For any terrorists: please bomb universities (at night).
josX
(don't kill people plz). Much obliged. (And no you stupid american
sekret survise, i don't fear you one friggin second morons.)
These people claim to spread reason and objective knowledge, but they
spread lies and mindcrap. They have had their chance to get it right,
and admit their error, to mend their ways. Force is now warranted, they
have started this by forcing lies on the people, they have gotten their
honest chance, from now on physicists are officially the enemy of humanity
and civilization.
Perhaps these bombings will shake them up from their mindcrap rehursals.
Probably not, but it will prevent them from spreading their mindcrap
from a stage.
Yes that also means you senseless mindless idiot students who accept
everything without evidence and accept everything on authority: you are
the enemy because you work for and become the enemy of tomorrow.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:amanrg$qlf$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
It would be nice to see a failed josX thread.
For instance, one that really stops with or immediately
after this one.
It almost happened before. Let's make it happen now.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
>
> For any terrorists: please bomb university-physics departments at night
> (don't kill people plz).
You think grad students aren't people?
The physics department of the University of Wisconsin was
bombed late one night in the 60s, killing a postdoc, wounding
three grad students, and putting the bombers on the FBI
most-wanted list.
Do not joke about bombs to Americans. You will find yourself
moving from annoying twit to object of hate very quickly.
- Randy
josX
Why do you think i go this far.
You are fast becoming my object of hate.
"I attach a reference point to a propagating lightfront"
Then i ask: what is the speed of light relative to this reference
point in the direction to which the lightfront is propagating.
-> "c" is the answer from the SRians, as if nothing is amiss.
I am sorry but this was too much for me to not get angry.
BTW, i have been requested many times to hang myself or to take
an overdose by your kind, considder it a returning of the favor.
--
jos
Richard Tobin
Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
>Do not joke about bombs to Americans. You will find yourself
>moving from annoying twit to object of hate very quickly.
Stupid though jos is, for Americans to think they are specially
privileged to find bombs unfunny just reflects their late arrival at
the party.
-- Richard
--
Spam filter: to mail me from a .com/.net site, put my surname in the headers.
FreeBSD rules!
Marco Nelissen
> For any terrorists: please bomb university-physics departments at night
> (don't kill people plz). Much obliged. (And no you stupid american
> sekret survise, i don't fear you one friggin second morons.)
Maybe you should fear the secret service in your own country then,
since what you just did is illegal in the Netherlands.
Of course, when your day in court comes, you will claim insanity:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aart90%24sdl%241%40news1.xs4all.nl
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:amate8$7o0$3...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >> For any terrorists: please bomb university-physics departments at night
> >> (don't kill people plz).
> >
> >You think grad students aren't people?
> >
> >The physics department of the University of Wisconsin was
> >bombed late one night in the 60s, killing a postdoc, wounding
> >three grad students, and putting the bombers on the FBI
> >most-wanted list.
> >
> >Do not joke about bombs to Americans. You will find yourself
> >moving from annoying twit to object of hate very quickly.
>
> Why do you think i go this far.
> You are fast becoming my object of hate.
>
> "I attach a reference point to a propagating lightfront"
> Then i ask: what is the speed of light relative to this reference
> point in the direction to which the lightfront is propagating.
> -> "c" is the answer from the SRians, as if nothing is amiss.
The answer "c" is wrong.
The answer should be that a propagating lightfront cannot be
a reference frame. It has no coordinates.
Someone told you that but you weren't paying attention.
If you have a problem, ask a question, be polite, listen to the
replies and stick to 1 thread in stead of puking in 85 buckets
at a time.
Now it's far too late. You lost all credit. Suits you Sir.
[ I know, I shouldn't have replied ]
Dirk Vdm
Marco Nelissen
Because you are utterly, utterly, insane, as proven by this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aart90%24sdl%241%40news1.xs4all.nl
Patrick Reany
Randy Poe wrote:
How do we know that JosX is just joking?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <3D88E70C...@atl.lmco.com>,
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >Do not joke about bombs to Americans. You will find yourself
> >moving from annoying twit to object of hate very quickly.
>
> Stupid though jos is, for Americans to think they are specially
> privileged to find bombs unfunny just reflects their late arrival at
> the party.
>
Richard, show us specifically where you based
your conclusion that "for Americans to think they
are specially privileged to find bombs unfunny" in
what Randy said.
Patrick
Robert Kolker
TutAmongUs@theholeintheground wrote:
> You are going to go to jail for this post, you MORON!
Josx is not a U.S. national and he does not reside in the U.S. I rather
doubt the the Netherland authorities take a nutcake like Josx seriously.
Even in the U.S. this is not jailable. We have the first amendment to
protect expression, even as vile as this. Unless the threat is specific,
it is not actionable.
Bob Kolker
Eric Gisse
<snip>
You ARE a fucking fundamentalist. You now advocate destruction of
centers of learning.
What you do not understand, you destroy. Utterly pathetic. You are
beyond reproach.
Go crawl into a corner and die.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vp5i9.122678$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
I would be nice, but it will not happen ;-)
Ah well, innocent entertainment.
I will not insist.
Dirk Vdm
josX
There you have it: "it is forbidden to attach a reference point to
a propagating lightfront in science".
--
jos
josX
>On 18 Sep 2002 20:31:44 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) Gave us:
>
>>For any terrorists: please bomb university-physics departments at night
>>(don't kill people plz). Much obliged. (And no you stupid american
>>sekret survise, i don't fear you one friggin second morons.)
>
>
>
>thrown in a county jail. Then, they'll convict yer lame ass.
>Then, you'll go to a pen or perhaps get to do your time in a county
>jail, but I doubt it. You most likely get some federal charges levied
>against you.
>
> It will sure be nice not seeing your bullshit in here anymore.
>
> Bye bye, lamer.
None of these things will happen because i don't live in an oppressive
extreme-right dictatorship which enjoys attacking a nation every so
many years, or a country which is known to be the apitomy of hypocracy
(USA).
In fact the most that could happen is a note like "please don't do that
again, thanks". Well, i am 100% positive that is'nt even going to happen...
You people know nothing about life in a democracy. And i am right, physics
departments should be taken down because of the lies they spread in the
name of objective-science, while wasting the very same money that you say
should be spent on sueing me. Why don't you realize that the lies of science
will attract the wrong people to physics, things will only get worse unless
you clean it up.
--
jos
josX
>On 18 Sep 2002 20:31:44 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>You ARE a fucking fundamentalist. You now advocate destruction of
>centers of learning.
"learning" ?
haha!
>What you do not understand, you destroy. Utterly pathetic. You are
>beyond reproach.
>Go crawl into a corner and die.
So, you can ask for my death on usenet, but i cannot ask for the destruction
of the stage you are abusing. Hypocritical?
End of this topic (more interested in physics).
--
jos
Mark Fergerson
>
> In article <3D88E70C...@atl.lmco.com>,
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >Do not joke about bombs to Americans. You will find yourself
> >moving from annoying twit to object of hate very quickly.
Well, he's apparently had enough of
mere derision and wants to upgrade.
> Stupid though jos is, for Americans to think they are specially
> privileged to find bombs unfunny just reflects their late arrival at
> the party.
"Late arrival at the party", indeed.
This country started with _your_ bombs,
because we dared object to British
tyranny. We've tasted adequate bombs
since then (some of them our own; ever
heard of our Civil War?).
Now, you've got a bunch of radical
Muslim immigrants who want to make
Britain a Muslim Theocracy. What will
you do when they bomb your Queen, Big
Ben, and something important like the
Monty Python archives?
You'll ask for _us_ to come rescue you
from their tyranny, that's what. Just
like the last two times (World Wars one
and two). I wonder if we'll bother this
time.
Mark L. Fergerson
island
The U.K will ask for U.S. protection from terrorists???... I don't think
so...
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:amc2jl$46t$4...@news1.xs4all.nl...
It is forbidden to attach a reference FRAME to a lightfront,
a reference FRAME from which measurements are made,
a reference FRAME that attaches coordinates to events,
a reference FRAME in which it is meaningful to talk about
distances and times, and thus of speeds, and thus of speed
of light.
So when you say:
| "I attach a reference point to a propagating lightfront",
then people should tell you that you can go ahead doing
that, but that SR does not tell *anything* about what you
might measure or see or calculate when you are *on*
that reference point. You cannot be *on* it because
you cannot reach the speed of light. So they should tell
you that your question
| What is the speed of light relative to this reference point
| in the direction to which the lightfront is propagating?
is meaningless and cannot be answered by SR.
If they answer "c" to this question, as if nothing is amiss,
then either
- they don't know what they are talking about, or
- they have not understood the question.
If you *would* understand SR, then either
- you would not have asked the question, or
- you would ask it as a trolling
Since you *did* ask the question, this means that either
- you don't know the very basics of SR
- you are trolling
Not knowing the very basics of something is nothing to
be ashamed of. Puking about it in 85 buckets at a time
is something to be ashamed of.
I know you are not interested in what I just wrote, so
never mind. Someone else might be interested.
Dirk Vdm
josX
See ?
They forbid certain thought's so they can keep relativity.
> to attach a reference FRAME to a lightfront,
>a reference FRAME from which measurements are made,
>a reference FRAME that attaches coordinates to events,
>a reference FRAME in which it is meaningful to talk about
>distances and times, and thus of speeds, and thus of speed
>of light.
Why is this forbidden Dirk ?
>So when you say:
> | "I attach a reference point to a propagating lightfront",
>then people should tell you that you can go ahead doing
>that, but that SR does not tell *anything* about what you
^^physics (SR is accepted science Dirk)
>might measure or see or calculate when you are *on*
>that reference point. You cannot be *on* it because
>you cannot reach the speed of light. So they should tell
>you that your question
> | What is the speed of light relative to this reference point
> | in the direction to which the lightfront is propagating?
>is meaningless and cannot be answered by SR.
Well, it is very meaningfull, and i attacha reference point to whatever
i like, a soundwavefront, a waterwavefront, or a lightwavefront, i
do whatever i want with my reference point.
>If they answer "c" to this question, as if nothing is amiss,
>then either
> - they don't know what they are talking about, or
Indeed.
> - they have not understood the question.
>
>If you *would* understand SR, then either
> - you would not have asked the question, or
> - you would ask it as a trolling
- you have not been enoughly fuzzminded to know how to obey
the relativists
>Since you *did* ask the question, this means that either
> - you don't know the very basics of SR
I do.
> - you are trolling
- asking more then legitimate questions that destroy SR
>Not knowing the very basics of something is nothing to
>be ashamed of. Puking about it in 85 buckets at a time
>is something to be ashamed of.
>
>I know you are not interested in what I just wrote, so
>never mind. Someone else might be interested.
I am very interested Dirk.
I think you and Patrick understand SR best, because you realize how
wrong it is (how anti objective knowledge), and that you must work
for it (kindof working for the devil in a sense, virtually speaking
the devil gave your kind relativity to boost your way to the top of
fame and fortune, now you must work for it and "evil" laughs because
it gets minds destroyed from good people around the globe, and corruption
reigns in physics while the good people can't get a foothold since there
is no rational basis to relativity).
--
jos
Spaceman
> You are going to go to jail for this post, you MORON!
Boy you are not too bright huh?
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>I *think* I know what you mean by this. Don't worry the fed filters
>will catch it, and his ass is grass after that.
<LOL>
when they read how it was stated,
they will not twist like you sad ass trolls twist.
and they will just ignore it.
(maybe put a little "watch check on it" if anything at all)
You really have no clue about reality huh?
<LOL>
Spaceman
>What you do not understand, you destroy.
No,
What we understand is wrong is corrupting people
and should be stopped.
Just like any "bad religion" ends up needing to be stopped.
Relativity is the "bad religion"
The clock God worshipping needs to be stopped.
It has gone on too long already.
The atomic clock is not a God,
relativity will fall like all false Gods have.
HA HA!
Spaceman
>Not knowing the very basics of something is nothing to
>be ashamed of. Puking about it in 85 buckets at a time
>is something to be ashamed of.
Doing such for almost 100 yrs based upon a clocks malfunction.
Is your puke you keep lapping up.
not ours.
Not knowing a clocks malfuntions is nothing to be ashamed
of, until you have been told to research it yet you don't.
you should be ashamed Dirk.
No clue about all clocks makes you not even
close enough to have the facts needed to know
where GR,SR, and QM are wrong.
fools will worship the clock fault.
smart people will question the jokes crap forever.
you lost..
long ago.
when clocks goofed up crosssing oceans.
You like to repeat history huh?
<LOL>
stuck in spacetime!
<LOL>
Bilge
Re: For any terrorists: please bomb universities (at night). to usenet:
Whose turn is it to spend the day in josX's television set taunting
him and making him bark against his will?
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:amcfut$4ac$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> I am very interested Dirk.
- Miss, do you like Fox Cheese?
Yes sir, I do like Fox Cheese.
- And you sister, does she like Fox cheese?
But sir, I do not have a sister.
- But... if you had a sister, would she like Fox Cheese?
[ Translated from a pre-WW2 Fox Cheese
radio ad, as remembered by my father. ]
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrnaojio...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
;-))
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
No, Richard's point was well-taken, because josX is
advocating that terrorists blow up physics departments
everywhere. My reaction came from my memory of the
U. of Wisconsin bomb and jos-loonies belief that
physics departments are empty at night.
- Randy
Richard Tobin
Mark Fergerson <mferg...@cox.net> wrote:
>This country started with _your_ bombs,
If you start blaming people for the actions of their ancestors'
governments, you may find that it rebounds on you.
Spaceman
>No, Richard's point was well-taken, because josX is
>advocating that terrorists blow up physics departments
>everywhere. My reaction came from my memory of the
>U. of Wisconsin bomb and jos-loonies belief that
>physics departments are empty at night.
>
He said no people you fuchface twisting troll basard.
What is wrong with your twisted brain?
Is it brainwashed perchance?
I observe such so I must accept it as fact!
Jon Hurwitz
news:3D89BB4B...@cox.net...
It's a democracy and they are allowed to want to make Britain a Muslim
theocracy. They can even campaign and demonstrate for it if they want to.
There are also Muslims in Europe who hate the United States. I'm sure the
security services try to keep them under surveillance. If they actually do
anything other than demonstrating and it can be proven, they will be tried
and thrown in jail (though the French might quietly dispose of the problem
in a different way).
We've had terrorist bombings in this country for most of my life. (I've had
my local post-office firebombed by the Real IRA twice so far this year.)
Should we ask for help from a country whose attitude to our terrorist
problem has been to fund it? We have. But when we asked you to stop the
funding of the IRA by US citizens you refused. When we asked you not to
invite Gerry Adams over during a critical part of the negotiations, you did
it anyway. And if we did ask for your help with any "Muslim terrorism", why
should you have a problem with it? You ask for our help and we give it
gladly. (And we don't wait several years before supporting you, either.)
Our hearts go out to the families of those who died last year.
In the last hundred years when America and Britain fought together they won.
When America fought without us, it suffered its most traumatic defeat. For
all Richard Tobin's insensitivity, it is unwise for us to bicker.
We are both supposed to be allies. Our geopolitical interests are broadly
the same. For pity's sake let's act like it.
Apologies for being totally off topic.
Jon
Randy Poe
>
> >From: Randy Poe rp...@atl.lmco.com
> >...and jos-loonies belief that
> >physics departments are empty at night.
> >
>
> He said no people you fuchface twisting troll basard.
And how do you assure there are no people? By bombing at
night. Thus, I said "his belief that physics departments
are empty at night". Why are simple sentences so hard for
you to read? Do you think his original post assumed something
different about night time and building occupancy?
He said this:
> > For any terrorists: please bomb university-physics departments at night
> >(don't kill people plz).
Yes, he is expressing a wish not to kill people.
He is also expressing belief that if you blow up a
physics department at night you won't kill people.
> What is wrong with your twisted brain?
That when you say "bomb physics departments" you are
talking about killing people, even if you think there
aren't people in the building at night.
It was also the belief of the U. of Wisconsin bombers
that by blowing up the building late at night they
would not kill any people.
Just as with physics, thinking something is so does not
make it so.
- Randy
Spaceman
>And how do you assure there are no people?
A lot better than you would apparently.
Get lost Randy "the twister" Poe.
You are "abstracting things that were not stated nor meant"
you are a sad ass "word terrorist"
What a puke!
Marco Nelissen
> In fact the most that could happen is a note like "please don't do that
> again, thanks". Well, i am 100% positive that is'nt even going to happen...
> You people know nothing about life in a democracy. And i am right, physics
> departments should be taken down because of the lies they spread in the
> name of objective-science, while wasting the very same money that you say
> should be spent on sueing me. Why don't you realize that the lies of science
> will attract the wrong people to physics, things will only get worse unless
> you clean it up.
Wow, calling for the destruction of physics departments AGAIN. A repeat
offender. Jos Boersema, criminal:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html (updated!)
Anybody in Groningen (the Netherlands) want to give the police a call?
josX
LOL
mymy, another police-state champion.
--
jos
island
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aart90%24sdl%241%40news1.xs4all.nl
OMG... I met a guy like this once when I was in college, only he was
violently insane.
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:amc2k5$46t$5...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> You people know nothing about life in a democracy. And i am right, physics
> departments should be taken down because of the lies they spread in the
> name of objective-science, while wasting the very same money that you say
> should be spent on sueing me. Why don't you realize that the lies of science
> will attract the wrong people to physics, things will only get worse unless
> you clean it up.
A bit like
"...es wohl die hoechste Zeit wird, dass in dieses Rattennest
wissenchaftlicher Korruption einmal frishe Luft kommt"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#JosNazi
Right?
Dirk Vdm
Marco Nelissen
He's working up to that:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=amanrg%24qlf%241%40news1.xs4all.nl
Marco Nelissen
Turning a criminal in has nothing to do with police-states. You are a criminal.
josX
Well, you can't be wrong in everything and still expect public support...
--
jos
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> mymy, another police-state champion.
>
>Turning a criminal in has nothing to do with police-states. You are a criminal.
Nope i'm the good-guys.
Doing free volunteer work to keep science in check and all. Already
posted close to 3000 posts on relativity, gimme a dollar for each ?
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>> mymy, another police-state champion.
>>
>>Turning a criminal in has nothing to do with police-states. You are a criminal.
>
> Nope i'm the good-guys.
Was that the royal plural, or the insanity-plural?
> Doing free volunteer work to keep science in check and all. Already
> posted close to 3000 posts on relativity, gimme a dollar for each ?
I could, but I won't. Besides, your posts aren't about relativity
at all, since you don't even know what that theory says.
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>> mymy, another police-state champion.
>>>
>>>Turning a criminal in has nothing to do with police-states. You are a criminal.
>>
>> Nope i'm the good-guys.
>
>Was that the royal plural, or the insanity-plural?
>
>> Doing free volunteer work to keep science in check and all. Already
>> posted close to 3000 posts on relativity, gimme a dollar for each ?
>
>I could, but I won't. Besides, your posts aren't about relativity
>at all, since you don't even know what that theory says.
That's your problem, i know what it says. That's why you can't shake
me off, cause i'm so deep in this bone i taste the marrow (figure of
speach). Good that i now have a dutch>english dictionary :) "marrow" hehe.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> That's your problem, i know what it says.
You obviously don't, since otherwise you would not have said such
nonsense as "the theory of relativity is nonfalsifyable, by postulate".
> That's why you can't shake
> me off, cause i'm so deep in this bone i taste the marrow (figure of
> speach). Good that i now have a dutch>english dictionary :) "marrow" hehe.
Try looking up "spraak"...
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> That's your problem, i know what it says.
>
>You obviously don't, since otherwise you would not have said such
>nonsense as "the theory of relativity is nonfalsifyable, by postulate".
You are telling me that SR is not postulate/fantasy based ?
>> That's why you can't shake
>> me off, cause i'm so deep in this bone i taste the marrow (figure of
>> speach). Good that i now have a dutch>english dictionary :) "marrow" hehe.
>
>Try looking up "spraak"...
"speech", excellent! (and that for only 26Euro ;-)
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>> That's your problem, i know what it says.
>>
>>You obviously don't, since otherwise you would not have said such
>>nonsense as "the theory of relativity is nonfalsifyable, by postulate".
>
> You are telling me that SR is not postulate/fantasy based ?
I am saying that relativity is falsifiable. It makes very precise
predictions about lots of things, and you could prove those wrong
experimentally. But the difference between a falsifiable theory
and a non-falsifiable theory has already been explained to you
several times before. I suggest you re-read those posts.
>>> That's why you can't shake
>>> me off, cause i'm so deep in this bone i taste the marrow (figure of
>>> speach). Good that i now have a dutch>english dictionary :) "marrow" hehe.
>>
>>Try looking up "spraak"...
>
> "speech", excellent! (and that for only 26Euro ;-)
If you really want to get your money's worth, and the dictionary also
has english->dutch, I suggest you also look up the difference between
"to prove" and "to proof".
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>> That's your problem, i know what it says.
>>>
>>>You obviously don't, since otherwise you would not have said such
>>>nonsense as "the theory of relativity is nonfalsifyable, by postulate".
>>
>> You are telling me that SR is not postulate/fantasy based ?
>
>I am saying that relativity is falsifiable.
If it was falsifiable, it would not dissalow certain thought's or
hypotheses. It now dissalows solids, speeds in excess of c, and even
the most redicilous of all: it forbids certain reference points to
be chosen in the entirety of physics and science. Sorry, but that is
too much to ask, where in fact a theory should and cannot defend itself
from falsification by outlawing the rationale that leads to it. That
means you are making your theory a religion.
Tell me how can one falsify relativity in theory, by showing contradiction
or unreasonability. Can't be done eh? "relativity is true by postulate,
and any idea that can threaten it we outlaw".
> It makes very precise
>predictions about lots of things, and you could prove those wrong
>experimentally. But the difference between a falsifiable theory
>and a non-falsifiable theory has already been explained to you
>several times before. I suggest you re-read those posts.
Relativity is a philosopher-tripe, we cannot yet technologically measure
lightspeed from multiple reference points at the same time/same lightbeam.
If we could your theory would be disproven immediately.
Tell me Marco: "jan killed the cat, the cat lives in newyork, jan cannot
be in two places at once, neither can the cat, jan was in wisconsin, jan
didn't leave wisconsin for a week, in that week the cat was killed, the
cat never left new york, apples eventually rot when unatended", does this
"murder-solving" theory contain a contradiction?
What if i /postulated/ that jan had killed the cat, would the theory still
be falsifyable by using elements from the theory or the theory as a whole?
>>>> That's why you can't shake
>>>> me off, cause i'm so deep in this bone i taste the marrow (figure of
>>>> speach). Good that i now have a dutch>english dictionary :) "marrow" hehe.
>>>
>>>Try looking up "spraak"...
>>
>> "speech", excellent! (and that for only 26Euro ;-)
>
>If you really want to get your money's worth, and the dictionary also
>has english->dutch, I suggest you also look up the difference between
>"to prove" and "to proof".
eng -> nl
proof -> bewijs
prove -> bewijzen
i prove
you prove
he/she/it proves
we prove
you prove
they prove
"give us the proof for lightspeed reference point constancy"
"hand us over the proof for mutual length contraction please"
"where is your proof for the relativity of simultaneity"
"can this be proven by current experimental facts?"
i think i got it now.
--
jos
josX
>On 19 Sep 2002 08:41:41 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) Gave us:
>>None of these things will happen because i don't live in an oppressive
>>extreme-right dictatorship which enjoys attacking a nation every so
>>many years, or a country which is known to be the apitomy of hypocracy
>>(USA).
>
> You are a retard if you think that bombing a university has anything
>to do with something good or right.
>
> You know absolutely nothing about this country, you gen-x twit.
Bombing physics departments at night is like bombing terrorists encampments
when nobody is there. It is not a terribly evil act. Not nearly as terrible
as what flows from these encampments, and what money flows in that was
appropriated for very different reasons altogether.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
>>I am saying that relativity is falsifiable.
>
> If it was falsifiable, it would not dissalow certain thought's or
> hypotheses. It now dissalows solids, speeds in excess of c, and even
> the most redicilous of all: it forbids certain reference points to
> be chosen in the entirety of physics and science. Sorry, but that is
> too much to ask, where in fact a theory should and cannot defend itself
> from falsification by outlawing the rationale that leads to it. That
> means you are making your theory a religion.
No. What you are doing is akin to showing that Boyle's law is false by
performing thought-experiments involving a temperature of -10 Kelvin.
> Tell me how can one falsify relativity in theory, by showing contradiction
> or unreasonability. Can't be done eh? "relativity is true by postulate,
> and any idea that can threaten it we outlaw".
The fact that you continue to spout such nonsense is clear proof
that you do not understand the meaning of the word postulate, let
alone the meaning of the theory of relativity itself.
>>If you really want to get your money's worth, and the dictionary also
>>has english->dutch, I suggest you also look up the difference between
>>"to prove" and "to proof".
>
> eng -> nl
> proof -> bewijs
I said "to proof", i.e. the verb, not the noun.
> prove -> bewijzen
>
> i prove
> you prove
> he/she/it proves
> we prove
> you prove
> they prove
Well, at least you have the correct conjugation now. Please dont' ever
say "Can you proof that ..." again.
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Tell me how can one falsify relativity in theory, by showing contradiction
> or unreasonability. Can't be done eh? "relativity is true by postulate,
> and any idea that can threaten it we outlaw".
STR has no mathematical contradictions. If it did, ALL theories would be
caput. Why? STR mathematically is just real functions + Lorentz transform.
So far no experiment has refuted STR. Is it possible for STR to be at
odds with an experiment? Yes.
Bob Kolker
josX
>>>I am saying that relativity is falsifiable.
>>
>> If it was falsifiable, it would not dissalow certain thought's or
>> hypotheses. It now dissalows solids, speeds in excess of c, and even
>> the most redicilous of all: it forbids certain reference points to
>> be chosen in the entirety of physics and science. Sorry, but that is
>> too much to ask, where in fact a theory should and cannot defend itself
>> from falsification by outlawing the rationale that leads to it. That
>> means you are making your theory a religion.
>
>No. What you are doing is akin to showing that Boyle's law is false by
>performing thought-experiments involving a temperature of -10 Kelvin.
Boyle's law is a curve fitting, what would i have against that. Nothing.
Wrong analogy. But if Boyle's law said anything about -10 Kelvin, but
hasn't any data about it, then one might disprove this law (discredit it)
using a thought experiment.
Mind you that relativity is build upon thought-experiments.
>> Tell me how can one falsify relativity in theory, by showing contradiction
>> or unreasonability. Can't be done eh? "relativity is true by postulate,
>> and any idea that can threaten it we outlaw".
>
>The fact that you continue to spout such nonsense is clear proof
>that you do not understand the meaning of the word postulate, let
>alone the meaning of the theory of relativity itself.
I understand postulate and i understand relativity the only way it is
possible to understand a contradiction in terms. As a science scam.
<snip>
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Tell me how can one falsify relativity in theory, by showing contradiction
>> or unreasonability. Can't be done eh? "relativity is true by postulate,
>> and any idea that can threaten it we outlaw".
>
>STR has no mathematical contradictions. If it did, ALL theories would be
>caput. Why? STR mathematically is just real functions + Lorentz transform.
STR is /only/ mathematical contradictions on the (a>b && a<b)-level, even
3=4 & 4=3. Anyone not knowing this knows nothing about it yet.
>So far no experiment has refuted STR. Is it possible for STR to be at
>odds with an experiment? Yes.
Kick a ball, run and stop. This disproves relativity's "a thing can have
a constant speed relative to every reference point imaginable".
That can only happen in bad B-movies (scifi genre).
--
jos
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Bombing physics departments at night is like bombing terrorists encampments
> when nobody is there. It is not a terribly evil act. Not nearly as terrible
> as what flows from these encampments, and what money flows in that was
> appropriated for very different reasons altogether.
Property destruction is usually the mark of a criminal or a barbarian
(except during times of war, when it is the mark of a hero).
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Kick a ball, run and stop. This disproves relativity's "a thing can have
> a constant speed relative to every reference point imaginable".
A soccer ball has non zero rest mass. Not so for a photon.
Take your medications, you are raving again.
Bob Kolker
josX
Property destruction on a limited scale is the same as kapital destruction.
Sometimes you need to bust a door to get a crook out.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Kick a ball, run and stop. This disproves relativity's "a thing can have
>> a constant speed relative to every reference point imaginable".
>
>A soccer ball has non zero rest mass. Not so for a photon.
A ""photon"" is an electromagnetic wave.
>Take your medications, you are raving again.
I am not raving, i am (most often) politely asking for evidence of c'=c.
Do you have it?
--
jos
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> I am not raving, i am (most often) politely asking for evidence of c'=c.
> Do you have it?
Every measurement taken of light in free space yields the same result
(within instrumental error bars), to wit c. The velocity of particles in
an acclerator approach c assymptotically as the voltage on the
accelerator is increased. And so on, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of
tests yield the same result.
The definition of an insane person is one who does the samething over
and over again, but expects a different outcome. You are insane.
Take your meds. You are raving again.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3D8AE528...@attbi.com...
He is the hero of *his* war.
Dirk Vdm
David McAnally
Going through the postings, I note that josX has been told more than once
that grad students and postdocs will be in the physics departments at that
time that he is advocating. So one can only conclude that Jos Boersema
considers the premeditated and cold-blooded murder of grad students and
postdocs a "not terribly evil act". It would appear that Jos Boersema
approves of cold-blooded and unprovoked murder.
David McAnally
------
josX
>josX wrote:
>> I am not raving, i am (most often) politely asking for evidence of c'=c.
>> Do you have it?
>
>Every measurement taken of light in free space yields the same result
>(within instrumental error bars), to wit c.
But there never was any experiment to prove multi-reference-point constancy.
Your experiments are all standing-still and/or single-observer.
"to wit c" <puke>
What a misleader you are Kolker.
> The velocity of particles in
>an acclerator approach c assymptotically as the voltage on the
>accelerator is increased. And so on, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of
>tests yield the same result.
And why do you think these particles don't get over c ?
>The definition of an insane person is one who does the samething over
>and over again, but expects a different outcome. You are insane.
>
>Take your meds. You are raving again.
--
jos
josX
<quote>
>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<amanrg$qlf$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>> For any terrorists: please bomb university-physics departments at night
>> (don't kill people plz).
</quote>
Not at all unprovoked btw.
--
jos
AllYou!
> The definition of an insane person is one who does the samething over
> and over again, but expects a different outcome. You are insane.
Well, if that's true, then I'm getting there. I keep responding to josx
over and over again expecting a different result, but alas, it's not to be.
I've gotta find some other form of entertainment.
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Mind you that relativity is build upon thought-experiments.
So too was Newtonian physics. At least there are
two fundamental ones. The thought experiment of
eternal "unforced" motion of a free body in uniform
rectilinear motion to get the Galilean Principle
of Inertia. The second was Newton's Pail thought
experiment, from which he concluded that there
exists an absolute acceleration space to give centrifugal
force a legitimate meaning to him. Neither thought
experiment leads to laws derived from curve-fitting.
But you don't know these things because the
Establishment never thought it important for you
to learn them. It taught you that curve-fitting was a
legitimate way to do science, and you then made
the hasty generalization that science must be ALL
curve fitting, but it isn't. The Establishment should
have also taught you that there are many other
ways to set down equations and formulate research
programs than by curve fitting. But for you now it's
too late to teach you new tricks. Don't learn this
in the formative years and it's too late, babe. A
lesson for what to teach in science classes.
You can teach a person science for 30 years,
and that will not necessarily disabuse him or
her of his or her misconceptions about the nature
of science and how it really gets done. Does it
matter? Yes, if we don't want the josX's of the
world blowing up the science institutions of the
world. Ironic though, because science is NOT
about the TRUTH he is defending. Yet another
thing he should have been taught in science class!
But now it's too late to reach him. The window
of open-mindedness is closed for him.
Patrick
josX
See?
Brainwashers give up on me, i only listen to evidence.
AllYou: evasions.
heheh :)
Truth outlasts lies, 'cause the truth is simpler.
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Mind you that relativity is build upon thought-experiments.
>
>So too was Newtonian physics.
Newtonian physics (F=m*a) is not based upon a thought-experiment.
> At least there are
>two fundamental ones. The thought experiment of
>eternal "unforced" motion of a free body in uniform
>rectilinear motion to get the Galilean Principle
>of Inertia. The second was Newton's Pail thought
>experiment, from which he concluded that there
>exists an absolute acceleration space to give centrifugal
>force a legitimate meaning to him. Neither thought
>experiment leads to laws derived from curve-fitting.
Turn around your axis -> notice how the world doesn't fall apart except you.
So turning is really /you/ turning, not your feet accelerating the
universe into a spin (yes people, this is the level of these guys).
Start running, or sit in a high speed car -> notice that the world
isn't falling over but /you/ are the one being pushed back.
>But you don't know these things because the
>Establishment never thought it important for you
>to learn them. It taught you that curve-fitting was a
>legitimate way to do science, and you then made
>the hasty generalization that science must be ALL
>curve fitting, but it isn't.
What an incredible selfindulgant asshole. Do you really think i learned
anything from you?
> The Establishment should
>have also taught you that there are many other
>ways to set down equations and formulate research
>programs than by curve fitting. But for you now it's
>too late to teach you new tricks. Don't learn this
>in the formative years and it's too late, babe. A
>lesson for what to teach in science classes.
Yup, don't get kids in the formative years and they are lost for the
more redicilous parts of the brain-washing routine, they have amased
to much experience on their own.
>You can teach a person science for 30 years,
>and that will not necessarily disabuse him or
>her of his or her misconceptions about the nature
>of science and how it really gets done. Does it
>matter? Yes, if we don't want the josX's of the
>world blowing up the science institutions of the
>world. Ironic though, because science is NOT
>about the TRUTH he is defending. Yet another
>thing he should have been taught in science class!
The only reason science is allowed to exist is because it searches
for the TRUTH, which is of general interest since we all LIVE in it.
>But now it's too late to reach him. The window
>of open-mindedness is closed for him.
--
jos
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >You can teach a person science for 30 years,
> >and that will not necessarily disabuse him or
> >her of his or her misconceptions about the nature
> >of science and how it really gets done. Does it
> >matter? Yes, if we don't want the josX's of the
> >world blowing up the science institutions of the
> >world. Ironic though, because science is NOT
> >about the TRUTH he is defending. Yet another
> >thing he should have been taught in science class!
>
> The only reason science is allowed to exist is because it searches
> for the TRUTH, which is of general interest since we all LIVE in it.
Define "TRUTH" for us for use in phsyics.
Patrick
Mark Fergerson
>
> In article <3D89BB4B...@cox.net>,
> Mark Fergerson <mferg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >This country started with _your_ bombs,
>
> If you start blaming people for the actions of their ancestors'
> governments, you may find that it rebounds on you.
You mean the way the radical Islamics
blame _me_ for others' actions? I see...
Mark L. Fergerson
Mark Fergerson
<snip to the crash>
> We are both supposed to be allies. Our geopolitical interests are broadly
> the same. For pity's sake let's act like it.
Quite correct. Please tell that to
Tobin.
> Apologies for being totally off topic.
Not at all, sir. I simply despise
jingoism, even when I engage in it.
Mark L. Fergerson
AllYou!
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:amf4oo$akh$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> AllYou: evasions.
> heheh :)
> Truth outlasts lies, 'cause the truth is simpler.
No, stupidity and willful ignorance will outlast everything. You've
achieved your goal. You've demonstrated your foolishness to the nth degree.
How you derive satisfaction from that is beyond me. But, by all means, you
should be very proud that you've achieved perfection. You are a perfect
idiot.
Patrick Reany
josX wrote:
A research program in physics cannot just be based
on evidence. It has to also be based on value judgments
that go into the choices made in how to found the
subject from the ground up, so to speak. The rules
of science have to be freely invented. They haven't
been given to us by God. And that's the TRUTH.
Patrick
josX
Can't be taught anything that is not based upon evidence eh?
How "stupid" of me.
--
jos
tj Frazir
starts out with 10 billion USD .. 30 people ? Will split 10 billion for
donating my 4 engines to congress .
NO FUCKING FOOLIN .
josX
>josX wrote:
>>"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3D8AEF3E...@attbi.com...
>>>> The definition of an insane person is one who does the samething over
>>>> and over again, but expects a different outcome. You are insane.
>>>
>>>Well, if that's true, then I'm getting there. I keep responding to josx
>>>over and over again expecting a different result, but alas, it's not to be.
>>>I've gotta find some other form of entertainment.
>>
>>See?
>>Brainwashers give up on me, i only listen to evidence.
>>
>>AllYou: evasions.
>>heheh :)
>>Truth outlasts lies, 'cause the truth is simpler.
>
is a nice way to make a cheap dollar if you are "investigating"
something relativistic.
> in physics cannot just be based
>on evidence.
I think sci.physics is not a very good place to say that.
Evidence is all what seperates fantasy from objective knowledge, the
purpose of science and physics.
> It has to also be based on value judgments
>that go into the choices made in how to found the
>subject from the ground up, so to speak.
Go play soccer, there you will find the basis for physics. The
world is the basis of science, experience the means to get it.
> The rules
>of science have to be freely invented. They haven't
>been given to us by God. And that's the TRUTH.
They have been given to us: experience.
And experience tells me that what you stand for is a beliefsystem-scam.
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>You obviously don't, since otherwise you would not have said such
> >>>nonsense as "the theory of relativity is nonfalsifyable, by postulate".
> >>
> >> You are telling me that SR is not postulate/fantasy based ?
> >
> >I am saying that relativity is falsifiable.
>
> If it was falsifiable, it would not dissalow certain thought's or
> hypotheses.
You have no idea what falsifiable means. One more time: Falsifiable
means "makes a testable prediction".
> It now dissalows solids, speeds in excess of c, and even
> the most redicilous of all: it forbids certain reference points to
> be chosen in the entirety of physics and science.
You have misunderstood the discussion about reference frames
completely. But at any rate, all of these are testable
predictions. If you actually manage to make an solid so
rigid that sound speed > c, or find any other way of propagating
information faster than c EXPERIMENTALLY then you will have
found an experiment that violates relativity. At that point
relativity will be known to be wrong.
The fact that there are experimental results that would
prove relativity wrong makes relativity falsifiable.
So far, SO FAR, all the experiments have gone the other
way, being consistent with relativity and inconsistent
with predictions made by other theories. What may happen
in the future is unknown. That's the nature of science.
Now would be the time to say "I have the experiment and here
it is: I know relativity is wrong."
That's not an experiment.
- Randy
tj Frazir
ave to do is comunicate . ALL 30 people will somday go down in history
, and would ave a buch of cash in under 10 months. Congress gers the
end of te oil age donated free all 4 engines . Then just the car and
truck engines we sell engines for demo so all auto makers and who ever
wants to can buy some at 10000 each so tey can use , change , copie
,,manufacture for 2500.
It takes more than a picture of te engines.
They nead the manuals too.
We vote on evrythin once te engines are donated you can fire me as
chairman if you want but I'm still soul inventor.
138 hp 8.5 hours per gallon . Just like you on O2 !! look my # up
once and do a bit of math.
Thermal equalibream out of constant volumes.
If I dont set the engines down compleat all information I have you and
congrees would tye me to a post and shoot me !
I made 5 and scraped , made 5 better and scrapped ,,made 5 enegines and
ran awile,,made 5 more and in a few years solved each problem . Now its
the engine the math built. You never had a hot rod till you had this.
HAY HAALAND gess what ,,my engines can go over bumps without anyting
happening !!!
That beats evryone by 10 years.
My engines can be te cars frame.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX our SCI PHHYISICS Inc
engines . The chairmen has the engines. The cairman says donate them
.
Sine and vote .
Randy Poe
> Bombing physics departments at night is like bombing terrorists encampments
> when nobody is there.
Spaceman: Is this enough for you now to believe that josX
thinks there are no people in physics departments at night?
Robert Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> He is the hero of *his* war.
And a Legend in his own mind, such as it is.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
David McAnally wrote:
>
> postdocs a "not terribly evil act". It would appear that Jos Boersema
> approves of cold-blooded and unprovoked murder.
He has every right to approve of what he approves. He does not have the
right to take action on the basis of that approval.
If every tax collector in the U.S.A. died tomorrow I would not shed a
tear. That hardly makes me a criminal.
If every law maker who voted to impose a tax became terminally ill
tomorrow I would light a votive candle to Our Lady of Keep Our Own.
But I would not raise a hand to do violence except in self defence.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>What could you loose . No over head , no investment , no risk , all you
>ave to do is comunicate .
OK,
I'll take communications officer position.
:)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Marco Nelissen
>>performing thought-experiments involving a temperature of -10 Kelvin.
>
> Boyle's law is a curve fitting, what would i have against that.
So is relativity, and if fits the curve perfectly.
Marco Nelissen
>>> or unreasonability. Can't be done eh? "relativity is true by postulate,
>>> and any idea that can threaten it we outlaw".
>>
>>STR has no mathematical contradictions. If it did, ALL theories would be
>>caput. Why? STR mathematically is just real functions + Lorentz transform.
>
> STR is /only/ mathematical contradictions on the (a>b && a<b)-level, even
> 3=4 & 4=3. Anyone not knowing this knows nothing about it yet.
For a while now I have asked you to show us such a contradiction. Yet so
far you have not done that. The fact that the only answers you ever come up
with are "mutual length contraction" and "mutual time dilation" shows
that you do not understand relativity and its consequences.
> Kick a ball, run and stop. This disproves relativity's "a thing can have
> a constant speed relative to every reference point imaginable".
Relativity does not say that about a ball or any other "thing", so what's
your point? If your point was to demonstrate your own ignorance then you
succeeded brilliantly again. Was that what you were trying to do?
Marco Nelissen
Which evidence did you have for your TV being a mind control device?
(prediction: Jos will ignore the question)
Marco Nelissen
> How "stupid" of me.
What was the evidence when you learned that your TV is a mind control device?
josX
>josX wrote:
>> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>>>> That's your problem, i know what it says.
>>>>>
>>>>>You obviously don't, since otherwise you would not have said such
>>>>>nonsense as "the theory of relativity is nonfalsifyable, by postulate".
>>>>
>>>> You are telling me that SR is not postulate/fantasy based ?
>>>
>>>I am saying that relativity is falsifiable.
>>
>> If it was falsifiable, it would not dissalow certain thought's or
>> hypotheses.
>
>You have no idea what falsifiable means. One more time: Falsifiable
>means "makes a testable prediction".
Falsifiable means: can be falsified.
>> It now dissalows solids, speeds in excess of c, and even
>> the most redicilous of all: it forbids certain reference points to
>> be chosen in the entirety of physics and science.
>
>You have misunderstood the discussion about reference frames
>completely. But at any rate, all of these are testable
>predictions. If you actually manage to make an solid so
>rigid that sound speed > c, or find any other way of propagating
>information faster than c EXPERIMENTALLY then you will have
>found an experiment that violates relativity. At that point
>relativity will be known to be wrong.
And you know this won't happen because
a) physics is bottled up
b) it will be a long wait before we can measure multiobservationally
lightspeed
c) if that ever happens you or some other SRists might be behind the wheel.
There is no science in physics anymore on it's main themes: SR/GR/QM,
it's all pseudoreligion and PR stunts, not to mention big bisnis (research
grants and all that, and books ofcourse, attention too).
>The fact that there are experimental results that would
>prove relativity wrong makes relativity falsifiable.
All it takes is one contradiction, but you are already burried so deep
in contradictions that you forgot the meaning of it and thought you could
simply outlaw them all one by one.
>So far, SO FAR, all the experiments have gone the other
>way, being consistent with relativity and inconsistent
>with predictions made by other theories. What may happen
>in the future is unknown. That's the nature of science.
"make 3 concequtive correct guesses, and you are an expert"
-- linux fortune cookies (paraphrazed)
Is this objective though?
>Now would be the time to say "I have the experiment and here
>it is: I know relativity is wrong."
I have: observe a soccer ball, watch where it's speed depends upon
relative to you.
>That's not an experiment.
"in 3,000 people will fly on superluminal brooms using brainpower"
can also not be disproved until the year 3,000, and you can't show
experimental evidence against it. So disproof it according to your
own rationale: show counter evidence or disprove it using it.
--
jos
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>No. What you are doing is akin to showing that Boyle's law is false by
>>>performing thought-experiments involving a temperature of -10 Kelvin.
>>
>> Boyle's law is a curve fitting, what would i have against that.
>
>So is relativity, and if fits the curve perfectly.
From which data was c'=c fitted ?
--
jos
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>> Tell me how can one falsify relativity in theory, by showing contradiction
>>>> or unreasonability. Can't be done eh? "relativity is true by postulate,
>>>> and any idea that can threaten it we outlaw".
>>>
>>>STR has no mathematical contradictions. If it did, ALL theories would be
>>>caput. Why? STR mathematically is just real functions + Lorentz transform.
>>
>> STR is /only/ mathematical contradictions on the (a>b && a<b)-level, even
>> 3=4 & 4=3. Anyone not knowing this knows nothing about it yet.
>
>For a while now I have asked you to show us such a contradiction. Yet so
>far you have not done that. The fact that the only answers you ever come up
>with are "mutual length contraction" and "mutual time dilation" shows
>that you do not understand relativity and its consequences.
These are direct contradictions because relativity is not about visual
illusions, so SR provides different realities for each frame of reference.
And there pop up new contradictions all the time when we debate.
>> Kick a ball, run and stop. This disproves relativity's "a thing can have
>> a constant speed relative to every reference point imaginable".
>
>Relativity does not say that about a ball or any other "thing", so what's
>your point? If your point was to demonstrate your own ignorance then you
>succeeded brilliantly again. Was that what you were trying to do?
Relativity *does* say this about a ball, you don't know the theory or
you try to prevent it from being exposed without the fuzzbabble sauce.
--
jos
AllYou!
> >Relativity does not say that about a ball or any other "thing", so what's
> >your point? If your point was to demonstrate your own ignorance then you
> >succeeded brilliantly again. Was that what you were trying to do?
>
> Relativity *does* say this about a ball,
Proof it.
Marco Nelissen
> From which data was c'=c fitted ?
The data that photons emitted on opposite sides of a fast-moving particle
still move at c.
Marco Nelissen
> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>> Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>>>josX wrote:
>>>>> Tell me how can one falsify relativity in theory, by showing contradiction
>>>>> or unreasonability. Can't be done eh? "relativity is true by postulate,
>>>>> and any idea that can threaten it we outlaw".
>>>>
>>>>STR has no mathematical contradictions. If it did, ALL theories would be
>>>>caput. Why? STR mathematically is just real functions + Lorentz transform.
>>>
>>> STR is /only/ mathematical contradictions on the (a>b && a<b)-level, even
>>> 3=4 & 4=3. Anyone not knowing this knows nothing about it yet.
>>
>>For a while now I have asked you to show us such a contradiction. Yet so
>>far you have not done that. The fact that the only answers you ever come up
>>with are "mutual length contraction" and "mutual time dilation" shows
>>that you do not understand relativity and its consequences.
>
> These are direct contradictions because relativity is not about visual
> illusions, so SR provides different realities for each frame of reference.
Like I said: you do not understand relativity and its consequences...
>>> Kick a ball, run and stop. This disproves relativity's "a thing can have
>>> a constant speed relative to every reference point imaginable".
>>
>>Relativity does not say that about a ball or any other "thing", so what's
>>your point? If your point was to demonstrate your own ignorance then you
>>succeeded brilliantly again. Was that what you were trying to do?
>
> Relativity *does* say this about a ball, you don't know the theory or
> you try to prevent it from being exposed without the fuzzbabble sauce.
And once again:: you do not understand relativity and its consequences...
Please cite where relativity says that about a ball. You can't. You're a liar.
nightbat
nightbat
Well, with Mike Varney leaving I guess that means there will be
more for the rest of us.
the nightbat
Jon Hurwitz
> >an acclerator approach c assymptotically as the voltage on the
> >accelerator is increased. And so on, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of
> >tests yield the same result.
>
> And why do you think these particles don't get over c ?
>
More to the point, Jos, why do you?
Jon
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >>>> Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >>>>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> That's your problem, i know what it says.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You obviously don't, since otherwise you would not have said such
> >>>>>nonsense as "the theory of relativity is nonfalsifyable, by postulate".
> >>>>
> >>>> You are telling me that SR is not postulate/fantasy based ?
> >>>
> >>>I am saying that relativity is falsifiable.
> >>
> >> If it was falsifiable, it would not dissalow certain thought's or
> >> hypotheses.
> >
> >You have no idea what falsifiable means. One more time: Falsifiable
> >means "makes a testable prediction".
>
> Falsifiable means: can be falsified.
Which means: Predicts the results of an experiment which can
be performed.
> >You have misunderstood the discussion about reference frames
> >completely. But at any rate, all of these are testable
> >predictions. If you actually manage to make an solid so
> >rigid that sound speed > c, or find any other way of propagating
> >information faster than c EXPERIMENTALLY then you will have
> >found an experiment that violates relativity. At that point
> >relativity will be known to be wrong.
>
> And you know this won't happen because
> a) physics is bottled up
> b) it will be a long wait before we can measure multiobservationally
> lightspeed
Relativity makes many predictions about many experimental tests.
> c) if that ever happens you or some other SRists might be behind the wheel.
Contrary to your worldview, anybody who actually achieved
superluminal velocities or communications would be instantly
famous and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.
What would be the payoff in suppressing a result which would
earn one fame, fortune, and a Nobel?
- Randy
Gregory L. Hansen
On the contrary, I've acheived superluminal speeds of soccer balls with a
device I built in my garage, powered by an old lawn mower engine. But a
group of thugs from MIT came and beat me silly with scintillator paddles
and BNC cables, took my apparatus, and threatened to stuff a californium
source up my butt if I continued my research.
>What would be the payoff in suppressing a result which would
>earn one fame, fortune, and a Nobel?
I'm sure it has to do with interstellar politics.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> These are direct contradictions because relativity is not about visual
> illusions, so SR provides different realities for each frame of reference.
A frame of reference is an artifact for giving names to events. The
names consist of 3 spatial co-ordinates (wrt to the f.o.r.) and a time
value read at the event on a clock esyched in the f.o.r.
The event lives independent of any f.o.r. A f.o.r. is only a way of
identifying events. There is only one reality.
You do not even comprehend what a frame of reference is.
Take your meds. You are raving again.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Randy Poe wrote:
> Contrary to your worldview, anybody who actually achieved
> superluminal velocities or communications would be instantly
> famous and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.
>
> What would be the payoff in suppressing a result which would
> earn one fame, fortune, and a Nobel?
Such a person would be feted, famed, sung about, celebrated and get
offers of blow jobs from his/her groupies.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> On the contrary, I've acheived superluminal speeds of soccer balls with a
> device I built in my garage, powered by an old lawn mower engine. But a
> group of thugs from MIT came and beat me silly with scintillator paddles
> and BNC cables, took my apparatus, and threatened to stuff a californium
> source up my butt if I continued my research.
You too?
Bob Kolker
Randy Poe
>
> In article <3D8B50F4...@atl.lmco.com>,
> Randy Poe <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote:
> >josX wrote:
>
> >> c) if that ever happens you or some other SRists might be behind the wheel.
> >
> >Contrary to your worldview, anybody who actually achieved
> >superluminal velocities or communications would be instantly
> >famous and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.
>
> On the contrary, I've acheived superluminal speeds of soccer balls with a
> device I built in my garage, powered by an old lawn mower engine. But a
> group of thugs from MIT came and beat me silly with scintillator paddles
> and BNC cables, took my apparatus, and threatened to stuff a californium
> source up my butt if I continued my research.
The Stanford gangs control the SR-protection racket on the
west coast. If you offered them a piece of your turf, you
could get them into a turf war with MIT and then pursue your
research while the thugs were otherwise engaged.
- Randy
xxein
xxein: Do some research on what THC does to the brain, even a good
brain, then give us your report. It is only then that we can decide
how much credibility we can assign to you.
josX
V' = ( V + v0 ) / ( 1 + V * v0 / c^2 )
This is a description of 'things', which produces c'=c for anything
going with c (which must only be light by relativity statement).
--
jos
josX
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> From which data was c'=c fitted ?
>
>The data that photons emitted on opposite sides of a fast-moving particle
>still move at c.
Marco, i have decided to start using my killfile, i have put you in it
if you don't mind.
Your data is congruent with wave-behaviour.
I'm sorry if i ever offended you personally.
--
jos