishment physicists"? That is a contradiction in terms.
> The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
> been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> years.
"Religious dogma"? Now I know why your article was rejected. A scientific
theory is distinguished from a religious belief by a very basic criterion --
falsifiability. Anyone can (in principle) falsify a scientific theory, and
possibly also replace it with another.
Your article contains not a single testable hypothesis. It doesn't deserve
inclusion in a scientific newsgroup.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bqumf$h1s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>
> Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
> One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
> a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
> everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
> The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
> been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> years.
>
> [Speculation]
>
> The above is just one of the *many* solid refutations of exclusive
> relativity. It is such an ingrained and chronic form of crackpottery
> that it borders on the pathological. The attack on the absolute is so
> absurd and so easily proven false that lately I've entertained the
> suspicion that it may not be a mere oversight on the part of some of
> the powers that control the dissemination of knowledge. What is it
> about the knowledge of the absolute that should warrant such a
> relentless, century-old campaign to suppress its acceptance.
>
> Admittedly this is a paranoid thought but it arose from my inability to
> understand how some of the most intelligent people on earth [Nobel
> laureates no less] can subscribe to such blatant falsehoods and cause
> countless others to do the same.
>
Louis Savain
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
> Louis Savain wrote:
> >
> > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
> >
> > Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no
such
> > thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is
relative.
> > One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
> > a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative
to
> > everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
> > The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it
has
> > been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> > years.
>
>
> The Global Positioning Satellite System works to astonishing accuracy
> (military version), and it is relativistically corrected nine ways
> from Sunday Special and General. If you say relativity doesn't work
> you are empirically wrong. The worst relativity can be is incomplete,
> like Newton's work.
You misunderstood. I did not say that the theory of relativity is
wrong. I fully accept the mathematical and predictive correctness of
SR and GR. I am saying that the notion that all motion is relative and
that there is no absolute motion because the so-called "laws of
physics" do not require absolute motion, is bogus. Logic tells me that
the only motion that physically exists is absolute, whether or not we
can measure it. It follows that relative motion is abstract, i.e.,
it's in our minds. The consistency of our relative measurements could
not possibly exist without an absolute underpinning. Contradict at
your detriment.
No particle in motion could possibly "know" what its motion is relative
ot anything else in the universe unless it's psychic. If relative
motion is all there is and the particle has no access to the infinite
number of possible relative velocities out there, how does the particle
maintain its velocity?
Louis Savain
-If the laws of physics do not require absolute motion and position,
then the laws of physics should be revised. The logical reasons for
the existence of absolute motion/position are unassailable. To deny
the absolute is to lend a blind eye to a fundamental aspect of nature
that could prove revolutionary in its implications. Why ignore it?
Heck why teach others that it does not exist, as most physicists insist
on doing.
Martin Hogbin
Louis Savain wrote:
> [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>
> Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
> One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
> a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
> everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
> The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
> been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> years.
>
> [Speculation]
>
> .
>
> Admittedly this is a paranoid thought but it arose from my inability to
> understand how some of the most intelligent people on earth [Nobel
> laureates no less] can subscribe to such blatant falsehoods and cause
> countless others to do the same.
>
> Louis Savain
Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong?
Martin Hogbin
Louis Savain
"J. Scott Miller" <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
> Louis Savain wrote:
>
> [gibberish deleted for brevity]
>
> >
> > inability to understand how some of the most intelligent people on
> > earth [Nobel laureates no less] can subscribe to such blatant
> > falsehoods and cause countless others to do the same.
>
> relativity does and does not say.
And you cannot read.
> Experimental evidence to date favors the theories of general and
> special relativity and no amount of uninformed hand waving on your
> part will make that proof go away.
You are a knee-jerk idiot Miller and I expected knee-jerk reactions
from your kind. I said nothing against SR and GR in my post. I was
attacking people like you (most physicists) who maintain against all
logic that there is no absolute motion and that the only motion that
exists is relative. I claim that the exact opposite is the truth:
there is no relative motion in nature. Relative motion is 100%
abstract and physically non-existent. Only absolute motion/position is
physical.
> J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator Scott....@louisville.edu
> Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
> University of Louisville
The Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium hired a fool as program
coordinator.
Louis Savain
James Hunter
Paul Lutus wrote:
> > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>
> "Establishment physicists"? That is a contradiction in terms.
>
> > The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
> > been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> > years.
>
> "Religious dogma"? Now I know why your article was rejected. A scientific
> theory is distinguished from a religious belief by a very basic criterion --
> falsifiability. Anyone can (in principle) falsify a scientific theory, and
> possibly also replace it with another.
That's not true. It's apparently against the laws of religoid null thought
to state that goober math does -not- have anything intrinsic to do with the
universe.
Louis Savain
stephe...@deathtospam.hotmail.com (Stephen) wrote:
> In article <8bqumf$h1s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
>
> > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>
Maybe. They used a form letter claiming that my post was too
speculative.
> > Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no
> > such thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is
> > relative.
>
> A more precise statement is that we find that the laws of nature do
> not require the use of any such concept as 'absolute motion'.
That is what SR maintains and I agree that the so-called laws of
physics are the same in any reference frame. However, if these laws do
not require the existence of the absolute, maybe it's about time that
they are revised because logic tells me (as I wrote in another thread)
that there is no other motion in nature but absolute motion. Are you
denying that physicists have been teaching and continue to teach that
there is no absolute motion? Or do you have your head in the sand?
> 'All motion is
> relative' is the cocktail-party-philosophers' version of relativity,
> not anything from a science course.
>
> > One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
> > a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative
> > to everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to
> > itself.
>
> You seem to be missing some key steps in your logic; in fact you are
> missing _all_ the steps, since your conclusion does not follow from
> anything in relativity theory. 'Everything is relative' is
> postmodernism, not science.
And you seem to have trouble reading. My post said nothing against
the correctness of relativity theory. Heck I mentioned neither SR or
GR in my original post. I am writing against the notion taught by most
of the physics community (including famous physicists) that there is no
absolute motion. Are you claiming that the physics community in
general teaches otherwise? If you are, I can give you quote after
quote of famous physicists claiming that relative motion is all there
is.
> Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas - Virgil.
Indeed. And you'll never know the cause of things (including the
cause of gravity) basing your search on relativity theory. All you'll
have is a cheesy math trick for the prediction of motion measurements.
Big freaking deal!
Rob Viesca
Louis Savain wrote:
> > J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator Scott....@louisville.edu
> > Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> > http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
> > University of Louisville
>
> The Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium hired a fool as program
> coordinator.
>
> Louis Savain
Sheesh, I know science is s'pose to be involving, but this mud-slinging
from all sides is just silly.
-Rob
Louis Savain
"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>
I think you mean "oxymoron". Maybe I should have written "voodoo
physicists". That might have been more accurate.
>[...]
> Your article contains not a single testable hypothesis.
Maybe you're just too dumb to see it. Read it over and over. Per
chance, it might sink in. It not only gave a logical proof that
absolute motion is the only motion that can physically exist, it also
shows that the relative is abstract and physically non-existent. The
relative is proof of the absolute as it could not make sense without
it, for the same reason that the unemployment rate could not make sense
without the unemployed.
> It doesn't deserve
> inclusion in a scientific newsgroup.
As if I gave a rat's ass. I was just having some fun.
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
Louis Savain
Louis Savain
Martin Hogbin <mar...@hogbin.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Louis Savain wrote:
>
> > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
> >
> > such thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is
> > posits a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is
> > relative to everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative
> > and yet it has been a religious dogma in the physics community for
> > over a hundred years.
> >
> >
> > Admittedly this is a paranoid thought but it arose from my
> > inability to understand how some of the most intelligent people on
> > earth [Nobel laureates no less] can subscribe to such blatant
> > falsehoods and cause countless others to do the same.
> >
>
> Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong?
About which part?
> Martin Hogbin
Louis Savain
"Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8bqumf$h1s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>[crap deleted]
Keating, I could not give a rat's ass what you think. You are
obviously a mental midget. How's that for a total lack of respect for
the con establishment?
Paul Lutus
something coherent, you might then receive a coherent reply.
As to the applicability of math to reality, please do not test the "falsity"
of f = GMm/R^2 by jumping off a building. The rest of "goober math" follows
suit -- it applies well to reality. Not all of it. Certainly most of it.
Enough so that it has a rightful place in science.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
James Hunter <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
news:38E1264D...@Jhuapl.edu...
>
>
> Paul Lutus wrote:
>
> > > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
> >
> > "Establishment physicists"? That is a contradiction in terms.
> >
> > > The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
> > > been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> > > years.
> >
Uncle Al
Louis Savain wrote:
>
> In article <38E11B12...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Louis Savain wrote:
> > >
> > > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
> > >
> > > Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no
> such
> > > thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is
> relative.
> > > One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
> > > a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative
> to
> > > everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
> > > The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it
> has
> > > been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> > > years.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > The Global Positioning Satellite System works to astonishing accuracy
> > (military version), and it is relativistically corrected nine ways
> > from Sunday Special and General. If you say relativity doesn't work
> > you are empirically wrong. The worst relativity can be is incomplete,
> > like Newton's work.
>
> You misunderstood. I did not say that the theory of relativity is
> wrong. I fully accept the mathematical and predictive correctness of
> SR and GR. I am saying that the notion that all motion is relative and
> that there is no absolute motion because the so-called "laws of
> physics" do not require absolute motion, is bogus. Logic tells me that
> the only motion that physically exists is absolute, whether or not we
> can measure it. It follows that relative motion is abstract, i.e.,
> it's in our minds. The consistency of our relative measurements could
> not possibly exist without an absolute underpinning. Contradict at
> your detriment.
[snip]
I was prolix. Here is the straight skinny:
You are wrong.
Paul Lutus
> I think you mean "oxymoron".
I tnink you need to look up "oxymoron." It is defined as a contradiction in
terms.
> As if I gave a rat's ass. I was just having some fun.
"I was just kidding" is right up there with "I didn't really mean anything I
said." The moderated newsgroups were right to exclude you.
> Maybe you're just too dumb to see it. Read it over and over. Per
> chance, it might sink in. It not only gave a logical proof ...
"Logical proof"? This begs the definition of both logic and proof. Nothing
of the kind exists in any of your posts.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bre37$35g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Gr9E4.8643$Og6.2...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
> >
> > "Establishment physicists"? That is a contradiction in terms.
>
> I think you mean "oxymoron". Maybe I should have written "voodoo
> physicists". That might have been more accurate.
>
> >[...]
> > Your article contains not a single testable hypothesis.
>
> Maybe you're just too dumb to see it. Read it over and over. Per
> chance, it might sink in. It not only gave a logical proof that
> absolute motion is the only motion that can physically exist, it also
> shows that the relative is abstract and physically non-existent. The
> relative is proof of the absolute as it could not make sense without
> it, for the same reason that the unemployment rate could not make sense
> without the unemployed.
>
> > It doesn't deserve
> > inclusion in a scientific newsgroup.
>
> As if I gave a rat's ass. I was just having some fun.
>
>
> > Paul Lutus
> > www.arachnoid.com
>
Paul Lutus
> > slinging from all sides is just silly.
>
> I think it's fun.
You're also sending an unintended signal -- your ideas have no merit, or you
wouldn't abandon them so quickly. I never saw so many half-baked ideas
become street orphans in such a short time.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bre6m$38c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38E1356C...@idt.net>,
> mur...@idt.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Louis Savain wrote:
> >
> > > > J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator Scott....@louisville.edu
> > > > Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium
> > > > http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
> > > > University of Louisville
> > >
> > > The Gheens Science Center and Rauch Planetarium hired a fool as
> > > program coordinator.
> > >
> > > Louis Savain
> >
> > Sheesh, I know science is s'pose to be involving, but this mud-
> > slinging from all sides is just silly.
>
> I think it's fun.
>
Jim Carr
... note appropriate followups ...
} > The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
} > been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
} > years.
In article <8br9qm$u50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>I did not say that the theory of relativity is wrong.
You implied that it was absurd when you implied that "exclusive
relativity" was what is taught in physics classes, just as you
call teaching relativity "bogus" below.
>I fully accept the mathematical and predictive correctness of
>SR and GR. I am saying that the notion that all motion is relative and
>that there is no absolute motion because the so-called "laws of
>physics" do not require absolute motion, is bogus.
So do you think it is wrong to teach something that gives correct
answers just because you think some strawman version of it is
bogus, despite not having any experimental basis for doing so,
or are you just trolling?
It looks to me like the moderators made an accurate judgement,
since you have given no physical reason for rejecting either
relativity or the teaching of relativity.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Jackie & Barry
Louis Savain wrote:
> Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
> One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
> a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
> everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
I know this will disappoint you, but I also believe that there is
absolute motion.
> The above is just one of the *many* solid refutations of exclusive
> relativity. It is such an ingrained and chronic form of crackpottery
> that it borders on the pathological. The attack on the absolute is so
> absurd and so easily proven false that lately I've entertained the
> suspicion that it may not be a mere oversight on the part of some of
> the powers that control the dissemination of knowledge. What is it
> about the knowledge of the absolute that should warrant such a
> relentless, century-old campaign to suppress its acceptance.
There's no organized campaign, it's just human nature to stay where
we're comfortable, snug, smug and warm.
> Admittedly this is a paranoid thought but it arose from my inability to
> understand how some of the most intelligent people on earth [Nobel
> laureates no less] can subscribe to such blatant falsehoods and cause
> countless others to do the same.
There are many different parameters to intelligence.
Those who win the Nobel Prize for Peace aren't necessarily the most
peaceful - I can think of at least one terrorist leader.
Those who win the Nobel Prize for Physics aren't necessarily getting it
for displaying the most overall intelligence - sometimes its just a
combination, of dogged persistence in a chosen field and of that field
being in fashion.
One kind of intelligence is mimicry. It can take you a long way. It
might even get someone a Nobel Prize, but it won't advance his
understanding very much.
University education is 90% mimicry. It's a useful, but ultimately a sad
kind of intelligence.
Barry
Greg Neill
> Again you are misunderstanding what I write. I meant that I was
> having fun trying to get the article published in sci.physics.research
> because I already knew that it would never be accepted.
So, what you're saying is, you are wasting both your time and ours.
James Hunter
Paul Lutus wrote:
> If you should, by some retraining process, become capable of posting
> something coherent, you might then receive a coherent reply.
I never really -except- coherent replies from Usenet. I except
goober math and that's usually all there is.
> As to the applicability of math to reality, please do not test the "falsity"
> of f = GMm/R^2 by jumping off a building. The rest of "goober math" follows
> suit -- it applies well to reality. Not all of it. Certainly most of it.
> Enough so that it has a rightful place in science.
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
> James Hunter <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> news:38E1264D...@Jhuapl.edu...
> >
> >
> > Paul Lutus wrote:
> >
> > > > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > > > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
> > >
> > > "Establishment physicists"? That is a contradiction in terms.
> > >
> > > > The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
> > > > been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> > > > years.
> > >
Cyberia
>
<snip>
>
> If relative
> motion is all there is and the particle has no access to the infinite
> number of possible relative velocities out there, how does the particle
> maintain its velocity?
How does it maintain its velocity relative to *what* ? :->
Sorry, I couldn't resist that.
Why does "knowledge" of one's velocity consitute a requirement for
"maintaining" that velocity in the absence of any force ?
--
---------------
SeeYa !
--------------
Hello....... Is this thing on ?
James Hunter
Paul Lutus wrote:
> > > If you should, by some retraining process, become capable of posting
> > > something coherent, you might then receive a coherent reply.
> >
> > I never really -except- coherent replies from Usenet. I except
> > goober math and that's usually all there is.
>
> I said "receive." You said "except." Had you not slept through grammar
> school, you would have said "accept."
No, that's your "elevated" sense of knowing how to mimic
mathemagoobers usings "quotes" makes them "appear"
to know something about logic, really doesn't.
> It goes like this. To assemble words into ideas, you must first learn how to
> assemble letters into words. That is called "spelling." First things first.
> Cart, horse.
Yes, yes, yes. Are you trying to convince me that goobers
can pass spelling tests without the assistance of a machine?
>
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
> James Hunter <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> news:38E16721...@Jhuapl.edu...
Daniel Weston
To Louis Savain:
I come from another profession completely
and I am not a card carrying member of any branch of science.
I therefore ask these following questions with an unsullied spirit and
unossified mind.
1) Would you please give us a definition of absolute motion.
2) Would you please give us your best example of absolute motion.
3) Would you please give us a brief description of how absolute motion
is evidenced.
Thanks.
Daniel Weston
---------------
To err is human,
To forgive divine.
Alexander Pope.
Daniel Weston
Oliver Keating
> [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
Absolute motion cannot exist, because it cannot be measured. It always is
relative. Example:
Imagine you are sitting on a train (which moves perfectly smoothly). Now, if
all the curtains are shut you have no way of telling how fast you are going.
The only way you can tell how fast you are going is to look out the window.
Now imagine the train in empty space. If you look out the window now, you
will see nothing - just empty space. Now it is impossible to determine your
speed. You might say the speed is zero, however, we could attach a rocket to
it and accelerate, changing its speed. However, once the rockets have
burned, and you are moving at your new speed, nothing has changed at all,
the speed has changed and you can calculate the change in speed, but still
you cannot calculate the absolute speed.
Now if you take realism and instrumentalism to be the same, what you cannot
measure does not exist. Physics is based on this.
If you want to measure velocity it must always be with respect to some
reference point. There is no such thing in empty space. You could use a
galaxy or star, but if we do, we always talk about the speed relative to a
star or galaxy.
Oliver Keating
Louis Savain
"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > > Sheesh, I know science is s'pose to be involving, but this mud-
> > > slinging from all sides is just silly.
> >
> > I think it's fun.
>
> You're also sending an unintended signal -- your ideas have no merit,
> or you wouldn't abandon them so quickly. I never saw so many half-
> baked ideas become street orphans in such a short time.
>
I did not abandon anything and I staunchly defend my ideas. I
haven't seen a single refutation yet against my argument that absolute
motion is the only motion that exists. Just a few pompous asses
jerking off.
Louis Savain
Oliver Keating
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8brfk9$4u1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8brdq2$eif$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Oliver Keating" <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
> >
> > Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8bqumf$h1s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
> > <inability to correctly understand relativity snipped>
>
> >[crap deleted]
>
> Keating, I could not give a rat's ass what you think. You are
> obviously a mental midget. How's that for a total lack of respect for
> the con establishment?
>
> Louis Savain
Well, the fact that you have not been able to reply to any of my arguments
is a sure sign you have no counter-arguments, so I wonder who the mental
midget is.
--
Regards,
Oliver Keating, London UK
ICQ: 553670
Louis Savain
"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > > "Establishment physicists"? That is a contradiction in terms.
>
>
> I tnink you need to look up "oxymoron." It is defined as a
contradiction in terms.
I did not say otherwise. I wanted to make sure that is what he meant
because I failed to see how 'establishment physicists' can be a
contradiction in terms.
> > As if I gave a rat's ass. I was just having some fun.
>
> "I was just kidding" is right up there with "I didn't really mean
> anything I said." The moderated newsgroups were right to exclude you.
Again you are misunderstanding what I write. I meant that I was
having fun trying to get the article published in sci.physics.research
because I already knew that it would never be accepted.
> > Maybe you're just too dumb to see it. Read it over and over. Per
> > chance, it might sink in. It not only gave a logical proof ...
>
> "Logical proof"? This begs the definition of both logic and proof.
> Nothing of the kind exists in any of your posts.
I beg to differ. Let me say in kind that your posts are just empty
exercises in pomposity, something that I've come to expect from the
self-congratulatory physics community.
Louis Savain
-Definition of peer-review: incestuous admiration.
Paul Lutus
What? Are you imitating Nixon now? "Previous statement are inoperative"?
You've already abandoned your position, you never expressed any coherent
scientific ideas, what exactly are you staunchly defending? And I should
tell you, your postulate, "As if I gave a rat's ass" definitely does not fit
into the category.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bri4r$7ka$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <NqbE4.8755$Og6.2...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > > > Sheesh, I know science is s'pose to be involving, but this mud-
> > > > slinging from all sides is just silly.
> > >
> > > I think it's fun.
> >
> > You're also sending an unintended signal -- your ideas have no merit,
> > or you wouldn't abandon them so quickly. I never saw so many half-
> > baked ideas become street orphans in such a short time.
> >
>
> I did not abandon anything and I staunchly defend my ideas. I
> haven't seen a single refutation yet against my argument that absolute
> motion is the only motion that exists. Just a few pompous asses
> jerking off.
>
> Louis Savain
>
>
Louis Savain
You can kiss my ass with your followups Carr. This discussion is
relevant to all aspects of physics because it deals with something
fundamental. I'm fed up with your chicken shit attempts at
censorship. If you don't like what's being said here, use your kill
file. Don't try to bottle it within sci.physics.relativty.
> } > The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it
> ) > has been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a
> ) > hundred years.
>
> In article <8br9qm$u50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >
> >I did not say that the theory of relativity is wrong.
>
> You implied that it was absurd when you implied that "exclusive
> relativity" was what is taught in physics classes,
Indeed that is what is taught even though I (and many others) have
found nothing in the theory of relativity that proved or even asserted
that there is no absolute motion. That is not to say that Einstein
himself did not make that assertion elsewhere. It was wrong then and
it is wrong now.
> just as you
> call teaching relativity "bogus" below.
I do no such thing. Why the blatant lie Carr? I call teaching
**exclusive relativty** bogus because it is. There is a difference
between teaching exclusive relativity and just teaching relativity.
The former denies the existence of the absolute and the latter doesn't.
> >I fully accept the mathematical and predictive correctness of
> >SR and GR. I am saying that the notion that all motion is relative
> >and that there is no absolute motion because the so-called "laws of
> >physics" do not require absolute motion, is bogus.
>
> So do you think it is wrong to teach something that gives correct
> answers just because you think some strawman version of it is
> bogus, despite not having any experimental basis for doing so,
No, I think it's chicken shit at best and dishonest at worst to teach
that SR does away with absolute motion. It does no such thing because
it's easy to show that relative motion is 100% abstract and that nature
could not give a rat's ass about the relative. Only an establishment
con artist like you would deny it. Not that I care though.
> or are you just trolling?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
> It looks to me like the moderators made an accurate judgement,
> since you have given no physical reason for rejecting either
> relativity or the teaching of relativity.
Your use of the phrase "physical reason" is telling. It is a common
chicken shit copout used by chicken shit physicists with their backs to
the wall. Is physics exempt from logic that logical reasons can no
longer be used in arguments against the crap that it spews forth to the
unwary? It looks to me like the moderators of sci.physics.research are
a bunch of self-involved pompous asses like you and cannot stand seeing
their beloved little community belittled and their noses rubbed in
their own feces.
> James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu>
I feel sory for the students at FSU. They've been invaded by
dishonest morons.
Rob Viesca
Louis Savain wrote:
> Maybe you're just too dumb to see it. Read it over and over. Per
> chance, it might sink in. It not only gave a logical proof that
> absolute motion is the only motion that can physically exist, it also
> shows that the relative is abstract and physically non-existent. The
> relative is proof of the absolute as it could not make sense without
> it, for the same reason that the unemployment rate could not make sense
> without the unemployed.
>
> Louis Savain
Well, (no bad attitude meant) it seems that you're pretty confident
about your proof. The question is: If it is true, does it really belong on
a newsgroup? I think if one cares enough for a proven hypthesis they should
go ahead and try to publish their work. Going on usenet, presenting an idea
when you know people will try to, or suceed in shooting down, isn't exactly
a good scientific prcess in getting your idea known.
Just a thought,
-Rob
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"With Infinite time comes Infinite chances. With Infinite chances comes
Infinite numbers. Since Infinity has no number it is uncertain. Therefore
Infinite time disproves all certainty."
Louis Savain
"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > I did not abandon anything and I staunchly defend my ideas.
>[crap deleted]
Eat shit Lutus.
Louis Savain
-There are two dangerous types of crackpots, the establishment
physicist who teaches crap to others and the others (like Lutus) who
kiss their asses.
Louis Savain
"Greg Neill" <gne...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> So, what you're saying is, you are wasting both your time and ours.
If you think your time is being wasted put me in your kill file and
fuck off. See if I give a shit.
Louis Savain
Paul Lutus
> exercises in pomposity, something that I've come to expect from the
> self-congratulatory physics community.
And you plan to post some physics exactly when? Saying, "The absurdity of
exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has been a religious dogma
in the physics community for over a hundred
years" doesn't fit the bill. It is an argument without any scientific
substance.
Calling an idea "absurd" or "religious" conveys exactly no scientific
meaning. Calling your own views "logical," without explaining the logic,
also has no scientific meaning.
And all your posts suffer from a mistake in basic reasoning. You say
physicists deny the existence of absolute motion. This is false. Physicists
only say you cannot *detect* absolute motion.
If absolute motion cannot be detected, it is outside the realm of physics.
It is like asserting that physicists deny the existence of an ether. If you
had made this claim (just an example), it would suffer from the same logical
error. Physicists do not say there is no ether. They only say it cannot be
detected.
Things that cannot be detected are outside the realm of possible evidence,
measurement, assertion, falsification, and therefore of science.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8brjhs$95p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <MfbE4.8744$Og6.2...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > > > "Establishment physicists"? That is a contradiction in terms.
> >
> > > I think you mean "oxymoron".
> >
> > I tnink you need to look up "oxymoron." It is defined as a
> contradiction in terms.
>
> I did not say otherwise. I wanted to make sure that is what he meant
> because I failed to see how 'establishment physicists' can be a
> contradiction in terms.
>
> > > As if I gave a rat's ass. I was just having some fun.
> >
> > "I was just kidding" is right up there with "I didn't really mean
> > anything I said." The moderated newsgroups were right to exclude you.
>
> Again you are misunderstanding what I write. I meant that I was
> having fun trying to get the article published in sci.physics.research
> because I already knew that it would never be accepted.
>
> > > Maybe you're just too dumb to see it. Read it over and over. Per
> > > chance, it might sink in. It not only gave a logical proof ...
> >
> > "Logical proof"? This begs the definition of both logic and proof.
> > Nothing of the kind exists in any of your posts.
>
> I beg to differ. Let me say in kind that your posts are just empty
> exercises in pomposity, something that I've come to expect from the
> self-congratulatory physics community.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> -Definition of peer-review: incestuous admiration.
>
>
Gregory L. Hansen
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38E11B12...@hate.spam.net>,
>Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Louis Savain wrote:
>> >
>> > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>> >
>such
>> > thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is
>relative.
>> > One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
>> > a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative
>to
>> > everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
>has
>> > been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> The Global Positioning Satellite System works to astonishing accuracy
>> (military version), and it is relativistically corrected nine ways
>> from Sunday Special and General. If you say relativity doesn't work
>> you are empirically wrong. The worst relativity can be is incomplete,
>> like Newton's work.
>
>wrong. I fully accept the mathematical and predictive correctness of
>SR and GR. I am saying that the notion that all motion is relative and
>that there is no absolute motion because the so-called "laws of
>the only motion that physically exists is absolute, whether or not we
>can measure it. It follows that relative motion is abstract, i.e.,
If you can't measure it, then it doesn't matter. Physicists are not
particularly interested in an absolute frame of reference, whether or not
it exists, until they need to write out equations of motion that actually
reference it. And if you can't test it experimentally, all the logic in
the world can't tell you if you're right. Your logic could be flawless,
but it's only as good as your premises.
>it's in our minds.
All of physical theory is a construct of the mind. It can be nothing
else. What's important is if the theory makes correct predictions about
nature.
>The consistency of our relative measurements could
>not possibly exist without an absolute underpinning. Contradict at
>your detriment.
Contradiction: the accuracy and of predictions of relativity with
experiment. If the consistency of our relative measurements could not
possibly exist without an absolute underpinning, then relativity in its
current form just wouldn't work.
>No particle in motion could possibly "know" what its motion is relative
>ot anything else in the universe unless it's psychic. If relative
>motion is all there is and the particle has no access to the infinite
>number of possible relative velocities out there, how does the particle
>maintain its velocity?
Maintain its velocity with respect to what? It just sits there and lets
the universe pass it by. The particle doesn't need little rockets to
force its way through the aether. It looks like your argument has an
unstated premise, that there is an absolute frame of reference with
respect to which the particle must maintain a velocity. Given that, it's
not surprising you'd conclude there's an absolute frame of reference.
But unless its effects can be measured, it just doesn't matter. Any terms
referencing an absolute frame of reference would drop out of all equations
of motion. It would have to be added artificially, only to cancel in the
final solution. So, in terms of physical theory, what can be gained? And
what would you like practicing physicists to do about it?
--
"We aim to please. So you aim, too, please."
Gregory L. Hansen
Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>And all your posts suffer from a mistake in basic reasoning. You say
>physicists deny the existence of absolute motion. This is false. Physicists
>only say you cannot *detect* absolute motion.
Probably some do and some don't. I'm more in the "shut up and calculate"
camp.
>If absolute motion cannot be detected, it is outside the realm of physics.
>
>It is like asserting that physicists deny the existence of an ether. If you
>had made this claim (just an example), it would suffer from the same logical
>error. Physicists do not say there is no ether. They only say it cannot be
>detected.
Again, some do. Some say it doesn't exist. Some think it does, and
articles about aether theories are regularly published in journals like
_Foundations of Physics_. There are lots of physicists that collectively
hold lots of different opinions. And that, of course, is a good thing.
C.J. Luke
people have read this post and responded incorrectly. I happen to
believe your main thought...."the only motion that exist in nature is
absolute." Although I can't deny that "accepted interpretations" of
"most" of the "relevant experiments" support SR and GR, IMHO the
interpretations of the data could be in error. I would have to go one
step further than you did in this post and state that 'time' is also
an absolute with the noted exception that we do not yet have a 'clock'
that 'keeps' absolute time.
"The lack of reason is overcome by the passion of belief"
< c...@totcon.com >
Louis Savain
> > absolute motion is the only motion that can physically exist, it
> > also shows that the relative is abstract and physically non-
> > existent. The relative is proof of the absolute as it could not
> > make sense without it, for the same reason that the unemployment
> > rate could not make sense without the unemployed.
> >
> > Louis Savain
>
> Well, (no bad attitude meant) it seems that you're pretty confident
> about your proof. The question is: If it is true, does it really
> belong on a newsgroup? I think if one cares enough for a proven
> hypthesis they should go ahead and try to publish their work. Going
> on usenet, presenting an idea when you know people will try to, or
> suceed in shooting down, isn't exactly a good scientific prcess in
> getting your idea known.
>
> Just a thought,
Well I'm not trying to convince anyone in the physics community and I
am not after scientific press. I'm trying to resurrect some very old
ideas and allow people who have not yet been brainwashed by the con
establishment to make up their own minds. My goal is to see some real
progress made in fundamental physics, especially in our understanding
of gravity. I have resigned myself to the fact that it will not come
from the physics community. Exclusive relativity is an unsurmountable
barrier in the further understanding of nature. I would not be far off
to suppose that over 90% of physicists believe in exclusive
relativity. They can have it. The physics community does not have a
monopoly on intelligence (on the contrary) and there are many other
highly intelligent people out there who can see through their crap.
Those are the people I'm counting on.
Newton tried his best to explain the necessity of the absolute to
others but it went over the heads of modern physicists who thought they
knew better. Unfortunately Newton tried to couch his ideas in terms of
an absolute space "out there." Leibniz was right in opposing the
concept of a space "out there", insisting that "space is nothing but
the nature of the order of things." IOW, space is abstract and
particles are all there is. Space is a fictitious construct invented
by those who never understood Leibniz and who try to con others into
believing that they are the sole legitimate givers of knowledge on
planet Earth. They can kiss my ass. The relativists continued with
the stupid notion of a space being "out there" but rejected the
absolute. They are wrong on both count.
Louis Savain
-Down with voodoo physics.
Louis Savain
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> In article <8br9qm$u50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...]
Hansen I remember you from way back when and I can't say that I was
impressed with your grasp of things. Before I respond to your
incoherent drivel let me first say that I gave a logical argument
against exclusive relativity in my original post. I claim that this
argument is unassailable and yet none of you have come up with a
counter argument. Here it is again:
"One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself."
Now all that you pompous asses need to do is refute it or shut the fuck
up. So far all I've got from you yahoos is "see how big my dick is".
Is this an exercise in exhibitionism or do you just love to hitch to
the moon in public?
Hansen, I'll get to your dumb arguments later. I gotta to attend to
more important things right now.
Louis Savain
Unless you can grok the absolute, you have not understood anything as
you ought to.
Uncle Al
Louis Savain wrote:
>
> In article <8brg7h$mmv$1...@news.fsu.edu>,
> j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> >
> > ... note appropriate followups ...
>
> You can kiss my ass with your followups Carr. This discussion is
> relevant to all aspects of physics because it deals with something
> fundamental. I'm fed up with your chicken shit attempts at
> censorship. If you don't like what's being said here, use your kill
> file. Don't try to bottle it within sci.physics.relativty.
Jim Carr is a professional, practicing physicist. His commentary is
never anything other than well-measured, literate, founded in refereed
literature, and free of emotional bias. You are an empirically
ignorant perserverative lout.
Uncle Al is not constrained by considerations of etiquette. You are
also an irremediable asshole shitting on clean sheets. Your whining
is not "fundamental" to anything. Your squeals echo 19th century
poobah physicists who were left behind to die by a vital science
mirrored in technological progress.
Go ahead, submit to sci.physics.research and have it thrown back in
your face by moderators. Submit to professional literature and be
called an untutored fool by your betters. Publish it yourself and
join that sacrosanct pantheon of legislated values of pi and
extraterrestrial proctologists.
Physical reality is not subject to political convenience, majority
vote, or personal delusion. Vist an insane asylum if you think
sincerity counts for anything in the grand scheme of things
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Robert J. Kolker
Louis Savain wrote:
>
> Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
Let it be granted that there is such a thing as absolute motion. Can
you suggest a way of measuring it so it can be used for something?
A quantity which cannot be measured in principle, might just as well
not exist?
So is absolute motion in principle unmeasurable or is the the case that no
one has figured out how to do it?
In particular, how does one measure absolute unaccelerated motion?
If you were in a box that was moving in such a way that no force
could be detected, how would you measure your motion (without
looking outside). In particular if you were in this box and you let
go of a ball that was in your hand, it would just hang there. That is an
indicator that the motion of the box is unaccelerated. How would you
know that the box was in (absolute motion) or absolutely not moving.
All observed facts would be the same in either case (provided you
don't look outside). And even if you did look outside and saw motion
w.r.t. another body how would you know the absolute motion of the box
you are in and the absolute motion of the other body?
Bob Kolker
Louis Savain
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
> Louis Savain wrote:
> >
> > In article <8brg7h$mmv$1...@news.fsu.edu>,
> > j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> > >
> > > ... note appropriate followups ...
> >
> > You can kiss my ass with your followups Carr. This discussion is
> > relevant to all aspects of physics because it deals with something
> > fundamental. I'm fed up with your chicken shit attempts at
> > censorship. If you don't like what's being said here, use your kill
> > file. Don't try to bottle it within sci.physics.relativty.
>
> Jim Carr is a professional, practicing physicist. His commentary is
> never anything other than well-measured, literate, founded in refereed
> literature, and free of emotional bias.
Fuck off Uncle Al. If you don't like my style or my ideas put me in
your kill file. If you stopped kissing ass for just a moment you might
realize that there is plenty of fresh air left in the world after all
you mental midget.
Louis Savain
Paul Lutus
It is interesting to note how you do all you can to avoid talking about
physics. Given your literacy level, why not follow up to alt.coprophagia?
Your kind of post is welcome there.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8brm3v$c2t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <kicE4.8818$Og6.2...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> > > I did not abandon anything and I staunchly defend my ideas.
>
> >[crap deleted]
>
> Eat shit Lutus.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> -There are two dangerous types of crackpots, the establishment
> physicist who teaches crap to others and the others (like Lutus) who
> kiss their asses.
>
>
Paul Lutus
> > something coherent, you might then receive a coherent reply.
>
> I never really -except- coherent replies from Usenet. I except
> goober math and that's usually all there is.
I said "receive." You said "except." Had you not slept through grammar
school, you would have said "accept."
It goes like this. To assemble words into ideas, you must first learn how to
assemble letters into words. That is called "spelling." First things first.
Cart, horse.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
James Hunter <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
news:38E16721...@Jhuapl.edu...
>
>
> Paul Lutus wrote:
>
> > If you should, by some retraining process, become capable of posting
> > something coherent, you might then receive a coherent reply.
>
> I never really -except- coherent replies from Usenet. I except
> goober math and that's usually all there is.
>
>
>
> > As to the applicability of math to reality, please do not test the
"falsity"
> > of f = GMm/R^2 by jumping off a building. The rest of "goober math"
follows
> > suit -- it applies well to reality. Not all of it. Certainly most of it.
> > Enough so that it has a rightful place in science.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Paul Lutus
> > www.arachnoid.com
> >
> > James Hunter <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> > news:38E1264D...@Jhuapl.edu...
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul Lutus wrote:
> > >
> > > > > [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
> > > > > sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment
physicists]
> > > >
> > > > "Establishment physicists"? That is a contradiction in terms.
> > > >
> > > > > The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it
has
> > > > > been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
> > > > > years.
> > > >
Paul Lutus
> Again, some do. Some say it doesn't exist. Some think it does, and
> articles about aether theories are regularly published in journals like
> _Foundations of Physics_. There are lots of physicists that collectively
> hold lots of different opinions. And that, of course, is a good thing.
Well, of course I agree, but the point is, no matter how people come down in
opinions on the subject, it cannot be detected. Therefore theories about an
ether cannot be falsified. Therefore they are not, strictly speaking,
scientific. Like the nature of gravitons, they are speculations at the
fringe of physics. Interesting, worthwhile, but not a direct subject of
study.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:8brnaa$b52$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <lRcE4.8865$Og6.2...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>,
Louis Savain
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > If relative
> > motion is all there is and the particle has no access to the
> > infinite number of possible relative velocities out there, how does
> > the particle maintain its velocity?
>
>
> Sorry, I couldn't resist that.
You're funny. :-D I wish some of the establishment morons who post
on these newsgroups had a similar sense of humor.
> Why does "knowledge" of one's velocity consitute a requirement for
> "maintaining" that velocity in the absence of any force ?
Good question. You just touched upon another aspect of nature that
the con establisnment has succeeded in obfuscating to death, the need
for every effect to have a cause. The establishment con artists have
been preaching for I don't know how long that things stay in motion for
absoluely no reason at all, like voodoo or something. Of course
nothing could be more at odds with logic. If absolute motion exists,
(and there is not a single doubt in my mind that it's the only type of
motion that exists) then a change in position is an effect in need of a
cause. What causes things to move? I have a good idea but I don't
think this is the right thread for it. I'll just say that there can be
no motion without interaction and that the so called void is not empty
at all but must be filled with a tremendous amount of energetic quanta.
Louis Savain
Kevin Terrill
I'm sorry I missed all the fun earlier today, well yesterday. What would
you measure your absolute velocity and position to. Where is 0,0,0,0.
Where is the center of all motion and the beginning of time. Please advise,
there are a few newsgroups here that are dying for that info. But let me
ask you these simple questions, what is a meter?. Why is it as long as it
is? What is a second? Why? What do you measure your absolute velocity
against. What is your reference? What are you measuring relative to? See
the problem when looked at in the purest logical sense, says that it must be
relative, even if there is a 0,0,0,0. All motion would be relative to that,
0,0,0,0. All motion is relative, one could pick any object as 0,0,0,0, and
all objects would be moving relative to that. Even if you had a zero frame
of reference, all motion would be relative to that. Any body in motion has
to be moving relative to something, otherwise it isn't moving.
K.T.
Louis Savain wrote in message <8bqumf$h1s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>[Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
>sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>
>Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
>thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
>One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
>a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
>everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
>The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
>been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
>years.
>
>[Speculation]
>
>The above is just one of the *many* solid refutations of exclusive
>relativity. It is such an ingrained and chronic form of crackpottery
>that it borders on the pathological. The attack on the absolute is so
>absurd and so easily proven false that lately I've entertained the
>suspicion that it may not be a mere oversight on the part of some of
>the powers that control the dissemination of knowledge. What is it
>about the knowledge of the absolute that should warrant such a
>relentless, century-old campaign to suppress its acceptance.
>
>Admittedly this is a paranoid thought but it arose from my inability to
>understand how some of the most intelligent people on earth [Nobel
>laureates no less] can subscribe to such blatant falsehoods and cause
>countless others to do the same.
>
>Louis Savain
>
>-Can a peer-reviewed community be trusted to honestly critique itself?
Mark Samokhvalov
Uncle Al пишет в сообщении <38E11B12...@hate.spam.net> ...
>
>
>Louis Savain wrote:
>>
>> [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
>> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>>
>> Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
>> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
>> One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
>> a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
>> everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
>> The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
>> been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
>> years.
>
>
>The Global Positioning Satellite System works to astonishing accuracy
>(military version), and it is relativistically corrected nine ways
>from Sunday Special and General. If you say relativity doesn't work
>you are empirically wrong. The worst relativity can be is incomplete,
>like Newton's work.
>
>Uncle Al
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
>http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
> (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Faith, as opposed to reason, is required to uphold a theory, which explains
a measurable quantity (the difference of optical paths of CW & CCW rays in
the Sagnac effect) as a difference of unmeasurable quantities (the paths
themselves, or their disparity anywhere along the rim, except the point of
origin).
The famed GPS mentioned here, itself, violates the equivalence principle, as
it was originally formulated - the clocks on all satellites should run
identically, irrespective of altitude.
As is well known from history of science, any weird theory with good
experimental feedback can yield excellent results, until a situation comes
along, where such feedback fails - with relativity, such a situation already
exists.
And there's, at least, undeniable absolute rotation wrt stars.
The whole affair is not a scientific, but a psychic, issue. The same with
religion, which now goes through a period of revival, despite the fact that
most of its stories have for centuries been known as false - in fact, even
the creationalists have some sound scientists in their ranks
Louis Savain
c...@totcon.com wrote:
> Absolutely pathetic! Forgive the pun Louis. I can't believe how many
> people have read this post and responded incorrectly.
I can and I expected it. We're dealing with well programmed droids
here.
> I happen to
> believe your main thought...."the only motion that exist in nature is
> absolute."
There is no doubt about it. All that relative crap is just that,
crap. Nature does not give shit about it unless particles are
psychic. And wouldn't you know it? That's exactly what the relative
voodoo mongers are claiming.
> Although I can't deny that "accepted interpretations" of
> "most" of the "relevant experiments" support SR and GR, IMHO the
> interpretations of the data could be in error.
It is certainly in error. The math is correct. It's the
interpreters that need to go to school and learn some logic.
> I would have to go one
> step further than you did in this post and state that 'time' is also
> an absolute with the noted exception that we do not yet have a 'clock'
> that 'keeps' absolute time.
The rule is simple: if it exists it is absolute. Although I believe
that time is but an abstract evolution parameter, if it is based on
real motion it is absolute. The time that we measure with our clocks
is not absolute time but is derived from the intrinsic motion of the
clock. This motion varies.
> "The lack of reason is overcome by the passion of belief"
This fits the religious dogma of the exclusive relativists so well
because they sure seem to have an unreasonable passion for irrational
crap.
Louis Savain
Louis Savain
Jackie & Barry <ja...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Louis Savain wrote:
>
> > Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no
> > such thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is
> > relative. One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it
> > posits a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is
> > relative to everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative
> > to itself.
>
Well after the reception I got from the usual morons, this sure is a
relief.
> but I also believe that there is
> absolute motion.
At this point it is no longer a matter of belief. That the only
possible form of motion that can exist is absolute motion, is
unassailable. Same goes for position. It bears repeating over and
over, THE RELATIVE IS ABSTRACT, IN THE MIND, AND DOES NOT EXIST.
> > The above is just one of the *many* solid refutations of exclusive
> > relativity. It is such an ingrained and chronic form of crackpottery
> > that it borders on the pathological. The attack on the absolute is
> > so absurd and so easily proven false that lately I've entertained
> > the suspicion that it may not be a mere oversight on the part of
> > some of the powers that control the dissemination of knowledge.
> > What is it about the knowledge of the absolute that should warrant
> > such a relentless, century-old campaign to suppress its acceptance.
>
> There's no organized campaign, it's just human nature to stay where
> we're comfortable, snug, smug and warm.
You may have a point. But I think that a few human beings are
smarter than you give them credit for. Exclusive relativity is so easy
to demolish a child can figure it out. Why can't the physics
intelligentsia figure it out? Could it be self-preservation or just
plain cowardice that prevent them from speaking their minds? Besides,
Sir Isaac Newton explained the necessity for the absolute very well IMO
and that was centuries ago. The know-it-alls dismissed his arguments
and the moronic masses swallowed it hook line and sinker. Most will
never see it.
> > Admittedly this is a paranoid thought but it arose from my
> > inability to understand how some of the most intelligent people on
> > earth [Nobel laureates no less] can subscribe to such blatant
> > falsehoods and cause countless others to do the same.
>
> There are many different parameters to intelligence.
>
> Those who win the Nobel Prize for Peace aren't necessarily the most
> peaceful - I can think of at least one terrorist leader.
>
> Those who win the Nobel Prize for Physics aren't necessarily getting
> it for displaying the most overall intelligence - sometimes its just a
> combination, of dogged persistence in a chosen field and of that field
> being in fashion.
>
> One kind of intelligence is mimicry. It can take you a long way. It
> might even get someone a Nobel Prize, but it won't advance his
> understanding very much.
>
> University education is 90% mimicry. It's a useful, but ultimately a
> sad kind of intelligence.
Well I agree and you've given me a few things to ponder.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>
>
>Louis Savain wrote:
>>
>> [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
>> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>>
>> Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
>> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
>> One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
>> a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
>> everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
>> The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
>> been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
>> years.
>
>[snip]
>
>The Global Positioning Satellite System works to astonishing accuracy
>(military version), and it is relativistically corrected nine ways
>from Sunday Special and General. If you say relativity doesn't work
>you are empirically wrong. The worst relativity can be is incomplete,
>like Newton's work.
The GPS system is based on absolute time. The ECI coordinate second (a
defined absolute second) is used to set all the coordinate seconds on
the earth stations and the satellite locations. This procedure gives
all the earth stations' coordinate seconds to have the same tick count
as the ordinary clock second. In other words, a coordinate second on
all the earth stations have 9,192,631,770 ticks of Cs 133 atom--the
same value for a clock second. However, in the various satellite
locations a coordinate second has different tick value in different
locations.
Ken Seto
Paul Lutus
> been preaching for I don't know how long that things stay in motion for
> absoluely no reason at all, like voodoo or something. Of course
> nothing could be more at odds with logic.
What would be at odds with logic would be objects that changed their state
of motion with no cause. If we keep this up for a few weeks, we will
re-invent Newtonian physics. But what would be the point? It is your prose
that lacks logic, not physics.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bs4kl$rgt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ken H. Seto
<louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38E11E3D...@louisville.edu>,
>"J. Scott Miller" <Scott....@louisville.edu> wrote:
>> Louis Savain wrote:
> You are a knee-jerk idiot Miller and I expected knee-jerk reactions
>from your kind. I said nothing against SR and GR in my post. I was
>attacking people like you (most physicists) who maintain against all
>logic that there is no absolute motion and that the only motion that
>exists is relative. I claim that the exact opposite is the truth:
>there is no relative motion in nature. Relative motion is 100%
>abstract and physically non-existent. Only absolute motion/position is
>physical.
In a non-distorted space environment (undistorted aether) relative
motion between any two objects is the difference in their absolute
motions.
A real life example for this is as follows:
Joe is driving down a straight highway (undistorted aether or
flat space-time) at a constant speed of 60 mph (his absolute motion).
He sees other cars are also traveling in the straight highway at
different speeds relative to him. This means that with his one
absolute motion he is able to see an infinite number of relative
motions. Also, it means that all the observed relative motions are not
real motions relative to the highway. In this environment, the
relative motion between any two cars is constant and is equal to the
difference of their absolute motions. Similarly, in an undistorted
aether environment, the relative motion between any two bodies is
constant and is equal to the difference of their absolute motions in
the aether. This relationship between relative motions and absolute
motions explains why the STR equations that are based on relative
motions are valid in an undistorted aether environment.
Ken Seto
Louis Savain
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> Louis Savain wrote:
>
> > Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no
> > such thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is
> > relative.
>
The existence of absolute motion is not something that needs to
be "granted" for argument's sake. There is absolutely no doubt
whatsoever that it's the only type of motion that can physically
exist. If you doubt it, you are either a chicken shit establishment
lackey or you are just stupid.
> Can
> you suggest a way of measuring it so it can be used for something?
> A quantity which cannot be measured in principle, might just as well
> not exist?
I personally do not need to measure absolute motion. Particles do
however, because they have no other option. It is about time that
physicists pull their heads out of their collective asses and realize
that the universe does not revolve around the observer. We must use
thought experiments and put ourselves in the place of a particle in
motion and ask ourselves the following questions: How does the
particle move and how does it maintain its position if it has no access
to its motion relative to anything else?
The answer is that the only properties that a particle has access to
are its own intrinsic properties. By virtue of being intrinsic, these
properties are also absolute. What we measure are extrinsic quantities
that are ultimately dependent on absolute properties. That is the
reason why measurements are consistent: they have a unifying absolute
underpinning.
> So is absolute motion in principle unmeasurable or is the the case
> that no one has figured out how to do it?
Who cares what anyone can or cannot measure? You think particles in
nature gives a hoot about observers and their measurements? All I need
in order to understand nature is to understand what nature cares
about. I want to understand physics from nature's point of view, not
from an observer's point of view and especially not from some chicken
shit physicist who thinks he is the sole legitimate giver of knwledge
on planet earth.
We have deductive powers that we can use to extrapolate new knowledge
from our observations. There is no point in sitting there like a damn
stupid fool whining about what we cannot measure. It is about time we
change our approach to physics from an observer-centric approach to a
particle-centric approach. The observer-centric approach is just
stupid. All it can do is give us a few predictive capabilities but it
cannot give us causal explanations. Once we remove our relative
blinders we will be able to see a world of awesome possibilities that
were heretofore fordidden.
Now I don't expect this to happen from within the physics community.
They are too damn stuck up and they have their chicken shit reputations
to worry about. It's a good thing that the world is full of smart
people who are not a bunch of chicken shit physicists doing chicken
shit physics. They can figure it out on their own as I have. From
that moment on nothing will stand in their way and we will finally have
an explanation for gravity, an explanation that can only come by
accepting the absolute. All that the stupid concept of exclusive
relativity did is put the brakes on further progress in our
understanding of gravity and countless other things.
> In particular, how does one measure absolute unaccelerated motion?
All measured abstract relative velocities depend on the absolute
motion of the particles. The relative makes no sense without the
absolute. Saying that the relative exists but the absolute does not is
like saying that left exists without right or up without down. It's
stupid.
>Irrelevant experiment deleted]
Louis Savain
dani...@webtv.net (Daniel Weston) wrote:
>
> To Louis Savain:
>
> I come from another profession completely
> and I am not a card carrying member of any branch of science.
Good for you. I can't stand those know-it-alls. Their insufferable
pomposity is revolting to my sensibilities.
> I therefore ask these following questions with an unsullied spirit and
> unossified mind.
>
> 1) Would you please give us a definition of absolute motion.
Absolute motion is a change in absolute position.
> 2) Would you please give us your best example of absolute motion.
Everything that moves is in absolute motion. If you observe
something to move, either it is moving absolutely, or you are moving
absolutely or both are moving absolutely. You can only measure the
vector difference of the absolute motions within the system. Of course
your measurements can always be skewed by factors other than the actual
absolute motions involved.
> 3) Would you please give us a brief description of how absolute motion
> is evidenced.
See above. Also see my other arguments regarding the illogical
nature of exclusive relativity. Once you accept that then you are
forced to accept that relative motion is abstract and non-existent. If
you can't accept my original refutation then we are wasting each
other's time.
BTW, when you observe an object motion, what you are really doing is
detecting photons on your retina. These are the only physical things
you observe. You are not observing an actual physical motion of the
object in question. It took photons to be reflected by the object to
travel a certain distance before impinging upon your retina. You
interpret the changes as relative motion. But all the processes
involved are absolute.
Louis Savain
-Relative motion is extrinsic and abstract to particles.
Cyberia
news:8bs4kl$rgt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<assorted snippage for brevity>
>You just touched upon another aspect of nature that
> the con establisnment has succeeded in obfuscating to death, the need
> for every effect to have a cause.
Uh oh, don't get religious on me. :-> Next you'll be telling me about the
uncaused first cause.
> The establishment con artists have
> been preaching for I don't know how long that things stay in motion for
> absoluely no reason at all, like voodoo or something.
Weren't you just extolling the virtues of Mr. Newton in another post -
"Newton tried his best to explain the necessity of the absolute to others
but it went over the heads of modern physicists who thought they knew
better."
Yet now you totally reject his "first law of motion" - An object at rest
tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with
the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced
force."
...and how many "modern physicists" were tutored by Mr. Newton anyway ?
Perhaps their extreme youth at the time was reason enough for his ideas to
have "gone over their head" ? No, wait, they can't exactly be "modern" now,
can they ? They're all dead too. :-) :-)
> Of course
> nothing could be more at odds with logic.
Of course. You're right, Newton was another establishment idiot. Why did you
invoke him ? :-)
> If absolute motion exists,
okay, it's your party...
> (and there is not a single doubt in my mind that it's the only type of
> motion that exists) then a change in position is an effect in need of a
> cause.
Would not the cause of "absolute motion" (a change in one's "absolute
position"), simply be "absolute velocity" ?
> What causes things to move?
In your example, my response would be "absolute force", but now you have
four proposed principles of "the absolute frame" for which to seek
supporting evidence, not just one. :-)
--
---------------
SeeYa !
--------------
Hello....... Is this thing on ?
Louis Savain
"Kevin Terrill" <k.m.t...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Louis,
> I'm sorry I missed all the fun earlier today, well yesterday. What
> would you measure your absolute velocity and position to. Where is
> 0,0,0,0. Where is the center of all motion and the beginning of time.
> Please advise, there are a few newsgroups here that are dying for
> that info. But let me ask you these simple questions, what is a
> meter?. Why is it as long as it is? What is a second? Why? What do
> you measure your absolute velocity against.
You are asking entirely wrong questions no doubt because you were
trained by the same idiots who taught me. What you should ask is
this: what does a particle measure? what motion does it have access
to? What position does it have access to? Does it have access to its
motion or position relative to another particle or some observer a
million miles away or some non-existent frame of reference?
If you can answer these questions, you are halfway there. Your
understanding will have taken a giant leap forward. You will no longer
have your head stuck so deep up your ass you have forgotten what fresh
air smells like. Like some of the pathetic morons who posted on this
thread.
> What is your reference? What are you measuring relative to? See
> the problem when looked at in the purest logical sense, says that it
> must be relative, even if there is a 0,0,0,0. All motion would be
> relative to that, 0,0,0,0. All motion is relative, one could pick any
> object as 0,0,0,0, and all objects would be moving relative to that.
> Even if you had a zero frame of reference, all motion would be
> relative to that. Any body in motion has to be moving relative to
> something, otherwise it isn't moving.
If you truly understood the absolute you would know that it has
nothing to do with frames of reference. The absolute is intrinsic to
particles and independent of the extrinsic. If a particle moves
absolutely, its intrinsic position just changes by an absolute discrete
amount. I fail to see what that has to do with an extrinsic frames of
human creation. Frames are for observers, not for particles. Are you
trying to understand nature or are you trying to understand observers?
Louis Savain
David Evens
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:50:13 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
>wrote:
>>Louis Savain wrote:
>>>
>>> [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
>>> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>>>
>>> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
>>> a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
>>> everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
>>> The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
>>> been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
>>> years.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>The Global Positioning Satellite System works to astonishing accuracy
>>(military version), and it is relativistically corrected nine ways
>>from Sunday Special and General. If you say relativity doesn't work
>>you are empirically wrong. The worst relativity can be is incomplete,
>>like Newton's work.
>
>The GPS system is based on absolute time.
The total abscence of Absolute Time from the system doesn't bother youl, then.
>The ECI coordinate second (a
>defined absolute second)
That is to say, something totally unrelated to an absolute second, which would
have to be a second measured in some physicallty prefered frame.
>is used to set all the coordinate seconds on
>the earth stations and the satellite locations. This procedure gives
>all the earth stations' coordinate seconds to have the same tick count
>as the ordinary clock second. In other words, a coordinate second on
>all the earth stations have 9,192,631,770 ticks of Cs 133 atom--the
>same value for a clock second. However, in the various satellite
>locations a coordinate second has different tick value in different
>locations.
And, of course, the total lack of similarity of this claim to what actually
happens in the GOPS system doesn't bother you in the slightest, as does your
claims about absolute time not relating in any way to absolute time.
David Evens
>>>
>>> [Two slightly different versions of this article were rejected by
>>> sci.physics.research, a group moderated by establishment physicists]
>>>
>>> Physicists believe and teach others to believe that there are no such
>>> thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is relative.
>>> One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
>>> a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
>>> everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself.
>>> The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it has
>>> been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a hundred
>>> years.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>The Global Positioning Satellite System works to astonishing accuracy
>>(military version), and it is relativistically corrected nine ways
>>from Sunday Special and General. If you say relativity doesn't work
>>you are empirically wrong. The worst relativity can be is incomplete,
>>like Newton's work.
>>
>>Uncle Al
>>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>>http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
>>http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
>> (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>>"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>
>Faith, as opposed to reason, is required to uphold a theory, which explains
>a measurable quantity (the difference of optical paths of CW & CCW rays in
>the Sagnac effect) as a difference of unmeasurable quantities (the paths
>themselves, or their disparity anywhere along the rim, except the point of
>origin).
>The famed GPS mentioned here, itself, violates the equivalence principle, as
>it was originally formulated - the clocks on all satellites should run
>identically, irrespective of altitude.
Of course, that would be SR, which OBVIOULSY doesn't apply at the limits of
measurement accuracy over many hundreds of miles of altitude differences. GR
doesn't have the SLIGHTEST problem predicting the results correctly. If it
did, then the system wouldn't work to within 4 orders of magnitude as well as
it does.
> As is well known from history of science, any weird theory with good
>experimental feedback can yield excellent results, until a situation comes
>along, where such feedback fails - with relativity, such a situation already
>exists.
What are you halucinating now?
>And there's, at least, undeniable absolute rotation wrt stars.
And the absolute nature of ACCELERATION causes what problem that you have
assumed?
>The whole affair is not a scientific, but a psychic, issue. The same with
>religion, which now goes through a period of revival, despite the fact that
>most of its stories have for centuries been known as false - in fact, even
>the creationalists have some sound scientists in their ranks
Actually, I've only heard of one serious scientist amoung Creationists (I saw a
person who was claimed to be a great geologist on a series of tapes he had made
and was selling commercially in which he pretended to falsify all of geology,
but he was clearly a fraud and not a terribly clever one at that, although I
suppose that the tapes seemed perfectly plausible to your standard-issue
Creationist's total ignorance), but he was supposed to be in weapons research
at Los Alamos, and didn't really have any meaningful training or knowledge on
any relevant subject.
James Hunter
Louis Savain wrote:
Since nature is artificial, we are mostly all trying to understand the
relationship
between nature, observers and goobermath, and most of all:
why does "nature" seem to love vacuums.
Charles Francis
<louis_...@my-deja.com>
>I did not abandon anything and I staunchly defend my ideas. I
>haven't seen a single refutation yet against my argument that absolute
>motion is the only motion that exists.
This is because you have yet to produce such an argument, or even to
define what absolute motion is.
--
Regards
Charles Francis
Charles Francis
<louis_...@my-deja.com>
> Absolute motion is a change in absolute position.
and what is absolute position?
C.J. Luke
>Louis,
> I'm sorry I missed all the fun earlier today, well yesterday. What would
>you measure your absolute velocity and position to. Where is 0,0,0,0.
>Where is the center of all motion and the beginning of time. Please advise,
>there are a few newsgroups here that are dying for that info. But let me
>ask you these simple questions, what is a meter?. Why is it as long as it
>is? What is a second? Why? What do you measure your absolute velocity
>against. What is your reference? What are you measuring relative to? See
>the problem when looked at in the purest logical sense, says that it must be
>relative, even if there is a 0,0,0,0. All motion would be relative to that,
>0,0,0,0. All motion is relative, one could pick any object as 0,0,0,0, and
>all objects would be moving relative to that. Even if you had a zero frame
>of reference, all motion would be relative to that. Any body in motion has
>to be moving relative to something, otherwise it isn't moving.
Kevin,
You should ask yourself some of these same questions. Once upon a
time...'straight' was defined as the shortest distance between two
points...distance was a 'physical' measure (we actually had a 'meter
stick' that was our physical standard...time was considered to be the
'same' for all and we understood that our clocks were imperfect.
Now...the meter is no longer a 'physical' measure...it is instead a
result of the calculation of how 'far a object would travel in a
"fraction of a second" if it were traveling at the "defined constant"
called the "speed of light". Oh yes...that clock has to be the 'local
clock' which is never in sync with any other clock that is seperated
from it and that old 'straight line' isn't necessarily 'straight any
more.
Actually, SR is brilliant. It offers us a set of measurment
procedures and definitions that allows us to make 'relative measures
and comparisons' and agree on the results without ever knowing the
reason why. Much like the way 'new math' was taught. This is an
acceptable approach for engineers (I do respect engineers) but an
engineer needs only a formula a constant or two and some physical
measures to determine how 'big' an Ibeam needs to be to carry a given
load for a given span. He does not need to understand what holds that
IBeam together at the 'atomic/sub-atomic' level. Physicist should.
If you read what Louis is actually saying, you will learn that he does
NOT call SR and GR crackpotery, he calls the 'denial' of the absolute
crackpottery. Many beleive that if you can't measure 'it' then 'it'
isn't important. That just isn't so. There are 'PHYSICAL CAUSES' in
our physical universe and it is the RESPONSIBILITY of PHYSICS to
UNDERSTAND the nature of these physical causes. We are now plagued
with a group of MATHMATICIANS that are pretending to be PHYSICISTS.
They are quite content in being able to work their math, arrive at
'answers' and discuss the 'causal nature' in terms of Minkowski Space
Time and World Lines and Time Like and Space Like and such.....
"The lack of reason is overcome by the passion of belief"
< c...@totcon.com >
James Hunter
"C.J. Luke" wrote:
Since you apparently know nothing about engineering, why
are you publishing these goober helpful hints?
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <38e19d01$0$13...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:50:13 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
>>wrote:
As usual, devens, the runt of the SR experts don't know what he is
talking about.
Ken Seto
IndoMondo
<louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>You can only measure the
>vector difference of the absolute motions within the system.
Sounds relative to me.
Sean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IndoMondo: Astronomy for the rest of us http://www.indomondo.com/
IndoMondo
<louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>From
>that moment on nothing will stand in their way and we will finally have
>an explanation for gravity, an explanation that can only come by
>accepting the absolute.
I thought we had an explanation for gravity: massive objects warping
spacetime. No?
IndoMondo
>I personally do not need to measure absolute motion.
>Who cares what anyone can or cannot measure?
I don't know enough about "exclusive relativity" to respond
intelligently to your arguments but, to an outsider, so far, not only
are they unconvincing but it looks like your reasoning is circular:
Things are the way they are because that's how I say they are.
I can't speak for anyone else but, for me, you need to back your
argument up with something more than opinions.
You need to produce something that allows the rest of us to make
accurate predictions about how the universe behaves. Apart from just
saying so, you've yet to produce anything that DEMONSTRATES realative
motion is anything but the best working hypothesis we have.
Again, I don't know enough about it but, so far, you ain't convinving
me. You've said that physicists recoil from your argument but I suspect
they're probably just recoiling from your aggression and abuse.
Yes, I know I can stick it up my ass. I'd be glad to if you'll do the
same with that big chip on your shoulder.
Or you could just get down to demonstrating instead of lecturing....
Ken H. Seto
Weston) wrote:
>
>To Louis Savain:
>
>I come from another profession completely
>and I am not a card carrying member of any branch of science.
>
>I therefore ask these following questions with an unsullied spirit and
>unossified mind.
>
>1) Would you please give us a definition of absolute motion.
Absolute motion is that motion of an object relative to a stationary
light conducting medium.
>
>2) Would you please give us your best example of absolute motion.
If you drive down a straight highway (stationary aether) at 60 mph
(your absolute motion) you see other cars are traveling relative to
you at different speeds. This means that with your one absolute motion
(60 mph) you can see an infinite number of relative motions.
>
>3) Would you please give us a brief description of how absolute motion
>is evidenced.
See above. Also please visit my website
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>. In this site I gave a
description of my recently published book entitled "The Physics of
Absolute Motion"
Ken Seto
Joe Fischer
: > > such thing as absolute motion and position and that all motion is
: > > relative.
: > Let it be granted that there is such a thing as absolute motion.
:
: The existence of absolute motion is not something that needs to
: be "granted" for argument's sake.
It either needs to be granted (agreed on by participants
in a discussion), or defined in a presentation, until such time
as the concept can stand on it's own merit.
: There is absolutely no doubt
: whatsoever that it's the only type of motion that can physically
: exist.
Are you saying "moving is moving"? Does a stupid
statement like "At rest if not moving" accompany your vague
statements? At rest relative to what?
: > Can
: > you suggest a way of measuring it so it can be used for something?
: > A quantity which cannot be measured in principle, might just as well
: > not exist?
:
: I personally do not need to measure absolute motion. Particles do
: however, because they have no other option.
Why, how many statements can you make without any
supporting information?
: It is about time that physicists realize
: that the universe does not revolve around the observer.
This may be true in some cases, but not all. Special
relativity helps the observer to take his observations and
calculate Newtonian energy problems with rational results
that will be agreed on by all observers.
It is easy to use thought experiments without an
observer, but applied physics is done by observation and
experiment. Don't try to lump everything into simplistic
thought experiments.
: We must use
: thought experiments and put ourselves in the place of a particle in
: motion and ask ourselves the following questions: How does the
: particle move and how does it maintain its position if it has no access
: to its motion relative to anything else?
It sure doesn't need to communicate, and it doesn't
need any medium or external "forces" acting. If you are
selling such nonsense, take it to a soapbox in the park.
: The answer is that the only properties that a particle has access to
: are its own intrinsic properties. By virtue of being intrinsic, these
: properties are also absolute.
Nonsense, mass is intrinsic and invariant, yet kinetic
energy is frame dependent, if you don't understand this, ask
questions until you get a satisfactory answer.
: What we measure are extrinsic quantities
: that are ultimately dependent on absolute properties. That is the
: reason why measurements are consistent: they have a unifying absolute
: underpinning.
With no connection other than kinematics until contact
interactions occur. Kinetic energy is meaningless when the
two objects are moving away from each other.
: > So is absolute motion in principle unmeasurable or is the the case
: > that no one has figured out how to do it?
:
: Who cares what anyone can or cannot measure?
Every working physicist, chemist, geologist, and all
workers in any of the physical sciences.
: You think particles in
: nature gives a hoot about observers and their measurements? All I need
: in order to understand nature is to understand what nature cares
: about. I want to understand physics from nature's point of view, not
: from an observer's point of view [snip].
Then understand it and write a monograph, disrupting
discussions of relative motion is not helpful to anyone.
: We have deductive powers that we can use to extrapolate new knowledge
: from our observations. There is no point in sitting there like a damn
: stupid fool whining about what we cannot measure. It is about time we
: change our approach to physics from an observer-centric approach to a
: particle-centric approach. The observer-centric approach is just
: stupid. All it can do is give us a few predictive capabilities but it
: cannot give us causal explanations. Once we remove our relative
: blinders we will be able to see a world of awesome possibilities that
: were heretofore fordidden.
Have you seen this world? :-)
: Now I don't expect this to happen from within the physics community.
:[snip]
It seems obvious you expect it to come from a spirit
medium. It is unfortunate that the few good things you say
are lost in your gutter language.
: All measured abstract relative velocities depend on the absolute
: motion of the particles. The relative makes no sense without the
: absolute. Saying that the relative exists but the absolute does not is
: like saying that left exists without right or up without down. It's
: stupid.
: Louis Savain
Write a book, and enlighten the world. :-)
Joe Fischer
--
3
3
Dwhig265
> If you truly understood the absolute you would know that it has
>nothing to do with frames of reference. The absolute is intrinsic to
>particles and independent of the extrinsic. If a particle moves
>absolutely, its intrinsic position just changes by an absolute discrete
>amount.
yourself something. What you've said reminds me of establishment types
explaining the expansion of the universe with the dots on an inflating balloon
analogy. Gobbledegook!
>human creation. Frames are for observers, not for particles.
>
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>[ with regard to an ether ... ]
>
>> Again, some do. Some say it doesn't exist. Some think it does, and
>> articles about aether theories are regularly published in journals like
>> _Foundations of Physics_. There are lots of physicists that collectively
>> hold lots of different opinions. And that, of course, is a good thing.
>
>Well, of course I agree, but the point is, no matter how people come down in
>opinions on the subject, it cannot be detected. Therefore theories about an
>ether cannot be falsified. Therefore they are not, strictly speaking,
>scientific. Like the nature of gravitons, they are speculations at the
>fringe of physics. Interesting, worthwhile, but not a direct subject of
>study.
Absolute motion is detectable.
Please look up my website for a description of a modified Compton
experiment that guarantees the detection of the aether frame. It is
under the section "Proposed New Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion"
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>.
Equation (12) should be corrected as follows:
Pd=Pm*[Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]*[1-cos(theta)]..............(12)
Equation (13) should be corrected as follows:
v=c*[Sqrt(Pm^2-Pd^2/Pm^2)]*[1-cos(theta)] ...........(13)
v = absolute motion
Ken Seto
Jim Carr
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> writes:
}
} In article <8brg7h$mmv$1...@news.fsu.edu>,
} j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
} >
} > ... note appropriate followups ...
}
} You can kiss my ass with your followups Carr.
I am sorry if good sense offends you.
}This discussion is
}relevant to all aspects of physics because it deals with something
}fundamental.
Your comments dealt with no physics at all. You even admitted
it was just a troll of the s.p.research moderators. QED.
}I'm fed up with your chicken shit attempts at censorship.
I'm fed up with noise pollution from inappropriate cross-posts
from people who think "you can kiss my ass" is a sound piece
of mathematical physics.
You need to learn what "censorship" means and read the advice
to new users on Usenet.
}If you don't like what's being said here, use your kill
}file. Don't try to bottle it within sci.physics.relativty.
My kill file is specific to particular newsgroups.
<... snip off-topic discussion with no physics content ...>
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Louis Savain
Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8bri4r$7ka$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, thus spake Louis Savain
> <louis_...@my-deja.com>
> >I did not abandon anything and I staunchly defend my ideas. I
> >haven't seen a single refutation yet against my argument that
> >absolute motion is the only motion that exists.
>
> This is because you have yet to produce such an argument, or even to
> define what absolute motion is.
It was in the first post that started the thread. Here it is agin:
1. "One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself."
Now all you have to do is refute it or shut up.
2. Another argument that I gave in this thread goes something like
this. No particle in nature has access to its motion/position relative
to anything else in the universe unless it's psychic. So how does it
maintain its position or motion?
2. Still another one. A force needs to change something in order to
accelerate a body. Which of the infinite number of relative motions
does it change and how does it "know" about them in order to change
them?
3. All properties are intrinsic to particles. By virtue of being
intrinsic, that makes them absolute. Whether or not we can measure
them is besides the point.
As I said in another post, all that I've seen so far from you yahoos
is "see how big my dick is". Refute my arguments or fuck off. And
please spare me with the half-witted self-delusory crap about not being
able to measure absolute motion, etc., etc...
Paul Lutus
And I am the first to hear of this breakthrough? Come on.
When you publish the details of your absolute velocity detector, the one
that circumvents a well-established cornerstone of relativity, post again.
And be charitable toward the Air Force, who wasted all that money on the GPS
system to acquire a weak imitation of this very measurement.
You need to distinguish between statements such as an unqualified "absolute
motion is detectable" and the more accurate if less dramatic, "If my theory
were correct, this experiment would in principle yield the following
result...". Clearly no such repeatable result exists.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Ken H. Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:38e21f32$0$13...@news.voyager.net...
Louis Savain
dwhi...@aol.com (Dwhig265) wrote:
> Louis Savain wrote:
> > If you truly understood the absolute you would know that it has
> >nothing to do with frames of reference. The absolute is intrinsic to
> >particles and independent of the extrinsic. If a particle moves
> >absolutely, its intrinsic position just changes by an absolute
> discrete amount.
> If you can explain the above so someone else can understand it, you
> may have yourself something.
It means that all properties in nature are intrinsic to particles
because particles are all there is. An intrinsic property is by force
absolute. Why? because the definition of the absolute is that which
is not dependent on (relative to) anything. An intrinsic property is
one of those things. The relative is not intrinsic but extrinsic to
particles. Particles could not give a rat's ass about the relative.
If nature has no use for the relative and could not possibly use it,
then a true understanding of nature can only come from acknowledging
the absolute.
Louis Savain
IndoMondo <se...@indomondospambasher.com> wrote:
> In article <8bs97b$gc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
> <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >that moment on nothing will stand in their way and we will finally
> >have an explanation for gravity, an explanation that can only come by
> >accepting the absolute.
>
> I thought we had an explanation for gravity: massive objects warping
> spacetime. No?
That's what the con establishment would have you believe and they
never stop anyone from asserting what you just said even though it's a
lie. Spacetime is a ficitious abstract construct invented by
mathematicians. Here's a little known fact: nothing can move in
spacetime.
Louis Savain
j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> In article <8brllh$bf3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> writes:
> }
> } In article <8brg7h$mmv$1...@news.fsu.edu>,
> } j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> } >
> } > ... note appropriate followups ...
> }
> } You can kiss my ass with your followups Carr.
>
> I am sorry if good sense offends you.
Fuck off Carr!
Louis Savain
IndoMondo <se...@indomondospambasher.com> wrote:
> Yes, I know I can stick it up my ass.
Exactly.
Louis Savain
IndoMondo <se...@indomondospambasher.com> wrote:
> In article <8bsb31$2b4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
> <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >You can only measure the
> >vector difference of the absolute motions within the system.
>
> Sounds relative to me.
And I said otherwise?
Louis Savain
-Where do these pathetic monkeys come from?
Gregory L. Hansen
Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
>[ with regard to an ether ... ]
>
>> Again, some do. Some say it doesn't exist. Some think it does, and
>> articles about aether theories are regularly published in journals like
>> _Foundations of Physics_. There are lots of physicists that collectively
>> hold lots of different opinions. And that, of course, is a good thing.
>
>Well, of course I agree, but the point is, no matter how people come down in
>opinions on the subject, it cannot be detected. Therefore theories about an
>ether cannot be falsified. Therefore they are not, strictly speaking,
>scientific. Like the nature of gravitons, they are speculations at the
>fringe of physics. Interesting, worthwhile, but not a direct subject of
>study.
There are some contenders to general relativity, and I think some of them
are aether theories. But where their predictions differ, experiment has
not yet gone. And experiment has eliminated others of the competition.
--
"We aim to please. So you aim, too, please."
Jim Carr
... off-topic newsgroups and ad hominems snipped ...
In article <8brg7h$mmv$1...@news.fsu.edu>,
j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
|
| ... note appropriate followups ...
|
|
| } > The absurdity of exclusive relativity boggles the mind and yet it
| } > has been a religious dogma in the physics community for over a
| } > hundred years.
|
| In article <8br9qm$u50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
| Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> writes:
| >
| >I did not say that the theory of relativity is wrong.
|
| You implied that it was absurd when you implied that "exclusive
| relativity" was what is taught in physics classes,
In article <8brllh$bf3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> Indeed that is what is taught ...
If you define "exclusive relativity" by "what is taught", then
it is the case that you are also talking about special relativity
even when it is not _asserted_ that "all motion is relative".
> ... even though I (and many others) have
>found nothing in the theory of relativity that proved or even asserted
>that there is no absolute motion. That is not to say that Einstein
>himself did not make that assertion elsewhere. It was wrong then and
>it is wrong now.
Your flat statement that certain things "are taught" is incorrect.
| just as you
| call teaching relativity "bogus" below.
> I do no such thing. Why the blatant lie Carr? I call teaching
>**exclusive relativty** bogus because it is.
You said that teaching that all motion is relative is bogus,
thereby implying that teaching a derivation that shows that
only relative motion has any physical meaning is bogus -- yet
this is a result that follows from the Lorentz Ether Theory
as well as SR, since both have the velocity addition formula
that leads immediately to the inability to use measurments to
determine a special inertial coordinate system.
Perhaps you were just constructing an elaborate troll by really
intending to mean that teaching that no physical laws require
absolute motion and that all we can measure is relative motion
was perfectly OK as well as derivations that show there is no
absolute velocity definition possible within relativity because
of velocity addition, but that just _asserting_ it is wrong.
Well, in the classes I took, results were derived, not asserted.
Your blanket assertion is non-science.
>There is a difference
>between teaching exclusive relativity and just teaching relativity.
>The former denies the existence of the absolute and the latter doesn't.
Maybe the problem is that you never learned what the Principle of
Relativity means in practice. You know, measurements -- what
physicists do when they do experiments and apply theories. Or
maybe you confuse what is taught in classes with what a random
mix of people write when arguing in sci.physics.relativity with
people who mostly talk about pop-sci strawmen.
| >I fully accept the mathematical and predictive correctness of
| >SR and GR. I am saying that the notion that all motion is relative
| >and that there is no absolute motion because the so-called "laws of
| >physics" do not require absolute motion, is bogus.
|
| So do you think it is wrong to teach something that gives correct
| answers just because you think some strawman version of it is
| bogus, despite not having any experimental basis for doing so,
> No, I think it's chicken shit at best and dishonest at worst to teach
>that SR does away with absolute motion.
Your total focus on SR is why the discussion belongs in this
newsgroup, but you might notice that Newton did away with
absolute motion in the Principia -- and this is what is taught
in most introductory physics classes. So you pursue a strawman
when you blame SR for doing more than extending that principle
to include electromagnetism and any other physical theory.
>It does no such thing because
>it's easy to show that relative motion is 100% abstract and that nature
>could not give a rat's ass about the relative.
What your post has shown is that the exact opposite is true: only
relative motion is physical and the concept of absolute motion is
completely abstract and metaphysical. Why? Because you presented
absolutely no physical arguments showing how to measure absolute
velocity in your article, just polemics.
| or are you just trolling?
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
Your misanalysis of the nature of my question is based on forgeting
that I gave you a choice. You took the choice that says it is
"chickenshit" to teach something that is not taught rather than say
if you think it is wrong to teach a physical theory that agrees with
experiment. Looks like a troll to me.
| It looks to me like the moderators made an accurate judgement,
| since you have given no physical reason for rejecting either
| relativity or the teaching of relativity.
> Your use of the phrase "physical reason" is telling.
Yes. I am a physicist, not a metaphysicist.
>Is physics exempt from logic that logical reasons can no
>longer be used in arguments against the crap that it spews forth to the
>unwary?
No, but you have not offered any logical arguments at all. Indeed,
your rhetorical question ignores, completely, the existence of a
large body of logical mathematical derivations in relativity.
<... snip more ad hominems ...>
>I feel sory for the students at FSU. They've been invaded by
>dishonest morons.
You libel the persons who teach relativity here without making
the sorts of claims you say they make in your strawman argument
you trolled past the moderators of sci.physics.research.
Paul Lutus
> because particles are all there is.
False premise, false conclusion. Saying "particles are all there is" leaves
out most properties of nature.
The remainder of your argument, like those that preceded it, is circular,
unscientific, metaphysical, and untestable.
> a true understanding of nature can only come from acknowledging
> the absolute.
This is not physics. It is religion.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8bt9eo$41s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Gregory L. Hansen
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8brmfk$b52$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>> In article <8br9qm$u50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>Hansen I remember you from way back when and I can't say that I was
>impressed with your grasp of things. Before I respond to your
Yeah, I tried not to get involved again. Talking with you can be a chore.
But oh, well.
>incoherent drivel let me first say that I gave a logical argument
>against exclusive relativity in my original post. I claim that this
>argument is unassailable and yet none of you have come up with a
>counter argument. Here it is again:
>
>"One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
>a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative to
>everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to itself."
I'm not even sure this argument says anything. Help me understand it.
What do you mean by "self-referential"? Is that the same as something
being relative to itself? And if so, isn't your conclusion stated as a
premise? By "relative", I assume you mean measured positions and
velocities.
And I think your argument is incomplete. You've gotten up to "Thus
everything is ultimately relative to itself." What's wrong with that?
The velocity of a particle with respect to itself is zero. Zero is a
perfectly good velocity.
Really, it looks to me that your argument can be reduced to "Exclusive
relativity says that everything is self-referential. Therefore everything
is self-referential."
And I can't disagree with that! The only thing I'd argue about is that
there's anything to argue about.
What next?
Gregory L. Hansen
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <rvnj9hAs...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
>Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>2. Another argument that I gave in this thread goes something like
Hey, you didn't give me these ones! I feel left out.
>this. No particle in nature has access to its motion/position relative
>to anything else in the universe unless it's psychic. So how does it
>maintain its position or motion?
Looks like you're assuming a particle must maintain its position and
motion with respect to something. But that seems to have an absolute
frame built into the assumptions, which makes that a non-argument.
What would happen if the particle didn't maintain its motion? Would it
drift to a stop? Drift to a stop relative to what? To some absolute
reference frame, I would assume. What would happen if the particle did
nothing to maintain its position? Would it roll down to the center of an
absolute reference frame?
All the particle needs to do is maintain zero velocity with respect to
itself, and stay zero distance away from itself. And that's easy. In
fact, in the absence of external forces, Noether's theorem says it's
inevitable.
>2. Still another one. A force needs to change something in order to
>accelerate a body. Which of the infinite number of relative motions
>does it change and how does it "know" about them in order to change
>them?
A particle runs into a field of force, and accelerates. The source of the
force doesn't have to know anything about it.
>3. All properties are intrinsic to particles. By virtue of being
>intrinsic, that makes them absolute. Whether or not we can measure
>them is besides the point.
Some properties are intrinsic to particles. Other properties are not.
The distance from one particle to another depends on the relationship
between those two particles. *Even with an absolute reference frame*, the
distance from one particle to another particle depends on the positions of
both particles. And even with an absolute reference frame, the velocity
of one particle with respect to another depends on the respective motions
of both particles. And, of course, we can only measure relative motions.
Like the speed of your car with respect to the ground, which your
speedometer measures.
Whether or not we can measure something is, in fact, the point. If we
can't measure it, there's just no reason to introduce it in physical
theories. If we can't measure it, there's no way to test it, and no way
to know if you're right. Theories in physics are relationships between
measurements.
When you start talking about something that cannot be measured and has no
influence on the mathematical form of theories, you're talking about
metaphysics, not physics.
> As I said in another post, all that I've seen so far from you yahoos
>is "see how big my dick is". Refute my arguments or fuck off. And
>please spare me with the half-witted self-delusory crap about not being
>able to measure absolute motion, etc., etc...
I think you misunderstand the nature and scope of physics. There are lots
of books that can help.
Jim Carr
... snip off-topic newsgroups ...
In article <8bru8h$2f9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
"Cyberia" <cyb...@gscyclone.com> wrote:
}
} "Louis Savain" <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
} news:8br9qm$u50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
} >
} <snip>
} >
} > If relative
} > motion is all there is and the particle has no access to the
} > infinite number of possible relative velocities out there, how does
} > the particle maintain its velocity?
}
} How does it maintain its velocity relative to *what* ? :->
}
} Sorry, I couldn't resist that.
In article <8bs4kl$rgt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> You're funny. :-D I wish some of the establishment morons who post
>on these newsgroups had a similar sense of humor.
I wish you had answered the implied question.
Louis Savain
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>[...]
> Really, it looks to me that your argument can be reduced to "Exclusive
> relativity says that everything is self-referential. Therefore
> everything is self-referential."
>
> And I can't disagree with that! The only thing I'd argue about is that
> there's anything to argue about.
I was right about you the first time. You are so fucking dense you
make uranium look like hydrogen. Anybody who is comfortable with self
reference have got be a trained moron. Now go kiss some chicken shit
establishment ass!
Louis Savain
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <rvnj9hAs...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
> >Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >2. Another argument that I gave in this thread goes something like
>
> Hey, you didn't give me these ones! I feel left out.
Fuck off Hansen. I can't deal with morons right now.
Louis Savain
j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>[sophistry deleted]
Didn't I tell you to fuck off Carr?
Gregory L. Hansen
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8btak0$i70$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>> Really, it looks to me that your argument can be reduced to "Exclusive
>> relativity says that everything is self-referential. Therefore
>> everything is self-referential."
>>
>> And I can't disagree with that! The only thing I'd argue about is that
>> there's anything to argue about.
>
> I was right about you the first time. You are so fucking dense you
>make uranium look like hydrogen. Anybody who is comfortable with self
>reference have got be a trained moron. Now go kiss some chicken shit
>establishment ass!
Well, I guess you've handily refuted my response and all the rest of my
dumb arguments in one fell swoop.
Good luck on your crusade.
IndoMondo
<louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>That's what the con establishment would have you believe
Why would they have me believe this?
>Here's a little known fact: nothing can move in spacetime.
Reading your posts makes my bowels move. I'd love to see a demonstration
of this so called fact that wasn't abstract or based in specious logic.
Louis Savain. Rings a bell, that name.
Louis Savain
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <8btak0$i70$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> >glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >
> >>[...]
> >> Really, it looks to me that your argument can be reduced
> >> to "Exclusive relativity says that everything is self-referential.
> >> Therefore everything is self-referential."
> >>
> >> And I can't disagree with that! The only thing I'd argue about is
> >> that there's anything to argue about.
> >
> > I was right about you the first time. You are so fucking dense you
> >make uranium look like hydrogen. Anybody who is comfortable with self
> >reference have got be a trained moron. Now go kiss some chicken shit
> >establishment ass!
>
> Well, I guess you've handily refuted my response and all the rest of
> my dumb arguments in one fell swoop.
You got it.
> Good luck on your crusade.
You know what you can do with your hypocritical blessing, don't you?
Louis Savain
IndoMondo <se...@indomondospambasher.com> wrote:
> In article <8bt9mc$4a9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
> <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >That's what the con establishment would have you believe
>
> Why would they have me believe this?
>
> >Here's a little known fact: nothing can move in spacetime.
>
> Reading your posts makes my bowels move.
I guess it's time to change your diapers.
> I'd love to see a demonstration
> of this so called fact that wasn't abstract or based in specious
> logic.
If you're too dense to figure it out on your own, don't expect me to
explain it to you.
> Louis Savain. Rings a bell, that name.
And what is that supposed to mean? You've got some special knwledge
about my person that I'm not privy to?
> IndoMondo: Astronomy for the rest of us http://www.indomondo.com/
For the rest of the morons?
Louis Savain
regn...@aol.com (Regnirps) wrote:
> Louis Savain louis_...@my-deja.com
> >dwhi...@aol.com (Dwhig265) wrote:
> >> Louis Savain wrote:
> >> > If you truly understood the absolute you would know that it has
> >> >nothing to do with frames of reference. The absolute is intrinsic
to
> >> >particles and independent of the extrinsic. If a particle moves
> >> >absolutely, its intrinsic position just changes by an absolute
> >> discrete amount.
> >
> >> If you can explain the above so someone else can understand it, you
> >> may have yourself something.
> >
> > It means that all properties in nature are intrinsic to particles
> >because particles are all there is. An intrinsic property is by force
> >absolute. Why? because the definition of the absolute is that which
> >is not dependent on (relative to) anything. An intrinsic property is
> >one of those things. The relative is not intrinsic but extrinsic to
> >particles. Particles could not give a rat's ass about the relative.
> >If nature has no use for the relative and could not possibly use it,
> >then a true understanding of nature can only come from acknowledging
> >the absolute.
>
Like I gave a rat's ass what you believe.
>[...]
IndoMondo
<louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Fuck off Hansen. I can't deal with morons right now.
Better get rid of any mirrors you have lying around.
If you actually had anything to say you'd just say it, develop your
point, help the world come to grips with your genius. Instead, you seem
to be a textbook example of someone who deals with his own problems by
claiming everyone else has them. No wonder self-reference is a thorn in
your loins.
Sean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Savain
regn...@aol.com (Regnirps) wrote:
> Louis Savain louis_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >1. "One of the problems with exclusive relativity is that it posits
> >a hopelessly self-referential universe where everything is relative
> >to everything else. Thus everything is ultimately relative to
> >itself."
>
>
> word "Thus". Unfortunately, "Thus" is not sufficient to brige the gap
> between "everything is relative to everything else" (meaning for a
> single thing, every thing BUT itself), and the conclusion "everything
> is ultimately relative to itself".
Let me ask you something Springer. Are you an establishment
physicist? You sure sound like it. This sort of dumb response usually
comes from a trained physicist not from a thinking person. It's so
stupid it does not deserve a rebuttal.
Greg Neill
> In article <svcE4.17988$Xk2....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
> "Greg Neill" <gne...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> > So, what you're saying is, you are wasting both your time and ours.
>
> If you think your time is being wasted put me in your kill file and
> fuck off. See if I give a shit.
>
> Louis Savain
Ah yes, personal attack; the last, desperate resort of the unskilled.
I would put you into my kill file immediately, but right now the
lambasting that you're receiving by all and sundry amuses me. Thanks
for being amusing.