• Re: The Experiment that Resccued Einstein from Obscurity.

    From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Tue Apr 18 22:05:10 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the
    ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to retain the notion of an absolute reference frame.

    Even E. T. Whittaker fell into the same mental trap, so at least you are
    in a good company.

    There was much argument
    and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction.

    That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a
    moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v,
    (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
    Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
    explain why when people here have studied it.
    I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious.
    Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the same error.

    Gobbledygook.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Jane on Wed Apr 19 22:23:10 2023
    XPost: sci.physics

    On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
    Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
    explain why when people here have studied it.


    Why not just explain it anyway?

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 19 06:23:33 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 12:05:21 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
    <snip>

    You have shown that you do not understand what you read nor write,
    and you have shown that you cannot solve high school math and physics problems. Therefore you do not have what it takes to discuss sensibly in this news group.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to rotchm on Wed Apr 19 16:02:26 2023
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT), rotchm wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 12:05:21 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
    <snip>

    You have shown that you do not understand what you read nor write,
    and you have shown that you cannot solve high school math and physics problems.
    Therefore you do not have what it takes to discuss sensibly in this news group.

    The high school problem you gave me has multiple solutions. Maybe you did
    not describe it properly.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Jane on Wed Apr 19 09:54:30 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 12:02:30 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:

    The high school problem you gave me has multiple solutions. Maybe you did not describe it properly.

    It was described properly.
    If there are multiple solutions, then you should say it in your answer(s).
    You gave but one solution, and a wrong one at that.
    You failed. Hence, you do not have what it takes to discuss sensibly and to discuss
    math/physics. As I & others told you, you should go find another hobby.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Jane on Wed Apr 19 19:37:47 2023
    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

    By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical
    theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert
    Einstein.

    Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might stray in here:

    By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream.
    Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911,
    and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities
    were competing over getting him a full professorate.

    He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect.

    For the innocent kiddies: this is completely wrong too.
    Einstein got his doctorate in 1905 for an original method
    of determining Avogadro's number from the viscosity of sugar solutions. (another of the 'annus mirabilis' papers, the 'rheology' one)

    You haven't mentioned the majority of physicists who regarded the whole
    thing was nonsense...or the fact that his main opponents Poincare and Ritz had prematurely died. (probably poisoned by relativists)

    ROTFL, sure, sure, poisonned.
    The innocent kiddies will see through this for themselves,
    I guess,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Wed Apr 19 11:06:14 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT), rotchm wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 12:05:21 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
    <snip>

    You have shown that you do not understand what you read nor write,
    and you have shown that you cannot solve high school math and physics problems.
    Therefore you do not have what it takes to discuss sensibly in this news group.
    The high school problem you gave me has multiple solutions. Maybe you did not describe it properly.

    No, it has a unique solution. You haven't read the problem carefully (again).

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to JanPB on Wed Apr 19 11:43:16 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 11:06:16 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT), rotchm wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 12:05:21 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
    <snip>

    You have shown that you do not understand what you read nor write,
    and you have shown that you cannot solve high school math and physics problems.
    Therefore you do not have what it takes to discuss sensibly in this news group.
    The high school problem you gave me has multiple solutions. Maybe you did not describe it properly.
    No, it has a unique solution. You haven't read the problem carefully (again).

    --
    Jan

    Jan's a know it all... Because she took a course...
    nothing she learned can be questioned... What she was
    taught has to be the final word. But science goes on...
    Even if the dinosaurs do not... her teachers left things
    out... to stay in authority likes she wants...


    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Wed Apr 19 14:49:23 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 11:43:18 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 11:06:16 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT), rotchm wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 12:05:21 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote: <snip>

    You have shown that you do not understand what you read nor write,
    and you have shown that you cannot solve high school math and physics problems.
    Therefore you do not have what it takes to discuss sensibly in this news
    group.
    The high school problem you gave me has multiple solutions. Maybe you did
    not describe it properly.
    No, it has a unique solution. You haven't read the problem carefully (again).

    --
    Jan
    Jan's a know it all...

    No, I simply confine myself to posting what I am reasonably competent in.
    If one does not pretend and does not lie, things tend to take care of themselves.

    Because she took a course...
    nothing she learned can be questioned...

    I'm a he: https://youtu.be/u7XyLRrHRaw?t=44
    ("Jan" means "John" in many Slavic and Germanic languages.)

    What she was
    taught has to be the final word. But science goes on...

    No, it's simply what I've just said: I post about things I know to be
    correct. This, incidentally, has very little to do with what I studied
    at school.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to JanPB on Wed Apr 19 15:13:14 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:

    No, it has a unique solution. You haven't read the problem carefully (again).

    I don't do puzzles, so I am *very* sluggish at these things.
    But if the hour hand turns at pi/6 radians/hr and the minute hand
    turns at 2pi radians/hr, isn't there more than one solution because
    of modular arithmetic?

    If the hands are symmetrically offset about the numeral "12" x
    hours before noon, wouldn't they be symmetrically offset about
    the "12" x hours after noon?

    I am prepared to be embarrassed. Like I said, I don't do puzzles.
    My brain doesn't work that way.
    .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Apr 20 01:56:31 2023
    On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 10:30:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

    On 4/19/2023 11:14 AM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:07:14 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

    By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical >>> theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert >>> Einstein.

    Silly little you. Some real history, for the innocent kiddies that might >> stray in here:

    By 1913 special relativity was already mainstream.
    Einstein got his first honorary doctorate for it in 1911,
    and by 1913 he already had many Nobel Prize nominations. Universities
    were competing over getting him a full professorate.

    He didn't get his doctorate for relativity...he got it for the PE effect.

    This sloppy on your part. When you are hard on others you should
    expect similar treatment.
    Indeed. Being incompetent in mathematics,

    Speaking of mathematics - it's always good to remind
    that your bunch of idiots had to announced its oldest,
    very important part false - as it didn't want to fit your
    madness.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to rotchm on Thu Apr 20 10:50:30 2023
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:54:30 -0700 (PDT), rotchm wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 12:02:30 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:

    The high school problem you gave me has multiple solutions. Maybe you
    did not describe it properly.

    It was described properly.
    If there are multiple solutions, then you should say it in your
    answer(s).
    You gave but one solution, and a wrong one at that.
    You failed. Hence, you do not have what it takes to discuss sensibly and
    to discuss math/physics. As I & others told you, you should go find
    another hobby.

    The shortest solution is 55.4 minutes... IIRC. the longest is 12 hours.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 20 10:56:19 2023
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:13:14 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:

    No, it has a unique solution. You haven't read the problem carefully
    (again).

    I don't do puzzles, so I am *very* sluggish at these things.
    But if the hour hand turns at pi/6 radians/hr and the minute hand turns
    at 2pi radians/hr, isn't there more than one solution because of modular arithmetic?

    If the hands are symmetrically offset about the numeral "12" x hours
    before noon, wouldn't they be symmetrically offset about the "12" x
    hours after noon?

    The original question did not mention 'symmetrically'. It just said the
    hands swapped positions. There are at least six solutions, maybe more.
    ...and they abused me because they couldn't even describe it properly.

    I am prepared to be embarrassed. Like I said, I don't do puzzles. My
    brain doesn't work that way.
    .





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 20 05:57:40 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:13:14 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:

    No, it has a unique solution. You haven't read the problem carefully
    (again).

    I don't do puzzles, so I am *very* sluggish at these things.
    But if the hour hand turns at pi/6 radians/hr and the minute hand turns
    at 2pi radians/hr, isn't there more than one solution because of modular arithmetic?

    If the hands are symmetrically offset about the numeral "12" x hours before noon, wouldn't they be symmetrically offset about the "12" x
    hours after noon?
    The original question did not mention 'symmetrically'. It just said the hands swapped positions. There are at least six solutions, maybe more. ...and they abused me because they couldn't even describe it properly.
    I am prepared to be embarrassed. Like I said, I don't do puzzles. My
    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 20 06:06:12 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:56:22 AM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:13:14 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:

    No, it has a unique solution. You haven't read the problem carefully
    (again).

    I don't do puzzles, so I am *very* sluggish at these things.
    But if the hour hand turns at pi/6 radians/hr and the minute hand turns
    at 2pi radians/hr, isn't there more than one solution because of modular arithmetic?

    If the hands are symmetrically offset about the numeral "12" x hours before noon, wouldn't they be symmetrically offset about the "12" x
    hours after noon?
    The original question did not mention 'symmetrically'.

    I realized that after right after I pressed "Post message".

    It just said the
    hands swapped positions. There are at least six solutions, maybe more.

    Yes.

    ...and they abused me because they couldn't even describe it properly.
    I am prepared to be embarrassed. Like I said, I don't do puzzles. My
    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 20 17:33:41 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:56:22 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:

    The shortest solution is 55.4 minutes... IIRC. the longest is 12 hours ...

    ... It just said the
    hands swapped positions. There are at least six solutions, maybe more. ...and they abused me because they couldn't even describe it properly.

    It was described correctly. But you failed since your initial answer (64 min or something) was wrong (as you now realize), and it took you way too long to finally give a potential answer.

    The answer is "infinite many answers", with 13 different answers within the 12h span, and you must give them, or a few. (You gave the smallest, and the trivial last one).

    If you found the first one on your own, w/o computer/calculator, then you get a 1/10 = 10%, a failing mark: You don't have what it takes to discuss physics here (then again, most here dont). But on the bright side, you are the only one who gave one of
    the correct answers (aprox). This was a very easy riddle/test btw.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to rotchm on Thu Apr 20 21:34:35 2023
    On Friday, 21 April 2023 at 02:33:43 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:56:22 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:

    The shortest solution is 55.4 minutes... IIRC. the longest is 12 hours ...

    ... It just said the
    hands swapped positions. There are at least six solutions, maybe more. ...and they abused me because they couldn't even describe it properly.
    It was described correctly. But you failed since your initial answer (64 min or something) was wrong (as you now realize), and it took you way too long to finally give a potential answer.

    The answer is "infinite many answers",

    The question was - "how long did the test last".
    There can be just one answer for that. It's just
    that what you wrote wasn't enough to give
    this answer, poor halfbrain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 21 02:07:15 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 3:56:22 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:13:14 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 1:06:16 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:

    No, it has a unique solution. You haven't read the problem carefully
    (again).

    I don't do puzzles, so I am *very* sluggish at these things.
    But if the hour hand turns at pi/6 radians/hr and the minute hand turns
    at 2pi radians/hr, isn't there more than one solution because of modular arithmetic?

    If the hands are symmetrically offset about the numeral "12" x hours before noon, wouldn't they be symmetrically offset about the "12" x
    hours after noon?
    The original question did not mention 'symmetrically'. It just said the hands swapped positions. There are at least six solutions, maybe more. ...and they abused me because they couldn't even describe it properly.
    I am prepared to be embarrassed. Like I said, I don't do puzzles. My
    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the Earth down, though.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to rotchm on Fri Apr 21 05:10:56 2023
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:33:43 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:56:22 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:

    The shortest solution is 55.4 minutes... IIRC. the longest is 12 hours ...

    ... It just said the
    hands swapped positions. There are at least six solutions, maybe more. ...and they abused me because they couldn't even describe it properly.
    It was described correctly. But you failed since your initial answer (64 min or something) was wrong (as you now realize), and it took you way too long to finally give a potential answer.

    The answer is "infinite many answers", with 13 different answers within the 12h span, and you must give them, or a few. (You gave the smallest, and the trivial last one).

    If you found the first one on your own, w/o computer/calculator, then you get a 1/10 = 10%, a failing mark: You don't have what it takes to discuss physics here (then again, most here dont). But on the bright side, you are the only one who gave one of
    the correct answers (aprox). This was a very easy riddle/test btw.

    I hate coming to the defense of a crackpot, but if we examine
    carefully your original post of the question at https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/PthhbqlLnNg/m/j8nRGXHLBAAJ we note that (1) the question was in quote marks, (2) the question unambiguously asked for a *singular* answer. So my reading of things
    is that (1) you copied the question without thinking too deeply about
    it from from some source (checking carefully that it was not available
    online) and that (2) *YOU YOURSELF* did not realize that the question
    admitted of multiple solutions, possibly (?) not until I, who am
    -very much- a slow plodder at puzzle solving, confirmed to Jane that
    modular arithmetic implied the existence of multiple solutions.

    As a skilled puzzle solver who has in the past has scored well in
    regional competitions, you place great value in puzzle-solving as a
    measure of a person's intelligence and worth. Likewise, as a fairly
    well-off individual, you pride yourself on the ownership of multiple
    expensive cars, etc. as marking your place in the hierarchy of
    mankind.

    I'm different. I am not quick at solving puzzles, and I certainly do
    no focus on my few real skills as making me superior to others. I
    value truthfulness, honesty, and charity towards others. Among other
    things, that is why I try to avoid using this forum as a means of
    demonstrating my "superiority" to the multiple crackpots who infest
    this place.

    And as for you, I don't see you as being truthful or honest here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to rotchm on Fri Apr 21 12:29:18 2023
    On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 17:33:41 -0700 (PDT), rotchm wrote:

    On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:56:22 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:

    The shortest solution is 55.4 minutes... IIRC. the longest is 12 hours
    ...

    ... It just said the hands swapped positions. There are at least six
    solutions, maybe more. ...and they abused me because they couldn't even
    describe it properly.

    It was described correctly. But you failed since your initial answer (64
    min or something) was wrong (as you now realize), and it took you way
    too long to finally give a potential answer.

    The answer is "infinite many answers", with 13 different answers within
    the 12h span, and you must give them, or a few. (You gave the smallest,
    and the trivial last one).

    If you found the first one on your own, w/o computer/calculator, then
    you get a 1/10 = 10%, a failing mark: You don't have what it takes to
    discuss physics here (then again, most here dont). But on the bright
    side, you are the only one who gave one of the correct answers (aprox).
    This was a very easy riddle/test btw.

    I would not say it is 'very' easy. I suppose you want me to show you how it
    is done because you have been trying for years and still cannot work it
    out.

    Simultaneous equations. One set for each hour number is the way to go.
    My first answer was just a quick observation and I actually meant to say 58
    not 68





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri Apr 21 06:12:34 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 8:10:58 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:


    ... but if we examine
    carefully your original post of the question at https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/PthhbqlLnNg/m/j8nRGXHLBAAJ
    we note that (1) the question was in quote marks,

    Yes it was.

    (2) the question
    unambiguously asked for a *singular* answer.

    No, the word 'singular' is not in the question. Stop lying.
    And the 'singular answer' is something along the lines of 'many possibilities' or 'many values'.
    And giving some or all of these values is recommended.

    So my reading of things is that (1) you copied the question

    Copied it from myself.

    without thinking too deeply about it from from some source

    The source being me; I came up with it many yrs ago.

    (checking carefully that it was not available online)

    It actually is.

    and that (2) *YOU YOURSELF* did not realize that the question
    admitted of multiple solutions,

    Of course I did, and with *all* the possible values. It has been published a long time ago.

    possibly (?) not until I, who am
    -very much- a slow plodder at puzzle solving, confirmed to Jane that
    modular arithmetic implied the existence of multiple solutions.

    One can do it via modular arithmetic, kinematics/algebra, and a few other interesting ways.


    ... you place great value in puzzle-solving as a
    measure of a person's intelligence

    Yes.

    and worth.

    No.

    I value truthfulness, honesty, and charity towards others.

    Ditto

    Among other things, that is why I try to avoid using this forum as a means of
    demonstrating my "superiority"

    Ditto. When I give people little problems to solve, it's just to see if they have the brains to discuss sensibly here.
    It's one of the many ways to filter out cranks.

    And as for you, I don't see you as being truthful or honest here.

    Stick to the facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 21 06:20:45 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 8:29:21 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:

    The answer is "infinite many answers", with 13 different answers within the 12h span,

    I would not say it is 'very' easy.

    Which is why this newsgroup is not for you.

    I suppose you want me to show you how it is done
    because you have been trying for years and still cannot work it

    And you are wrong once more.
    And you have yet to give the correct exact answer(s); you had 15 minutes to do so.
    It's been roughly a week now....

    I suggested to you, you should start a new hobby. Or, take a few college and university courses in physics and relativity, have a good passing mark, then come and discuss here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to rotchm on Fri Apr 21 07:08:31 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 6:20:46 PM UTC+5, rotchm wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 8:29:21 AM UTC-4, Jane wrote:

    The answer is "infinite many answers", with 13 different answers within the 12h span,
    I would not say it is 'very' easy.
    Which is why this newsgroup is not for you.
    I suppose you want me to show you how it is done
    because you have been trying for years and still cannot work it
    And you are wrong once more.
    And you have yet to give the correct exact answer(s); you had 15 minutes to do so.
    It's been roughly a week now....

    I suggested to you, you should start a new hobby. Or, take a few college and university courses in physics and relativity, have a good passing mark, then come and discuss here.

    The college course contain the same repetitive Relativistic manthras that believers often repeat ad nauseam, it could be said.

    I trust my reasoning more than a 100 year old theory invented when airplanes could travel at cycling speeds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 21 12:59:20 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the
    ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to retain the notion of an absolute reference frame. There was much argument and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction.

    That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a
    moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v,
    (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
    Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
    explain why when people here have studied it.
    I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious.
    Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the same error.





    --
    -- lover of truth
    Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping up SR.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 21 13:21:27 2023
    On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 22:23:10 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

    On 19-Apr-23 2:05 pm, Jane wrote:

    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
    Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
    explain why when people here have studied it.


    Why not just explain it anyway?
    There is not much point if the reader is not familiar with the publication. I will just receive the usual abuse from the ignorant relativist rabble.
    The paper is quite short and probably simple enough even for you.
    Can you spot the blatant error?


    Sylvia.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    No, please explain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Apr 21 13:19:13 2023
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 10:05:12 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    By 1913, the scientific world had virtually forgotten about the radical theory of relativity proposed by a little known Physicist called Albert Einstein. The theory appeared to be nothing more than a rehash of the ideas put forward by Lorentz, Poincare and others in their attempts to retain the notion of an absolute reference frame.
    Even E. T. Whittaker fell into the same mental trap, so at least you are
    in a good company.
    There was much argument
    and experimentation directed at sorting out fact from fiction.

    That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an experiment that would hopefully reveal whether light reflected from a moving mirror at c or at its incident speed in the mirror frame, c+v, (c+2v in the source frame). The experiment is described here. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ Effect_of_Reflection_from_a_Moving_Mirror_on_the_Velocity_of_Light

    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will explain why when people here have studied it.
    I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from the same error.
    Gobbledygook.

    --
    Jan
    I see what you are saying, having read the article. He finds the velocity of the source (moving mirror) does not affect the speed of light. That would support the second postulate.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 22 00:23:24 2023
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or
    you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the Earth
    down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly from
    the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Apr 22 00:31:23 2023
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an


    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
    Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
    explain why when people here have studied it.
    I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The
    experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's
    SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to
    disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious.
    Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from
    the same error.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping up
    SR.

    SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is stated
    as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not operate in a
    way that would create observer speed irrelevant.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 21 17:49:06 2023
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an


    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute
    Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
    explain why when people here have studied it.
    I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The
    experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's
    SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to
    disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious.
    Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from
    the same error.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping up
    SR.
    SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is stated
    as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not operate in a way that would create observer speed irrelevant.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    An absolute frame is different from an ether because it has no ether wind. The MMX was to test for that wind. It is not ether theory. The absolute frame is a denial of Galileo's shared velocity with the source.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 21 22:52:58 2023
    On 4/21/2023 7:23 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or
    you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the Earth
    down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly from
    the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    Pure nonsense. Hardly worthy of being picked apart but at your
    insistence I'll be glad to.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Apr 21 23:43:02 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:49:08 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist, performed an


    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to refute >> Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's SR. I will
    explain why when people here have studied it.
    I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing. The
    experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up Einstein's >> SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have the courage to >> disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was blatantly obvious. >> Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer from >> the same error.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping up SR.
    SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is stated as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not operate in a way that would create observer speed irrelevant.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    An absolute frame is different from an ether because it has no ether wind. The MMX was to test for that wind. It is not ether theory. The absolute frame is a denial of Galileo's shared velocity with the source.

    I have been trying to figure out the absolute frame from the 'co-moving' frame. If a geocentric model establishes absolute space, what about a 'stellar-centric' frame? How fast could the stars be moving? How about an universe-centric frame?

    How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal frame at xU, yU, zU?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 22 09:42:03 2023
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:49:08 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist,
    performed an


    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to
    refute Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's
    SR. I will explain why when people here have studied it.
    I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing.
    The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up
    Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have
    the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was
    blatantly obvious.
    Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer
    from the same error.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping
    up SR.
    SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from
    differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is
    stated as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not
    operate in a way that would create observer speed irrelevant.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    An absolute frame is different from an ether because it has no ether
    wind. The MMX was to test for that wind. It is not ether theory. The
    absolute frame is a denial of Galileo's shared velocity with the
    source.

    The MMX was a test for any kind of absoluteness. It was intended to maesure
    the Earth's speed in a supposed absolute frame.

    I have been trying to figure out the absolute frame from the 'co-moving' frame. If a geocentric model establishes absolute space, what about a 'stellar-centric' frame? How fast could the stars be moving? How about
    an universe-centric frame?

    The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical observations.

    How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as
    slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal frame at
    xU, yU, zU?

    Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind.







    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Sat Apr 22 09:48:10 2023
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 22:52:58 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/21/2023 7:23 PM, Jane wrote:

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or
    you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the
    Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    Pure nonsense. Hardly worthy of being picked apart but at your
    insistence I'll be glad to.

    Are you arguing or just making a noise because that is all you can do.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Jane on Sat Apr 22 03:30:38 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:42:07 PM UTC+5, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:49:08 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist,
    ..
    How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as
    slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal frame at xU, yU, zU?
    Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind.
    --
    -- lover of truth


    Are you saying the concept of absolute motion never made sense even in a geocentric system?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Jane on Sat Apr 22 15:33:17 2023
    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or
    you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly from
    the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.

    I'll leave it to you to find your error,
    more educational that way,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jane on Sat Apr 22 07:01:02 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:42:07 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:49:08 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:31:25 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 12:59:20 -0700, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:05:21 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    That year, Albert Michelson, a highly regarded physicist,
    performed an


    His interpretation was a complete farce and whilst claiming to
    refute Newton actually does the opposite, It refutes Einstein's
    SR. I will explain why when people here have studied it.
    I cannot believe that Michelson did not know what he was doing.
    The experiment was obviously a hoax designed purely to prop up
    Einstein's SR...and it worked for quite a while. Nobody would have >> > >> the courage to disagree with Michelson even though his mistake was >> > >> blatantly obvious.
    Many other experiments of similar nature followed and all suffer
    from the same error.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    Michelson was inclined to find an ether so he wouldn't be propping
    up SR.
    SR is pure ether theory. The ether is what unifies light speeds from
    differently moving sources. It isn't mentioned because its role is
    stated as a postulate. Without an absolute frame, the LTs would not
    operate in a way that would create observer speed irrelevant.
    --
    -- lover of truth
    An absolute frame is different from an ether because it has no ether
    wind. The MMX was to test for that wind. It is not ether theory. The
    absolute frame is a denial of Galileo's shared velocity with the
    source.
    The MMX was a test for any kind of absoluteness. It was intended to maesure the Earth's speed in a supposed absolute frame.
    I have been trying to figure out the absolute frame from the 'co-moving' frame. If a geocentric model establishes absolute space, what about a 'stellar-centric' frame? How fast could the stars be moving? How about
    an universe-centric frame?
    The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical observations.
    How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as
    slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal frame at xU, yU, zU?
    Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind.
    --
    Kookfight

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Sat Apr 22 09:17:48 2023
    On 4/22/2023 4:48 AM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 22:52:58 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/21/2023 7:23 PM, Jane wrote:

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or >>>> you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the
    Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    Pure nonsense. Hardly worthy of being picked apart but at your
    insistence I'll be glad to.

    Are you arguing or just making a noise because that is all you can do.

    Now you're just working at being obnoxious.

    A rotating earth relies very heavily on the sun's contribution
    for wind.

    Bing finds something over 3 million entries for "what causes wind."
    (save yourself the trouble if you were going to answer "beans.")

    Prevailing winds around the world tend to be from the west, that is
    to say, flowing in the same direction as the earth's rotation and most
    of the time faster than surface movement. To make your case you'd have
    to demonstrate enough of a coupling and explain why the wind is faster
    than the earth's surface.

    Wind powered electrical generation adds to the earth's rotation if
    anything, with the wind urging faster rotation because the wind usually
    travels faster than the surface. Yes, that's a repeat because I don't
    think you got it the first time.

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more
    than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions. As has been
    stated here before, you really do need to get a different hobby, physics
    isn't your strong suit any longer.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to whodat on Sat Apr 22 08:15:31 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:18:00 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more
    than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions.
    More proof that antirelativism is a mental illness. You used to know this person as being reasonable. You must have missed the signs

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Apr 22 12:08:58 2023
    On 4/22/2023 10:15 AM, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:18:00 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more
    than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions.

    More proof that antirelativism is a mental illness. You used to know this person as being reasonable. You must have missed the signs

    Cheap shot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to whodat on Sat Apr 22 10:26:45 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 10:09:12 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 4/22/2023 10:15 AM, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:18:00 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more >> than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions.

    More proof that antirelativism is a mental illness. You used to know this person as being reasonable. You must have missed the signs
    Cheap shot.
    I was referring to HER mental issues, not yours.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Apr 22 11:00:04 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:18:00 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions.
    More proof that antirelativism is a mental illness.

    I'd say more like a narrow derangement or a monomania. We've seen
    lots of examples of this in other domains as well, like handling the
    covid or in politics.

    The phenomenon (manifest in many domains) has apparently always
    existed but it became visible through social media, so it probably
    appears more new or serious than it is.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Apr 22 17:55:38 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:00:07 PM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:18:00 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions.
    More proof that antirelativism is a mental illness.
    I'd say more like a narrow derangement or a monomania. We've seen
    lots of examples of this in other domains as well, like handling the
    covid or in politics.

    The phenomenon (manifest in many domains) has apparently always
    existed but it became visible through social media, so it probably
    appears more new or serious than it is.

    --
    Jan

    Relativists are the only ones immune. Except when they break ranks.

    We can establish by definition that anyone who does not support Relativity is a crank. Is this not how it works?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 22 18:27:25 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:00:07 PM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:18:00 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more
    than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions.
    More proof that antirelativism is a mental illness.
    I'd say more like a narrow derangement or a monomania. We've seen
    lots of examples of this in other domains as well, like handling the
    covid or in politics.

    The phenomenon (manifest in many domains) has apparently always
    existed but it became visible through social media, so it probably
    appears more new or serious than it is.

    --
    Jan
    Relativists are the only ones immune. Except when they break ranks.

    We can establish by definition that anyone who does not support Relativity is a crank. Is this not how it works?


    You've always been a crank , Gehan. So, stop pretending that you are taking classes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 22 19:31:24 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    Relativists are the only ones immune. Except when they break ranks.

    We can establish by definition that anyone who does not support Relativity is a crank. Is this not how it works?
    .
    No. Your problem is, if you want to overthrow relativity, you need evidence to support your position.

    Evidence rules. Got any?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Apr 22 22:23:01 2023
    On Sunday, 23 April 2023 at 04:31:26 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    Relativists are the only ones immune. Except when they break ranks.

    We can establish by definition that anyone who does not support Relativity is a crank. Is this not how it works?
    .
    No. Your problem is, if you want to overthrow relativity, you need evidence to support your position.

    Evidence rules. Got any?

    Anyone can check GPS, serious clocks keep
    measuring t'=t just like all serious clocks
    always did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to gehan.am...@gmail.com on Sat Apr 22 23:16:50 2023
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:00:07 PM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:18:00 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more
    than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions.
    More proof that antirelativism is a mental illness.
    I'd say more like a narrow derangement or a monomania. We've seen
    lots of examples of this in other domains as well, like handling the
    covid or in politics.

    The phenomenon (manifest in many domains) has apparently always
    existed but it became visible through social media, so it probably
    appears more new or serious than it is.

    --
    Jan
    Relativists are the only ones immune. Except when they break ranks.

    We can establish by definition that anyone who does not support Relativity is a crank. Is this not how it works?

    No. Not at all. What's really happening is that practically 100% of
    the anti-relativity voices here are arrogant nonsense. Most of it
    is not even wrong.

    So that's the situation.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to whodat on Sun Apr 23 14:30:06 2023
    whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

    On 4/22/2023 4:48 AM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 22:52:58 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/21/2023 7:23 PM, Jane wrote:

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or >>>> you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the
    Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    Pure nonsense. Hardly worthy of being picked apart but at your
    insistence I'll be glad to.

    Are you arguing or just making a noise because that is all you can do.

    Now you're just working at being obnoxious.

    A rotating earth relies very heavily on the sun's contribution
    for wind.

    Bing finds something over 3 million entries for "what causes wind."
    (save yourself the trouble if you were going to answer "beans.")

    Prevailing winds around the world tend to be from the west, that is
    to say, flowing in the same direction as the earth's rotation and most
    of the time faster than surface movement. To make your case you'd have
    to demonstrate enough of a coupling and explain why the wind is faster
    than the earth's surface.

    Wind powered electrical generation adds to the earth's rotation if
    anything, with the wind urging faster rotation because the wind usually travels faster than the surface. Yes, that's a repeat because I don't
    think you got it the first time.

    Neither. Conservation of angular momentum of the Earth applies.
    (apart from the irrelevant and tiny tidal friction)
    The sun's radiation brings in heat,
    it doesn't bring in any angular momentum.

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more
    than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions. As has been stated here before, you really do need to get a different hobby, physics isn't your strong suit any longer.

    It never was. If that 'Jane' really is recently retired
    from some university department it must be a pseudo-scientific one.
    (no lack of those, nowadays)
    You suggested knowing about it, sometime earlier,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sun Apr 23 07:02:04 2023
    On Sunday, 23 April 2023 at 08:16:51 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:00:07 PM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:18:00 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more
    than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions.
    More proof that antirelativism is a mental illness.
    I'd say more like a narrow derangement or a monomania. We've seen
    lots of examples of this in other domains as well, like handling the covid or in politics.

    The phenomenon (manifest in many domains) has apparently always
    existed but it became visible through social media, so it probably appears more new or serious than it is.

    --
    Jan
    Relativists are the only ones immune. Except when they break ranks.

    We can establish by definition that anyone who does not support Relativity is a crank. Is this not how it works?
    No. Not at all.

    Yes, exactly. At least Jan is ashamed of that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sun Apr 23 08:40:04 2023
    On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 7:02:05 AM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    Yes, exactly. At least Jan is ashamed of that.
    The censorious are always the most stupid. The relativists don't understand that if one uses the same unit of measure of time for the two twins then the same amount of time passes for both! How do you like the new book by Mr. Liu on absolute or universal
    time?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon Apr 24 00:19:48 2023
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:01:02 -0700, Dono. wrote:

    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:42:07 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical
    observations.
    How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as
    slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating
    with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal
    frame at xU, yU, zU?
    Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind.
    --
    Kookfight

    Moron moans





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Apr 24 00:17:13 2023
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or
    you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the
    Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.

    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists
    who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .

    The Earth's rotation creates Coriolis forces which are almost entirely responsible for the existence of trade winds. These are favoured by wind farmers because they run almost 24/7/52 and contain far more energy than
    local sea breezes caused by the sun's heat. Extracting energy from trade
    winds will inevitably slow the Earth.
    This is therefore not fantasy but just another realism that I alone,
    being apparently an exceptional physicist, has realised.

    If the total human energy supply is derived from wind energy, the Earth
    will eventually stop spinning. Understand!!!!!

    Some of you pseudo-experts might like to do the simple calculations that
    will reveal how long that will take. You should all be able to roughly
    estimate the moment of inertia of a reasonably homogeneous sphere.

    (To relieve you concerns, I can tell you we don't have to worry for a
    while yet).




    I'll leave it to you to find your error,
    more educational that way,

    Jan





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 01:58:52 2023
    On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 7:17:16 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.
    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists
    who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .

    The Earth's rotation creates Coriolis forces which are almost entirely responsible for the existence of trade winds. These are favoured by wind farmers because they run almost 24/7/52 and contain far more energy than local sea breezes caused by the sun's heat. Extracting energy from trade winds will inevitably slow the Earth.
    This is therefore not fantasy but just another realism that I alone,
    being apparently an exceptional physicist, has realised.

    If the total human energy supply is derived from wind energy, the Earth
    will eventually stop spinning. Understand!!!!!

    Some of you pseudo-experts might like to do the simple calculations that will reveal how long that will take. You should all be able to roughly estimate the moment of inertia of a reasonably homogeneous sphere.

    (To relieve you concerns, I can tell you we don't have to worry for a
    while yet).
    I'll leave it to you to find your error,
    more educational that way,

    All wind energy is COMPLETELY converted to heat regardless of the
    extent of human activity, which does virtually nothing to affect
    the rate of this conversion.

    The generation of wind by differential heating of the Earth's
    surface by the Sun, the bending of the wind's motions into
    circular patterns due to Coriolis effects, and the conversion of
    wind energy into heat does nothing to slow down the Earth's
    rotation. Certainly nothing that humans do can significantly
    affect the rate at which wind energy converts to heat.

    In any event, the relevant metric to follow is not energy, but
    angular momentum.

    The major sources of loss of angular momentum by the Earth arise
    from the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. The major
    effects are tidal influences by the Moon, Sun and other Solar
    System bodies. To a lesser extent there will be such influences
    as the torques exerted by the Sun's magnetic field as the Earth
    (and its conductive ionosphere) spins within the field. Gain/loss
    of mass from/to space due to meteor strikes and atmospheric
    losses, pushes from the solar wind etc. will have minor effects
    that are difficult to calculate.

    The human contribution to angular momentum change is not
    significant. This is quite different from the human contribution
    to the Earth's heat balance. Launching of artificial satellites
    will cause the Earth to slow down lightly, because they are
    almost always launched in a direction to get a boost from the
    Earth's spin, but I think you will agree that the combined effect
    of the various space programs is not much.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 12:44:44 2023
    On 2023-04-22 00:23:24 +0000, Jane said:

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly from
    the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    In years 2011..2016 there were three leap seconds.
    In years 2017..2022 there were no leap secons.
    This shows that Earth is spinning faster than before.

    Over longer periods Earth's rotation has been observed to slow down.
    Estimated time of the stooping of the rotation is about the time of
    Sun's helim flash.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 12:01:03 2023
    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or
    you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the
    Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.

    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists
    who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .

    The Earth's rotation creates Coriolis forces which are almost entirely responsible for the existence of trade winds. These are favoured by wind farmers because they run almost 24/7/52 and contain far more energy than local sea breezes caused by the sun's heat. Extracting energy from trade winds will inevitably slow the Earth.

    Real physicists will know that Coriolis forces
    are perpendicular to the velocity.
    Hence Coriolis forces can never do any work.

    This is therefore not fantasy but just another realism that I alone,
    being apparently an exceptional physicist, has realised.

    You are a most exceptional physicist indeed,
    unique in your kind.
    You easily beat all the nutters in here for amusement value.
    [-]

    I'll leave it to you to find your error,
    more educational that way,

    Jan

    Alas, in vain. No surprise there,

    Jan

    Hint: the blades of the windmill exert a force on the wind
    to slow the air down. That generates the power.
    By action = reaction the foundations of the mill
    exert an equal force on the Earth that precisely compensates.
    Overall angular momentum is conserved.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon Apr 24 12:01:04 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 10:09:12?AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 4/22/2023 10:15 AM, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:18:00?AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:

    Almost daily it is becoming clearer that these days you're nothing more >> than a wanabee shock jock without substantive contributions.

    More proof that antirelativism is a mental illness. You used to know this person as being reasonable. You must have missed the signs
    Cheap shot.
    I was referring to HER mental issues, not yours.

    Yes, but you snipped too much,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 08:37:06 2023
    On 4/23/2023 7:19 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 07:01:02 -0700, Dono. wrote:

    On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:42:07 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:43:02 -0700 (PDT), gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

    The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical
    observations.
    How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as
    slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating
    with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal
    frame at xU, yU, zU?
    Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind.
    --
    Kookfight

    Moron moans

    What a great self-descriptive!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 08:36:10 2023
    On 4/23/2023 7:17 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or >>>> you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the
    Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.

    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists
    who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .


    Uncle Al thought that on east-west rail lines one track wore more than
    the other. Too many eggs, too small a basket, in his case as well as
    yours.



    The Earth's rotation creates Coriolis forces which are almost entirely responsible for the existence of trade winds.


    What means "almost entirely??? Without the sun providing a thermal
    element there would be be wind whatever.


    These are favoured by wind
    farmers because they run almost 24/7/52 and contain far more energy than local sea breezes caused by the sun's heat. Extracting energy from trade winds will inevitably slow the Earth.



    As the cranks have been told time and again, where's your support for
    such ideas? Sayso doesn't work, period.



    This is therefore not fantasy but just another realism that I alone,
    being apparently an exceptional physicist, has realised.


    And yes, eventually the narcissism had to emerge. Got any more? Go
    argue with arindam banerjee in sci.physics, or stroke him, whatever
    suits your fancy.



    If the total human energy supply is derived from wind energy, the Earth
    will eventually stop spinning. Understand!!!!!

    Some of you pseudo-experts might like to do the simple calculations that
    will reveal how long that will take. You should all be able to roughly estimate the moment of inertia of a reasonably homogeneous sphere.

    (To relieve you concerns, I can tell you we don't have to worry for a
    while yet).




    I'll leave it to you to find your error,
    more educational that way,

    Jan






    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Mon Apr 24 17:44:44 2023
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-04-22 00:23:24 +0000, Jane said:

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    In years 2011..2016 there were three leap seconds.
    In years 2017..2022 there were no leap secons.
    This shows that Earth is spinning faster than before.

    But nothing out of the ordinary.
    The rotation rate of the Earth has always been fluctuating.

    Over longer periods Earth's rotation has been observed to slow down. Estimated time of the stooping of the rotation is about the time of
    Sun's helim flash.

    It is really quite impossible to accurately estimate this,
    for it will depend on the distribution of the land masses
    in the far future.
    The present relatively rapid spin-down is not representative
    for geological history as a whole.

    Save rotation! Continents Unite!

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to whodat on Mon Apr 24 13:10:51 2023
    On 4/24/2023 9:36 AM, whodat wrote:
    On 4/23/2023 7:17 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

      I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or >>>>>   you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the
    Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.

    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists
    who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that
    Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .


    Uncle Al thought that on east-west rail lines one track wore more than
    the other. Too many eggs, too small a basket, in his case as well as
    yours.

    I believe that was north-south rail lines, because N/S trains toward the equator have a perpendicular motion of 1000 mph compared to a train
    toward the north pole.

    I never tried to work out whether he was correct but I do remember that
    he said it didn't matter whether the train headed north or south, the
    same rail wore more than the other.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Apr 24 13:20:22 2023
    On 4/24/2023 11:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2023-04-22 00:23:24 +0000, Jane said:

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly from >>> the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    In years 2011..2016 there were three leap seconds.
    In years 2017..2022 there were no leap secons.
    This shows that Earth is spinning faster than before.

    But nothing out of the ordinary.
    The rotation rate of the Earth has always been fluctuating.

    Over longer periods Earth's rotation has been observed to slow down.
    Estimated time of the stooping of the rotation is about the time of
    Sun's helim flash.

    It is really quite impossible to accurately estimate this,
    for it will depend on the distribution of the land masses
    in the far future.
    The present relatively rapid spin-down is not representative
    for geological history as a whole.

    Save rotation! Continents Unite!

    I've read somewhere* that the sensitivity measuring earth's rotation
    period over a period of a year is enough that they can detect snowpack
    in the northern hemisphere as well as when trees leaf out/lose leaves in
    the northern hemisphere. (both effects have mass further from earth's rotational axis and are greater than the same in the southern hemisphere)

    (*) I often hear/remember trivia/facts but not the source, so don't ask
    me for proof/evidence. I may or may not be correct. Google may be helpful.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue Apr 25 00:53:06 2023
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 01:58:52 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 7:17:16 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long
    it will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the
    harnessing of wind power? Not many people would know that wind
    energy comes mainly from the Earth's rotation with relatively little
    from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.
    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists
    who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that
    Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .

    The Earth's rotation creates Coriolis forces which are almost entirely
    responsible for the existence of trade winds. These are favoured by
    wind farmers because they run almost 24/7/52 and contain far more
    energy than local sea breezes caused by the sun's heat. Extracting
    energy from trade winds will inevitably slow the Earth.
    This is therefore not fantasy but just another realism that I alone,
    being apparently an exceptional physicist, has realised.

    If the total human energy supply is derived from wind energy, the Earth
    will eventually stop spinning. Understand!!!!!

    Some of you pseudo-experts might like to do the simple calculations
    that will reveal how long that will take. You should all be able to
    roughly estimate the moment of inertia of a reasonably homogeneous
    sphere.

    (To relieve you concerns, I can tell you we don't have to worry for a
    while yet).
    I'll leave it to you to find your error,
    more educational that way,

    All wind energy is COMPLETELY converted to heat regardless of the extent
    of human activity, which does virtually nothing to affect the rate of
    this conversion.

    The generation of wind by differential heating of the Earth's surface by
    the Sun, the bending of the wind's motions into circular patterns due to Coriolis effects, and the conversion of wind energy into heat does
    nothing to slow down the Earth's rotation. Certainly nothing that humans
    do can significantly affect the rate at which wind energy converts to
    heat.

    You are quite wrong. The energy driving most of the Earth's trade winds
    comes from the Earth's rotation

    In any event, the relevant metric to follow is not energy, but angular momentum. The sun merely causes differential warming and density
    gradients which in turn induce air movement towards and away from the
    equator. Conservation of momentum explains the Coriolis effect and the
    isobar lines we see on weather charts.

    Wind turbines extract energy that is mainly derived from the Earth's
    rotation and turn it into heat. This upsets the tidal balance between atmosphere and land and results in a 'drag' that MUSt ultimately result
    in slowing of the Earth's spin rate.

    Being a relativist you probably think perpetual motion is possible.



    The major sources of loss of angular momentum by the Earth arise from
    the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. The major effects are
    tidal influences by the Moon, Sun and other Solar System bodies. To a
    lesser extent there will be such influences as the torques exerted by
    the Sun's magnetic field as the Earth (and its conductive ionosphere)
    spins within the field. Gain/loss of mass from/to space due to meteor
    strikes and atmospheric losses, pushes from the solar wind etc. will
    have minor effects that are difficult to calculate.

    That's correct... now do the calculation I asked and see how wind power compares.

    The human contribution to angular momentum change is not significant.

    Do the calculation and prove it. (Earth's rotational energy)/(annual
    human consumption of energy)

    This is quite different from the human contribution to the Earth's heat balance. Launching of artificial satellites will cause the Earth to slow
    down lightly, because they are almost always launched in a direction to
    get a boost from the Earth's spin, but I think you will agree that the combined effect of the various space programs is not much.

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Apr 25 01:19:53 2023
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 12:01:03 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:



    The Earth's rotation creates Coriolis forces which are almost entirely
    responsible for the existence of trade winds. These are favoured by
    wind farmers because they run almost 24/7/52 and contain far more
    energy than local sea breezes caused by the sun's heat. Extracting
    energy from trade winds will inevitably slow the Earth.

    Real physicists will know that Coriolis forces are perpendicular to the velocity.
    Hence Coriolis forces can never do any work.

    The Coriolis force is actually imaginary and exists only in the Earth's rotating frame. Flat Earthers regarded it as the 'magic' behind trade
    winds. The real force in the ECI frame is a consequence of changes in
    angular momentum of circulating air. . .That force certainly can do work

    This is therefore not fantasy but just another realism that I alone,
    being apparently an exceptional physicist, has realised.

    You are a most exceptional physicist indeed,
    unique in your kind.
    You easily beat all the nutters in here for amusement value. [-]

    I'll leave it to you to find your error,
    more educational that way,

    Jan

    Alas, in vain. No surprise there,

    Jan

    Hint: the blades of the windmill exert a force on the wind to slow the
    air down. That generates the power.
    By action = reaction the foundations of the mill exert an equal force on
    the Earth that precisely compensates.

    No. It is the windmill's torque that does the work and extracts the energy

    Overall angular momentum is conserved.

    Garbage...How many more perpetual motion machines have you built?





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 18:18:50 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your math... if you can...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Tue Apr 25 01:21:35 2023
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:37:06 -0500, whodat wrote:


    The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical
    observations.
    How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as
    slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating
    with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal
    frame at xU, yU, zU?
    Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind.
    --
    Kookfight

    Moron moans

    What a great self-descriptive!

    Another moron moans





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Jane on Mon Apr 24 20:38:20 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:53:09 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 01:58:52 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 7:17:16 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long
    it will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the
    harnessing of wind power? Not many people would know that wind
    energy comes mainly from the Earth's rotation with relatively little >> >> from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.
    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists
    who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that >> Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .

    The Earth's rotation creates Coriolis forces which are almost entirely
    responsible for the existence of trade winds. These are favoured by
    wind farmers because they run almost 24/7/52 and contain far more
    energy than local sea breezes caused by the sun's heat. Extracting
    energy from trade winds will inevitably slow the Earth.
    This is therefore not fantasy but just another realism that I alone,
    being apparently an exceptional physicist, has realised.

    If the total human energy supply is derived from wind energy, the Earth >> will eventually stop spinning. Understand!!!!!

    Some of you pseudo-experts might like to do the simple calculations
    that will reveal how long that will take. You should all be able to
    roughly estimate the moment of inertia of a reasonably homogeneous
    sphere.

    (To relieve you concerns, I can tell you we don't have to worry for a
    while yet).
    I'll leave it to you to find your error,
    more educational that way,

    All wind energy is COMPLETELY converted to heat regardless of the extent of human activity, which does virtually nothing to affect the rate of
    this conversion.

    The generation of wind by differential heating of the Earth's surface by the Sun, the bending of the wind's motions into circular patterns due to Coriolis effects, and the conversion of wind energy into heat does
    nothing to slow down the Earth's rotation. Certainly nothing that humans do can significantly affect the rate at which wind energy converts to heat.
    You are quite wrong. The energy driving most of the Earth's trade winds comes from the Earth's rotation
    In any event, the relevant metric to follow is not energy, but angular momentum. The sun merely causes differential warming and density
    gradients which in turn induce air movement towards and away from the equator. Conservation of momentum explains the Coriolis effect and the isobar lines we see on weather charts.

    Wind turbines extract energy that is mainly derived from the Earth's rotation and turn it into heat. This upsets the tidal balance between atmosphere and land and results in a 'drag' that MUSt ultimately result
    in slowing of the Earth's spin rate.

    The only way that the angular momentum of the Earth can change is
    by EXCHANGE of angular momentum with objects or entities external
    to the Earth.

    Extraction of wind energy won't do it. Even if the wind energy is
    completely degraded to heat, biases in rotation persist down to
    the molecular level, and the Earth remains spinning.

    No, it is not perpetual motion. Rather, it is a basic conservation
    law. Do spend some time studying instead of making up your
    own fantasy version of physics.

    The Earth is not a closed system, however. Exchange of angular
    momentum with external entities such as the Moon, the Sun etc.
    does occur.

    That reminds me... Did you know that Einstein was joint author
    of two papers in experimental physics? The Einstein-de Haas
    experiment demonstrated a close relationship between the quantum
    notions of angular momentum (i.e. electron spin and electron
    orbital motion) and classical angular momentum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93de_Haas_effect

    After you read this article, you will understand why I am reminded
    of it.

    Being a relativist you probably think perpetual motion is possible.
    The major sources of loss of angular momentum by the Earth arise from
    the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. The major effects are tidal influences by the Moon, Sun and other Solar System bodies. To a lesser extent there will be such influences as the torques exerted by
    the Sun's magnetic field as the Earth (and its conductive ionosphere) spins within the field. Gain/loss of mass from/to space due to meteor strikes and atmospheric losses, pushes from the solar wind etc. will
    have minor effects that are difficult to calculate.
    That's correct... now do the calculation I asked and see how wind power compares.
    The human contribution to angular momentum change is not significant.
    Do the calculation and prove it. (Earth's rotational energy)/(annual
    human consumption of energy)
    This is quite different from the human contribution to the Earth's heat balance. Launching of artificial satellites will cause the Earth to slow down lightly, because they are almost always launched in a direction to get a boost from the Earth's spin, but I think you will agree that the combined effect of the various space programs is not much.
    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?
    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Apr 25 10:28:39 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/24/2023 9:36 AM, whodat wrote:
    On 4/23/2023 7:17 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or >>>>> you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the
    Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it >>>> will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of >>>> wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly >>>> from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.

    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists
    who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that
    Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .


    Uncle Al thought that on east-west rail lines one track wore more than
    the other. Too many eggs, too small a basket, in his case as well as
    yours.

    I believe that was north-south rail lines, because N/S trains toward the equator have a perpendicular motion of 1000 mph compared to a train
    toward the north pole.

    I never tried to work out whether he was correct but I do remember that
    he said it didn't matter whether the train headed north or south, the
    same rail wore more than the other.

    If so, he was wrong about it. (and about East-West rails too)

    I'll leave it as an excercise
    for those who want to amuse themselves with it,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Apr 25 02:06:04 2023
    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 10:28:42 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/24/2023 9:36 AM, whodat wrote:
    On 4/23/2023 7:17 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:


    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or >>>>> you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the >>>>> Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it >>>> will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of >>>> wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly >>>> from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight. >>> Do keep it up.

    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists >> who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that >> Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .


    Uncle Al thought that on east-west rail lines one track wore more than the other. Too many eggs, too small a basket, in his case as well as yours.

    I believe that was north-south rail lines, because N/S trains toward the equator have a perpendicular motion of 1000 mph compared to a train
    toward the north pole.

    I never tried to work out whether he was correct but I do remember that
    he said it didn't matter whether the train headed north or south, the
    same rail wore more than the other.
    If so, he was wrong about it. (and about East-West rails too)

    As a knigt of The Shit, our JJ is, of course, an unfaliable expert
    in any field, including the wear of rails.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Apr 25 11:30:13 2023
    Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 10:28:42 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/24/2023 9:36 AM, whodat wrote:
    On 4/23/2023 7:17 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>

    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or
    you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the >>>>> Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly >>>> from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight. >>> Do keep it up.

    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists >> who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that
    Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .


    Uncle Al thought that on east-west rail lines one track wore more than the other. Too many eggs, too small a basket, in his case as well as yours.

    I believe that was north-south rail lines, because N/S trains toward the equator have a perpendicular motion of 1000 mph compared to a train toward the north pole.

    I never tried to work out whether he was correct but I do remember that he said it didn't matter whether the train headed north or south, the same rail wore more than the other.
    If so, he was wrong about it. (and about East-West rails too)

    As a knigt of The Shit, our JJ is, of course, an unfaliable expert
    in any field, including the wear of rails.

    Don't whine, do the excercise, if you can.
    You can tell me if I'm wrong or not afterwards.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Apr 25 02:38:58 2023
    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 11:30:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 10:28:42 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/24/2023 9:36 AM, whodat wrote:
    On 4/23/2023 7:17 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>

    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you or
    you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the >>>>> Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first sight.
    Do keep it up.

    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe' physicists
    who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even more evidence that
    Einstein worshippers are all seriously short of grey matter. .


    Uncle Al thought that on east-west rail lines one track wore more than
    the other. Too many eggs, too small a basket, in his case as well as yours.

    I believe that was north-south rail lines, because N/S trains toward the
    equator have a perpendicular motion of 1000 mph compared to a train toward the north pole.

    I never tried to work out whether he was correct but I do remember that he said it didn't matter whether the train headed north or south, the same rail wore more than the other.
    If so, he was wrong about it. (and about East-West rails too)

    As a knigt of The Shit, our JJ is, of course, an unfaliable expert
    in any field, including the wear of rails.
    Don't whine, do the excercise, if you can.

    I can't. I'm not a knight of The Shit knowing everything
    about everything, I know very little about the wearing of
    railways.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Apr 25 13:39:23 2023
    Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 11:30:17 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, 25 April 2023 at 10:28:42 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 4/24/2023 9:36 AM, whodat wrote:
    On 4/23/2023 7:17 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 15:33:17 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Jane <Ja...@home.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 02:07:15 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>

    brain doesn't work that way.
    .
    --
    -- lover of truth

    What question?

    Nice videos, Jan.

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative >>>>> to you or you were moving relative to the ground when you
    came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow
    the Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how >>>> long it will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of
    the harnessing of wind power? Not many people would know that >>>> wind energy comes mainly from the Earth's rotation with
    relatively little from the sun.

    ROTFL, again.
    You are better at providing amusement than it seemed at first
    sight. Do keep it up.

    I cannot believe this! A whole bunch of obviously 'wannabe'
    physicists who have never heard of Coriolis. This provides even
    more evidence that Einstein worshippers are all seriously short
    of grey matter. .


    Uncle Al thought that on east-west rail lines one track wore
    more than the other. Too many eggs, too small a basket, in his
    case as well as yours.

    I believe that was north-south rail lines, because N/S trains
    toward the equator have a perpendicular motion of 1000 mph
    compared to a train toward the north pole.

    I never tried to work out whether he was correct but I do remember that he said it didn't matter whether the train headed north or south, the same rail wore more than the other.
    If so, he was wrong about it. (and about East-West rails too)

    As a knigt of The Shit, our JJ is, of course, an unfaliable expert
    in any field, including the wear of rails.
    Don't whine, do the excercise, if you can.

    I can't.

    That's an honest answer.

    I'm not a knight of The Shit knowing everything
    about everything, I know very little about the wearing of
    railways.

    A thought experiment only.
    No real rails were worn out to perform this expereriment,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Jane on Tue Apr 25 17:00:50 2023
    On 2023-04-25 00:53:06 +0000, Jane said:

    Do the calculation and prove it. (Earth's rotational energy)/(annual
    human consumption of energy)

    370 000 000

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Mikko on Tue Apr 25 11:56:42 2023
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:00:56 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
    On 2023-04-25 00:53:06 +0000, Jane said:

    Do the calculation and prove it. (Earth's rotational energy)/(annual
    human consumption of energy)
    370 000 000

    42

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Apr 25 17:56:40 2023
    On 4/24/2023 8:18 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your math... if you can...

    Jane's postings have become so insignificant they're no longer worth
    my time. She is now in the same category as "Starmaker." Twenty-five
    years ago I'd never have thought it possible. Oh well...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Tue Apr 25 17:41:28 2023
    On 4/24/2023 8:21 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:37:06 -0500, whodat wrote:


    The 'fixed stars' constitute a pretty good reference for astronomical >>>>> observations.
    How about defining an universal coordinate system that is moving as >>>>>> slowly as we know, as x0, y0, z0 and assume that it is translating >>>>>> with velocities Vx, Vy, Vz with respect to a the absolute universal >>>>>> frame at xU, yU, zU?
    Nah! There can be no absoluteness of any kind.
    --
    Kookfight

    Moron moans

    What a great self-descriptive!

    Another moron moans

    ibid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to whodat on Wed Apr 26 11:11:46 2023
    On 4/25/2023 6:56 PM, whodat wrote:
    On 4/24/2023 8:18 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your
    math... if you can...

    Jane's postings have become so insignificant they're no longer worth
    my time. She is now in the same category as "Starmaker." Twenty-five
    years ago I'd never have thought it possible. Oh well...

    Do you still think this Jane is the same retired professor whom you
    claimed would make a positive contribution here?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Apr 26 08:34:16 2023
    On Wednesday, 26 April 2023 at 17:11:45 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 4/25/2023 6:56 PM, whodat wrote:
    On 4/24/2023 8:18 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your
    math... if you can...

    Jane's postings have become so insignificant they're no longer worth
    my time. She is now in the same category as "Starmaker." Twenty-five
    years ago I'd never have thought it possible. Oh well...

    Do you still think this Jane is the same retired professor whom you

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Wed Apr 26 17:24:18 2023
    On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 09:17:48 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/22/2023 4:48 AM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 22:52:58 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/21/2023 7:23 PM, Jane wrote:

    I bet you were wondering if the ground was moving relative to you >>>>> or you were moving relative to the ground when
    you came in for a landing. It takes a lot more energy to slow the
    Earth down, though.

    Seeing you mentioned that topic, have you ever worked out how long it
    will take for the Earth to stop spinning because of the harnessing of
    wind power? Not many people would know that wind energy comes mainly
    from the Earth's rotation with relatively little from the sun.

    Pure nonsense. Hardly worthy of being picked apart but at your
    insistence I'll be glad to.

    Are you arguing or just making a noise because that is all you can do.

    Now you're just working at being obnoxious.

    A rotating earth relies very heavily on the sun's contribution for wind.

    Bing finds something over 3 million entries for "what causes wind."
    (save yourself the trouble if you were going to answer "beans.")

    Wind is a consequence of random instability caused by temperature
    differences and the conservation of angular momentum

    Prevailing winds around the world tend to be from the west, that is to
    say, flowing in the same direction as the earth's rotation and most of
    the time faster than surface movement. To make your case you'd have to demonstrate enough of a coupling and explain why the wind is faster than
    the earth's surface.

    Westerly winds are more prominent because the Coriolis action causes them
    to occur at higher latitudes than the easterly winds. And as any
    physicist would know, conservation of Momentum creates higher velocities at smaller radii.

    Wind powered electrical generation adds to the earth's rotation if
    anything, with the wind urging faster rotation because the wind usually travels faster than the surface. Yes, that's a repeat because I don't
    think you got it the first time.

    What nonsense! Why don't you stop posting to a physics newsgroup? You're
    just making a fool of yourself. Extracting energy from a system cannot add
    to its energy, idiot. Stick to trying to create perpetual motion.








    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 26 18:37:13 2023
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:38:20 -0700 (PDT), Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
    wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:53:09 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
    On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 01:58:52 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:


    All wind energy is COMPLETELY converted to heat regardless of the
    extent of human activity, which does virtually nothing to affect the
    rate of this conversion.

    The generation of wind by differential heating of the Earth's surface
    by the Sun, the bending of the wind's motions into circular patterns
    due to Coriolis effects, and the conversion of wind energy into heat
    does nothing to slow down the Earth's rotation. Certainly nothing
    that humans do can significantly affect the rate at which wind energy
    converts to heat.
    You are quite wrong. The energy driving most of the Earth's trade winds
    comes from the Earth's rotation
    In any event, the relevant metric to follow is not energy, but
    angular momentum. The sun merely causes differential warming and
    density
    gradients which in turn induce air movement towards and away from the
    equator. Conservation of momentum explains the Coriolis effect and the
    isobar lines we see on weather charts.

    Wind turbines extract energy that is mainly derived from the Earth's
    rotation and turn it into heat. This upsets the tidal balance between
    atmosphere and land and results in a 'drag' that MUSt ultimately result
    in slowing of the Earth's spin rate.

    The only way that the angular momentum of the Earth can change is by
    EXCHANGE of angular momentum with objects or entities external to the
    Earth.

    This is basically true although there are obscure tidal ramifications
    involving the sun and moon. The atmosphere experiences tides too and since these are caused mainly by the moon they are continually reducing its orbit speed. I haven't calculated the moon's orbital momentum but I should
    imagine it is comparable with that due to the Earth rotation. If the moon
    ever escapes from the Earth or falls into it, the earth own rotation would
    be seriously affected.

    Extraction of wind energy won't do it. Even if the wind energy is
    completely degraded to heat, biases in rotation persist down to the
    molecular level, and the Earth remains spinning.

    Ah! but consider the atmosphere to be separate object from the Earth's
    body. The total Momentum involved in wind movement is considerable. If
    energy is being extracted from the wind to create electricity, one would
    expect a reduction in the atmosphere's momentum. However all the
    electricity ends up as heat in the atmosphere and stays there for a very
    long time. It cannot get away and so temperature gradients tend to become greater, coriolis becomes more potent and we end up with what we are seeing right across the world today... More powerful tornadoes, stronger winds, devastating cyclones all due to higher temperatures caused by generation
    of electricity one way or another.
    As you should know, angular momentum is a funny kind of vector and in consideration of the above, its increase in the atmosphere would be
    balanced by a decrease in core rotation.


    No, it is not perpetual motion. Rather, it is a basic conservation law.
    Do spend some time studying instead of making up your own fantasy
    version of physics.

    The Earth is not a closed system, however. Exchange of angular momentum
    with external entities such as the Moon, the Sun etc. does occur.

    ..and so generating electricity from tidal movements generally would also
    slow the Earth down.

    That reminds me... Did you know that Einstein was joint author of two
    papers in experimental physics? The Einstein-de Haas experiment
    demonstrated a close relationship between the quantum notions of angular momentum (i.e. electron spin and electron orbital motion) and classical angular momentum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93de_Haas_effect

    Yes but most electron spin is balanced. I should imagine iron and other magnetic substances are relevant to that theory

    After you read this article, you will understand why I am reminded of
    it.








    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Apr 26 13:20:54 2023
    On 4/26/2023 10:11 AM, Volney wrote:
    On 4/25/2023 6:56 PM, whodat wrote:
    On 4/24/2023 8:18 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your
    math... if you can...

    Jane's postings have become so insignificant they're no longer worth
    my time. She is now in the same category as "Starmaker." Twenty-five
    years ago I'd never have thought it possible. Oh well...

    Do you still think this Jane is the same retired professor whom you
    claimed would make a positive contribution here?

    Can't tell. Some things this poster says are beyond the capacity of the
    cranks I've seen here over the years, other times just junk.

    There was at least one instance where one identity was shared by several trolls. That presents another possibility in this case. In the end, it
    hardly matters. Usenet is an amusement, not a scientifically significant
    forum. It could/should be so much more than what it has become.

    If it is the same person as I thought then as someone else mentioned,
    then dementia has seized control. Otherwise I was fooled. That's a
    frequent enough occurrence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Wed Apr 26 19:21:26 2023
    On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:56:40 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/24/2023 8:18 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your
    math... if you can...

    Jane's postings have become so insignificant they're no longer worth my
    time. She is now in the same category as "Starmaker." Twenty-five years
    ago I'd never have thought it possible. Oh well...

    You are clearly envious because you lack my insight. That question was serious...so I will apparently have to provide an answer.
    There would be a small ten second 'blip' in the Earth's surface rotation accompanied by an amount of seismic activity. My second question is
    therefore, "would that be sufficient to cause massive earthquakes all
    around the world?"
    Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's
    skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing?







    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Wed Apr 26 21:21:40 2023
    On 4/26/2023 2:21 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:56:40 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/24/2023 8:18 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your
    math... if you can...

    Jane's postings have become so insignificant they're no longer worth my
    time. She is now in the same category as "Starmaker." Twenty-five years
    ago I'd never have thought it possible. Oh well...

    You are clearly envious because you lack my insight.

    Oh please... And if you weren't addressing me but Alsing, I take it on
    myself to answer for him, Oh please...

    That question was
    serious...

    If so, you've completely lost it. I'm surprised that you demonstrate
    a need to keep proving it.

    so I will apparently have to provide an answer.

    Mistake. It was already past time to shut up so readers would not have
    proof how far you've run off the rails.

    There would be a small ten second 'blip' in the Earth's surface rotation accompanied by an amount of seismic activity.

    The earth is not homogeneous, therefore any and all seismic predictions
    are strictly local and completely dependent on the local structure
    differing around the globe. But the entire scenario is strictly science
    fiction anyway, so there's no need for further discussion.

    Besides that, you've failed to describe what sort of "seismic activity,"
    there are so many kinds.

    My second question is
    therefore, "would that be sufficient to cause massive earthquakes all
    around the world?"

    See above.

    Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's
    skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing?

    You forget that all the vehicles on earth are manufactured from the
    earth itself as is the energy source for vehicular acceleration and
    each represent a small fraction of the mass of the earth and its
    rotational energy.

    You've completely lost sight of the essentials of simple mechanics,
    and provided us with an amusement based in classical troll/crank stuff.

    Please see your "shrimp" (old usenet humor) for an adjustment to your
    meds that are clearly failing you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 27 10:33:09 2023
    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:21:30 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?
    Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing?

    That reminds me of a trick you can use to save fuel in a boat. March
    all the passengers rearward, like soldiers, the boat will progress forward. Then they return to the front, randomly, in uncoordinated fashion, so
    no effect. Repeat, and cross the lake, without contribution to global warming.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to RichD on Fri Apr 28 02:19:27 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:33:09 -0700, RichD wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 12:21:30 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?
    Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's
    skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing?

    That reminds me of a trick you can use to save fuel in a boat. March
    all the passengers rearward, like soldiers, the boat will progress
    forward.
    Then they return to the front, randomly, in uncoordinated fashion, so no effect. Repeat, and cross the lake, without contribution to global
    warming.

    No that doesn't work...but there is a way. Make the soldiers run from
    front to back, dive into the water then swim back to the front....then repeat....







    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Fri Apr 28 02:29:56 2023
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:21:40 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/26/2023 2:21 PM, Jane wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your
    math... if you can...


    That question was serious...

    If so, you've completely lost it. I'm surprised that you demonstrate a
    need to keep proving it.

    so I will apparently have to provide an answer.

    Mistake. It was already past time to shut up so readers would not have
    proof how far you've run off the rails.

    There would be a small ten second 'blip' in the Earth's surface
    rotation accompanied by an amount of seismic activity.

    The earth is not homogeneous, therefore any and all seismic predictions
    are strictly local and completely dependent on the local structure
    differing around the globe.

    Vehicles are well spread throughout the world. The Earth's crust is
    pretty thin.

    But the entire scenario is strictly science
    fiction anyway, so there's no need for further discussion.

    You say that but you have not done the relevant sums. What is the total
    mass of all vehicles on Earth...include trains. What is the mass of, say,
    the top 20 kms of our planet? What torque and energy is involved?
    I was hoping somebody would do that since, after all, this is the kind of
    thing physicists are supposed to do.

    Besides that, you've failed to describe what sort of "seismic activity," there are so many kinds.

    My second question is therefore, "would that be sufficient to cause
    massive earthquakes all around the world?"

    See above.

    Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's
    skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing?

    You forget that all the vehicles on earth are manufactured from the
    earth itself as is the energy source for vehicular acceleration and each represent a small fraction of the mass of the earth and its rotational energy.

    That is quite irrelevant.

    You've completely lost sight of the essentials of simple mechanics,
    and provided us with an amusement based in classical troll/crank stuff.

    Please see your "shrimp" (old usenet humor) for an adjustment to your
    meds that are clearly failing you.

    You laugh but you have not done the sums...If you do you might see my
    point.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Apr 27 20:22:38 2023
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:18:51 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your math... if you can...

    I repeat, Jane... Where is *your* math in support of *your* claim?

    I ask the question... evidence rules, Jane... got any? No? I didn't think so...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu Apr 27 23:08:34 2023
    On 4/27/2023 9:29 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:21:40 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/26/2023 2:21 PM, Jane wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten >>>>>> seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your >>>>> math... if you can...


    That question was serious...

    If so, you've completely lost it. I'm surprised that you demonstrate a
    need to keep proving it.

    so I will apparently have to provide an answer.

    Mistake. It was already past time to shut up so readers would not have
    proof how far you've run off the rails.

    There would be a small ten second 'blip' in the Earth's surface
    rotation accompanied by an amount of seismic activity.

    The earth is not homogeneous, therefore any and all seismic predictions
    are strictly local and completely dependent on the local structure
    differing around the globe.

    Vehicles are well spread throughout the world. The Earth's crust is
    pretty thin.

    But the entire scenario is strictly science
    fiction anyway, so there's no need for further discussion.

    You say that but you have not done the relevant sums. What is the total
    mass of all vehicles on Earth...include trains. What is the mass of, say,
    the top 20 kms of our planet? What torque and energy is involved?
    I was hoping somebody would do that since, after all, this is the kind of thing physicists are supposed to do.

    Besides that, you've failed to describe what sort of "seismic activity,"
    there are so many kinds.

    My second question is therefore, "would that be sufficient to cause
    massive earthquakes all around the world?"

    See above.

    Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's
    skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing?

    You forget that all the vehicles on earth are manufactured from the
    earth itself as is the energy source for vehicular acceleration and each
    represent a small fraction of the mass of the earth and its rotational
    energy.

    That is quite irrelevant.

    You've completely lost sight of the essentials of simple mechanics,
    and provided us with an amusement based in classical troll/crank stuff.

    Please see your "shrimp" (old usenet humor) for an adjustment to your
    meds that are clearly failing you.

    You laugh but you have not done the sums...If you do you might see my
    point.

    The hedge "might" applies to everything you've written here. It is not
    for me to prove your case/cause. When you do that, substantiate your
    thin claims, others will gladly check your work. Till then it is all
    simply crankish claims that have nothing to substantiate them. Bear
    in mind they don't pass even a rudimentary review. Challenging me to
    do your work for you isn't a valid argument supporting your claims.

    P.S. Realistically, don't try chess as an alternate hobby.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 00:37:56 2023
    On 4/27/2023 9:29 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:21:40 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/26/2023 2:21 PM, Jane wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten >>>>>> seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your >>>>> math... if you can...


    That question was serious...

    If so, you've completely lost it. I'm surprised that you demonstrate a
    need to keep proving it.

    so I will apparently have to provide an answer.

    Mistake. It was already past time to shut up so readers would not have
    proof how far you've run off the rails.

    There would be a small ten second 'blip' in the Earth's surface
    rotation accompanied by an amount of seismic activity.

    The earth is not homogeneous, therefore any and all seismic predictions
    are strictly local and completely dependent on the local structure
    differing around the globe.

    Vehicles are well spread throughout the world.

    What does distribution of vehicles have to do with anything when their
    total mass is too small to have the effect you predict?


    The Earth's crust is pretty thin.

    Here again you're throwing things at the ceiling to see what sticks.

    Hint: None of your claims have enough merit to stick.

    But the entire scenario is strictly science
    fiction anyway, so there's no need for further discussion.

    You say that but you have not done the relevant sums. What is the total
    mass of all vehicles on Earth...include trains. What is the mass of, say,
    the top 20 kms of our planet? What torque and energy is involved?
    I was hoping somebody would do that since, after all, this is the kind of thing physicists are supposed to do.

    1) Do your own work.

    2) Why do you think that "the top 20 kms" have to do with the statements
    you've made?


    Besides that, you've failed to describe what sort of "seismic activity,"
    there are so many kinds.

    My second question is therefore, "would that be sufficient to cause
    massive earthquakes all around the world?"

    See above.

    Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's
    skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing?

    You forget that all the vehicles on earth are manufactured from the
    earth itself as is the energy source for vehicular acceleration and each
    represent a small fraction of the mass of the earth and its rotational
    energy.

    That is quite irrelevant.

    Show your work to substantiate your position.


    You've completely lost sight of the essentials of simple mechanics,
    and provided us with an amusement based in classical troll/crank stuff.

    Please see your "shrimp" (old usenet humor) for an adjustment to your
    meds that are clearly failing you.

    You laugh but you have not done the sums...If you do you might see my
    point.

    See my other reply for details on this.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Apr 27 23:06:28 2023
    On Friday, 28 April 2023 at 05:22:40 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:18:51 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your math... if you can...
    I repeat, Jane... Where is *your* math in support of *your* claim?

    Speaking of math - it's always good to remind that your bunch of
    idiots had to announce its oldest and very important part false,
    as it didn't want to provide support for your madness.

    I ask the question... evidence rules, Jane...

    Got any for this nonsense?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Fri Apr 28 07:21:41 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:37:56 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/27/2023 9:29 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:21:40 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/26/2023 2:21 PM, Jane wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for
    ten seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show
    your math... if you can...


    That question was serious...

    If so, you've completely lost it. I'm surprised that you demonstrate a
    need to keep proving it.

    so I will apparently have to provide an answer.

    Mistake. It was already past time to shut up so readers would not have
    proof how far you've run off the rails.

    There would be a small ten second 'blip' in the Earth's surface
    rotation accompanied by an amount of seismic activity.

    The earth is not homogeneous, therefore any and all seismic
    predictions are strictly local and completely dependent on the local
    structure differing around the globe.

    Vehicles are well spread throughout the world.

    What does distribution of vehicles have to do with anything when their
    total mass is too small to have the effect you predict?


    The Earth's crust is pretty thin.

    Here again you're throwing things at the ceiling to see what sticks.

    Hint: None of your claims have enough merit to stick.

    But the entire scenario is strictly science fiction anyway, so there's
    no need for further discussion.

    You say that but you have not done the relevant sums. What is the total
    mass of all vehicles on Earth...include trains. What is the mass of,
    say,
    the top 20 kms of our planet? What torque and energy is involved?
    I was hoping somebody would do that since, after all, this is the kind
    of thing physicists are supposed to do.

    1) Do your own work.

    2) Why do you think that "the top 20 kms" have to do with the statements you've made?

    Obviously you people have know knowledge of geology. There are great
    stresses in many structures of the earth's surface. A minor tremor could easily cause a massive earthquake and often does.


    That is quite irrelevant.

    Show your work to substantiate your position.


    You've completely lost sight of the essentials of simple mechanics,
    and provided us with an amusement based in classical troll/crank
    stuff.

    Please see your "shrimp" (old usenet humor) for an adjustment to your
    meds that are clearly failing you.

    You laugh but you have not done the sums...If you do you might see my
    point.

    See my other reply for details on this.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Apr 28 07:28:49 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:22:38 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:18:51 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your
    math... if you can...

    I repeat, Jane... Where is *your* math in support of *your* claim?

    Where is YOUR maths that give you the right and reason to be sceptical
    about my important observation?

    I ask the question... evidence rules, Jane... got any? No? I didn't
    think so...





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Fri Apr 28 13:47:04 2023
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:08:34 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/27/2023 9:29 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:21:40 -0500, whodat wrote:



    Please see your "shrimp" (old usenet humor) for an adjustment to your
    meds that are clearly failing you.

    I actually have a degree in psychology as well as in physics. That's why childish criticism from scientific ignoramuses doesn't worry me.

    You laugh but you have not done the sums...If you do you might see my
    point.

    The hedge "might" applies to everything you've written here. It is not
    for me to prove your case/cause. When you do that, substantiate your
    thin claims, others will gladly check your work. Till then it is all
    simply crankish claims that have nothing to substantiate them. Bear in
    mind they don't pass even a rudimentary review. Challenging me to do
    your work for you isn't a valid argument supporting your claims.

    P.S. Realistically, don't try chess as an alternate hobby.

    Funny you should mention chess. In my younger days I was pretty good at
    it...I once drew with Russian Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh in a 35 board
    simul, when he was on tour. I confused him with a very unconventional
    opening. ...I even have a photo to prove it.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 07:34:35 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 12:28:52 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:22:38 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:18:51 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your
    math... if you can...

    I repeat, Jane... Where is *your* math in support of *your* claim?

    Where is YOUR maths that give you the right and reason to be sceptical
    about my important observation?

    I ask the question... evidence rules, Jane... got any? No? I didn't
    think so...

    I made no claim that needs defending... but *you* did... so put up or shut up!

    You are putting undue stress on my bullshit meter...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 07:39:37 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:47:08 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 23:08:34 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/27/2023 9:29 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:21:40 -0500, whodat wrote:



    Please see your "shrimp" (old usenet humor) for an adjustment to your >>> meds that are clearly failing you.
    I actually have a degree in psychology as well as in physics.

    So, you are a psycho pretending to do physics. Check.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 09:29:34 2023
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:47:08 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Funny you should mention chess. In my younger days I was pretty good at it...I once drew with Russian Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh in a 35 board
    simul, when he was on tour. I confused him with a very unconventional opening. ...I even have a photo to prove it.
    --
    This puts you around 80. Your dementia has settled in firmly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 10:37:36 2023
    On April 27, Jane wrote:
    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?
    Can you not imagine every vehicles doing that and all the world's
    skyscrapers simultaneously collapsing?

    That reminds me of a trick you can use to save fuel in a boat. March
    all the passengers rearward, like soldiers, the boat will progress forward. >> Then they return to the front, randomly, in uncoordinated fashion, so
    no effect. Repeat, and cross the lake, without contribution to global
    warming.

    No that doesn't work...but there is a way. Make the soldiers run from
    front to back, dive into the water then swim back to the front....then repeat....

    You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to
    stand up in the middle.

    A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly,
    and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Fri Apr 28 22:09:45 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:47:08?AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Funny you should mention chess. In my younger days I was pretty good at it...I once drew with Russian Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh in a 35 board simul, when he was on tour. I confused him with a very unconventional opening. ...I even have a photo to prove it.
    --
    This puts you around 80. Your dementia has settled in firmly.

    Yes, Yuri Averbakh was the first grand master to reach 100.
    (in 2022) He died that year.
    Bobby Fischer battled him. So 'Jane' might be somewhat younger.
    Bobby would have become 80, next year,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 16:03:14 2023
    On 4/28/2023 2:28 AM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:22:38 -0700, Paul Alsing wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 6:18:51 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for ten
    seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show your
    math... if you can...

    I repeat, Jane... Where is *your* math in support of *your* claim?

    Where is YOUR maths that give you the right and reason to be sceptical
    about my important observation?


    Skepticism is the backbone of all science.



    I ask the question... evidence rules, Jane... got any? No? I didn't
    think so...






    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri Apr 28 16:01:37 2023
    On 4/28/2023 2:21 AM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:37:56 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/27/2023 9:29 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:21:40 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/26/2023 2:21 PM, Jane wrote:

    On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:53:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    What if every vehicle on earth rapidly accelerated eastward for >>>>>>>> ten seconds at the same instant?

    Never ask a question that you are not prepared to answer... show >>>>>>> your math... if you can...


    That question was serious...

    If so, you've completely lost it. I'm surprised that you demonstrate a >>>> need to keep proving it.

    so I will apparently have to provide an answer.

    Mistake. It was already past time to shut up so readers would not have >>>> proof how far you've run off the rails.

    There would be a small ten second 'blip' in the Earth's surface
    rotation accompanied by an amount of seismic activity.

    The earth is not homogeneous, therefore any and all seismic
    predictions are strictly local and completely dependent on the local
    structure differing around the globe.

    Vehicles are well spread throughout the world.

    What does distribution of vehicles have to do with anything when their
    total mass is too small to have the effect you predict?


    The Earth's crust is pretty thin.

    Here again you're throwing things at the ceiling to see what sticks.

    Hint: None of your claims have enough merit to stick.

    But the entire scenario is strictly science fiction anyway, so there's >>>> no need for further discussion.

    You say that but you have not done the relevant sums. What is the total
    mass of all vehicles on Earth...include trains. What is the mass of,
    say,
    the top 20 kms of our planet? What torque and energy is involved?
    I was hoping somebody would do that since, after all, this is the kind
    of thing physicists are supposed to do.

    1) Do your own work.

    2) Why do you think that "the top 20 kms" have to do with the statements
    you've made?

    Obviously you people have know knowledge of geology. There are great
    stresses in many structures of the earth's surface. A minor tremor could easily cause a massive earthquake and often does.


    Once again you're proposing some world-wide catechism when the underlying
    facts point to purely localized consequences if any will result at all.

    The very fact that earth tides can and do occur (reading between the
    lines of your postings demonstrates you are conversant with that) should
    have been enough info for you to realize the loose coupling in the
    earth's crust prevents accumulations of forces that by your own
    description are distributed over the surface of the earth. This, indeed,
    is the reason you find that a broad distribution of simultaneously
    accelerating vehicles would need to be widely disbursed.

    Any direction you turn there is a display of the myriad of reasons
    precluding the sorts of consequences that your science fiction
    scenario affords. Make your choice, science or science fiction, you
    can't have both and continue posting here.


    That is quite irrelevant.

    Show your work to substantiate your position.


    You've completely lost sight of the essentials of simple mechanics,
    and provided us with an amusement based in classical troll/crank
    stuff.

    Please see your "shrimp" (old usenet humor) for an adjustment to your
    meds that are clearly failing you.

    You laugh but you have not done the sums...If you do you might see my
    point.

    See my other reply for details on this.






    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to RichD on Fri Apr 28 16:47:47 2023
    On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote:

    [...]

    You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to
    stand up in the middle.

    A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly,
    and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint.

    Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts
    methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And
    it gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in
    the creation of the foods he eats. Get real.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Dono. on Fri Apr 28 16:51:20 2023
    On 4/28/2023 11:29 AM, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 6:47:08 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Funny you should mention chess. In my younger days I was pretty good at
    it...I once drew with Russian Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh in a 35 board
    simul, when he was on tour. I confused him with a very unconventional
    opening. ...I even have a photo to prove it.
    --
    This puts you around 80. Your dementia has settled in firmly.

    Don't be an ageist. It reflects poorly on you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Sun Apr 30 23:57:31 2023
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:47:47 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote:

    [...]

    You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to
    stand up in the middle.

    A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly,
    and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint.

    Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts
    methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And it
    gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in the
    creation of the foods he eats. Get real.

    Don't show your ignorance. How do you think the Romans got across to
    Egypt...?





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Sun Apr 30 23:01:20 2023
    On 4/30/2023 6:57 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:47:47 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote:

    [...]

    You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to
    stand up in the middle.

    A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly,
    and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint.

    Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts
    methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And it
    gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in the
    creation of the foods he eats. Get real.

    Don't show your ignorance. How do you think the Romans got across to Egypt...?

    Inefficiently except when they used winds. Have you ever actually
    studied or otherwise considered the energy (in)efficiency of lifeforms?

    Lifeforms evolved simply to function with nothing apparent regarding
    efficient use of resources. Which is more efficient, a cold blooded
    critter or a warm blooded one? How do the deep sea worms and other
    creatures living in the complete absence of photosynthesis while
    depending on chemical conversion and thermal energy from deep sea
    vents compare? Energy conversion is on topic here in physics.

    You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post
    anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed
    here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but
    even there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide
    no foundation for any of it.

    Keep going the way you are and the net effect is to sound more and more
    like the run of the mill crank we find in the technical groups in
    Usenet. You're free, of course, to post as you wish, but you've been
    sucked into the lowest forms in your discussions with Dono. The same
    thing happened to me trying to best Banerjee in sci.physics, so I
    do sympathize. In the end I broke that off as it became clear those
    discussions had become entirely pointless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Thu May 4 20:50:00 2023
    On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/30/2023 6:57 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:47:47 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote:

    [...]

    You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to
    stand up in the middle.

    A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly,
    and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint.

    Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts
    methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And
    it gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in the
    creation of the foods he eats. Get real.

    Don't show your ignorance. How do you think the Romans got across to
    Egypt...?

    Inefficiently except when they used winds. Have you ever actually
    studied or otherwise considered the energy (in)efficiency of lifeforms?

    Gawd! this bloke actually thought I was serious!

    Lifeforms evolved simply to function with nothing apparent regarding efficient use of resources. Which is more efficient, a cold blooded
    critter or a warm blooded one? How do the deep sea worms and other
    creatures living in the complete absence of photosynthesis while
    depending on chemical conversion and thermal energy from deep sea vents compare? Energy conversion is on topic here in physics.

    Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists.

    You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post
    anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed
    here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but even
    there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide no
    foundation for any of it.

    Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian church.




    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu May 4 16:51:12 2023
    On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/30/2023 6:57 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:47:47 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 4/28/2023 12:37 PM, RichD wrote:

    [...]

    You have a row boat, 10' long, wide and stable enough for a man to
    stand up in the middle.

    A rope is attached to the stern. The man yanks the rope, repeatedly, >>>>> and crosses the lake. No carbon footprint.

    Nonsense. The man doing the yanking exhales carbon dioxide and farts
    methane. What is the energy efficiency of the human being? Lousy. And
    it gets even worse if you include the inefficiencies inherent in the
    creation of the foods he eats. Get real.

    Don't show your ignorance. How do you think the Romans got across to
    Egypt...?

    Inefficiently except when they used winds. Have you ever actually
    studied or otherwise considered the energy (in)efficiency of lifeforms?

    Gawd! this bloke actually thought I was serious!

    Lifeforms evolved simply to function with nothing apparent regarding
    efficient use of resources. Which is more efficient, a cold blooded
    critter or a warm blooded one? How do the deep sea worms and other
    creatures living in the complete absence of photosynthesis while
    depending on chemical conversion and thermal energy from deep sea vents
    compare? Energy conversion is on topic here in physics.

    Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists.

    That's an unsupportable opinion. Plenty of mistakes have been made by scientists (of course when one adheres to the relativistic viewpoint
    as a matter of belief there is a question whether they are scientists,
    same applies to opposition.) If relativism is wrong that's just another
    error in the search for truth. We don't have an accurate record
    regarding how many errors "nature" has made, eg lifeform evolution on
    earth let alone the unknown "attempts" made by nature elsewhere. That
    assumes there is only one "nature" in the universe that also encompasses evolution of the universe as well as control of the basic laws of
    matter, energy, and whatever. The attempts by humans to understand
    everything is, consequentially, also a legitimate part of "nature" so
    while I appreciate your sentiment you are relying, in this short
    argument, on a bifurcation that doesn't actually exist.

    You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post
    anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed
    here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but even
    there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide no
    foundation for any of it.

    Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian church.

    I think you're missing a very important point. All of science has, since
    the beginning of that human endeavor, very simply been a variation on
    the socially acceptable (everywhere except in Martha Stewart's world)
    called "fake it till you make it." Come on, Jane, aren't you just
    another cog of that universe? OTOH your hedge word "incurably" is
    the saving argument. That opens another discussion regarding how much
    evidence is necessary to topple relativity and what sort of evidence
    would that be? With all the inconsistencies that exist in science the inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other supporting work
    is simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka moment to topple
    the existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears and so is, I
    suspect, most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of it, the
    errors as well as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it ends
    up simply rolling back to a prior "state of the art" but that is as
    much of an available option as anything.

    If you are who I think you are, we had a FTF discussion when we met
    about a certain British scientist and how I disagreed with him. I am
    no crank, instead I am what I consider to be a searcher seeking answers
    nobody has been able to, so far, satisfactorily answer. I keep hoping
    that will change, but I'm running out of time. To varying degrees, we
    all are.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Jane on Thu May 4 21:24:55 2023
    On 5/4/23 3:50 PM, Jane wrote:
    Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap
    would be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the
    Einsteinian church.

    This just displays how ignorant and biased you are. Ignorant of how
    science actually works, and biased against science and scientists. There
    is no "Einstein church" -- that's just a figment of your imagination, indicative of your ignorance and bias.

    In the world we inhabit, anyone who was able to demonstrate a
    significant error in SR or GR would be a top contender for a Nobel
    Prize. To date nobody has done so, including "Jane".

    For SR the likelihood of this is so tiny that it is completely
    ignorable, until and unless technology improves to the point that
    quantum gravity is within experimental reach. Note that this requires a
    new experiment -- armchair analyses and gedanken experiments are
    powerless to refute SR (unless they also demonstrate a major internal inconsistency in essentially all of mathematics).

    The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter
    and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
    that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and
    measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
    out that way).

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu May 4 22:36:07 2023
    On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 04:25:09 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 5/4/23 3:50 PM, Jane wrote:
    Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap
    would be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the
    Einsteinian church.
    This just displays how ignorant and biased you are. Ignorant of how
    science actually works, and biased against science and scientists. There
    is no "Einstein church" -- that's just a figment of your imagination, indicative of your ignorance and bias.

    Yes, there is, and your nonsensical lies won't change
    anything.


    In the world we inhabit, anyone who was able to demonstrate a
    significant error in SR or GR would be a top contender for a Nobel
    Prize.

    In the world we inhabit, forbidden by your
    bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
    t'=t in improper seconds.
    And your Shit is not even consistent, it was
    proven here many times and fanatic idiots like
    you can only pretend they didn't notice.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu May 4 23:26:05 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter
    and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
    that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and
    measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
    out that way).

    Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of
    the equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives
    are correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are
    probably (?) within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity
    of being able to detect EP violations.

    Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation"
    of GR, merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Thu May 4 23:41:04 2023
    On Friday, 5 May 2023 at 08:26:08 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
    that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
    out that way).
    Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of
    the equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives
    are correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are
    probably (?) within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity
    of being able to detect EP violations.

    Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation"
    of GR, merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.

    Stop fucking, poor halfbrain, even you are not
    stupid enough to apply this shit for real. You're
    only pretending.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to whodat on Sat May 6 00:06:36 2023
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:12 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote:


    Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists.

    That's an unsupportable opinion. Plenty of mistakes have been made by scientists (of course when one adheres to the relativistic viewpoint as
    a matter of belief there is a question whether they are scientists, same applies to opposition.) If relativism is wrong that's just another error
    in the search for truth.

    Einstein's 'Ether version' of relativity is obviously wrong. Newton's relativism has never been shown to be wrong.

    We don't have an accurate record regarding how
    many errors "nature" has made, eg lifeform evolution on earth let alone
    the unknown "attempts" made by nature elsewhere. That assumes there is
    only one "nature" in the universe that also encompasses evolution of the universe as well as control of the basic laws of matter, energy, and whatever. The attempts by humans to understand everything is, consequentially, also a legitimate part of "nature" so while I
    appreciate your sentiment you are relying, in this short argument, on a bifurcation that doesn't actually exist.

    You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post
    anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed
    here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but
    even there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide
    no foundation for any of it.

    Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would
    be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian
    church.

    I think you're missing a very important point. All of science has, since
    the beginning of that human endeavor, very simply been a variation on
    the socially acceptable (everywhere except in Martha Stewart's world)
    called "fake it till you make it." Come on, Jane, aren't you just
    another cog of that universe? OTOH your hedge word "incurably" is the
    saving argument. That opens another discussion regarding how much
    evidence is necessary to topple relativity and what sort of evidence
    would that be? With all the inconsistencies that exist in science the inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other supporting work is
    simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka moment to topple the existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears and so is, I suspect,
    most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of it, the errors as well
    as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it ends up simply rolling
    back to a prior "state of the art" but that is as much of an available
    option as anything.

    You see...the difference between a true scientist like myself and a self educated, self proclaimed philosopher like yourself is that I actually
    know what i am talking about and state the facts. I have actually
    provided strong hints regarding the terrible error in Paul Andersen's
    fifty yo 'refutation' of ballistic light and also Michelson's moving
    mirror experiment. I am now waiting to see if any Einstein worshipper has
    the intelligence to also find the mistakes and openly accept that they
    exist.

    If you are who I think you are,

    I am not. End of story....you must have known my uncle John....







    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jane@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sat May 6 00:07:51 2023
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 23:26:05 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter
    and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
    that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and
    measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
    out that way).

    Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of the
    equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives are
    correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are probably (?) within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity of being able to
    detect EP violations.

    Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation" of GR, merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.

    Any theory based on constant light speed is obviously wrong.





    --
    -- lover of truth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri May 5 18:39:06 2023
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:07:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Any theory based on constant light speed is obviously wrong.

    And your evidence in support of this claim is what, exactly?

    You can only blow smoke for so long... and your time is rapidly evaporating...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri May 5 21:54:04 2023
    On 5/5/2023 7:06 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 16:51:12 -0500, whodat wrote:

    On 5/4/2023 3:50 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 23:01:20 -0500, whodat wrote:


    Nature was obviously a lot smarter than relativists.

    That's an unsupportable opinion. Plenty of mistakes have been made by
    scientists (of course when one adheres to the relativistic viewpoint as
    a matter of belief there is a question whether they are scientists, same
    applies to opposition.) If relativism is wrong that's just another error
    in the search for truth.

    Einstein's 'Ether version' of relativity is obviously wrong. Newton's relativism has never been shown to be wrong.

    We don't have an accurate record regarding how
    many errors "nature" has made, eg lifeform evolution on earth let alone
    the unknown "attempts" made by nature elsewhere. That assumes there is
    only one "nature" in the universe that also encompasses evolution of the
    universe as well as control of the basic laws of matter, energy, and
    whatever. The attempts by humans to understand everything is,
    consequentially, also a legitimate part of "nature" so while I
    appreciate your sentiment you are relying, in this short argument, on a
    bifurcation that doesn't actually exist.

    You're awfully quick with criticisms and dismissals but never post
    anything to demonstrate you've actually thought most issues discussed
    here through. I'm not one to care that you criticize Einstein, but
    even there your criticisms there are baseless claims and you provide
    no foundation for any of it.

    Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would
    be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian
    church.

    I think you're missing a very important point. All of science has, since
    the beginning of that human endeavor, very simply been a variation on
    the socially acceptable (everywhere except in Martha Stewart's world)
    called "fake it till you make it." Come on, Jane, aren't you just
    another cog of that universe? OTOH your hedge word "incurably" is the
    saving argument. That opens another discussion regarding how much
    evidence is necessary to topple relativity and what sort of evidence
    would that be? With all the inconsistencies that exist in science the
    inconsistencies you find in Einstein's and other supporting work is
    simply not enough. I think it needs another Eureka moment to topple the
    existing well entrenched theories. I'm all ears and so is, I suspect,
    most of the world. Don't be shy, show me all of it, the errors as well
    as the alternative. I'd be very surprised if it ends up simply rolling
    back to a prior "state of the art" but that is as much of an available
    option as anything.

    You see...the difference between a true scientist like myself and a self educated, self proclaimed philosopher like yourself

    I have not made any claims regarding myself but rely on understanding
    by readers of the things I write here. You've missed or ignored the
    nym I've chosen for this newsgroup that clearly disavows any sort of
    personal identification or claims, but you're here thinking you're
    defending those stupidities that have led to knowledgeable participants
    in this newsgroup to pointing out the crankish and trollish aspects of
    your postings.

    I'm not distracted from the critical point I made that human behavior
    is as much a part of "nature" as everything ordinarily associated
    by scientists when using that term. Lashing out, as you do here, will
    not solve the difficulties you create for yourself. All you've done here
    is an attempt to substitute emotion for rational discussion. Simple
    observation should have been enough for you to realize that does not
    work as intended when used as you have here.

    is that I actually
    know what i am talking about and state the facts.

    You and George Hammond are so much on the same page that it verges on
    being scary.

    I have actually provided strong hints

    The very first problem is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth
    with a forked tongue. In the same paragraph you proclaim that you "state
    the facts" and in the very next breath counter your own proclamation
    with having "provided strong hints." Same paragraph, from one sentence
    to the very next you are unable to maintain a level of consistency that
    is essential to being taken seriously.

    regarding the terrible error in Paul Andersen's
    fifty yo 'refutation' of ballistic light and also Michelson's moving
    mirror experiment. I am now waiting to see if any Einstein worshipper has
    the intelligence to also find the mistakes and openly accept that they
    exist.

    If you were actually a scientist you would not be playing such social
    games but you would get to the matter at hand by submitting a paper
    stating your "discovery" to a peer reviewed journal. This is not a new
    form of criticism by me, but has been a topic of discussion several
    times over the years regarding several posters, so don't feel in any
    way special on account of this observation. You're behaving just as
    the classic sci Newsgroup cranks have over several decades.

    If you are who I think you are,

    I am not. End of story....you must have known my uncle John....

    No comment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri May 5 21:56:06 2023
    On 5/5/2023 7:07 PM, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 23:26:05 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter
    and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
    that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and
    measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
    out that way).

    Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of the
    equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives are
    correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are probably (?)
    within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity of being able to
    detect EP violations.

    Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation" of GR,
    merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.

    Any theory based on constant light speed is obviously wrong.

    Actually that depends on what is meant by "consistent light speed."

    The term alone, without further clarification, is not definitive.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri May 5 19:59:45 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 1:50:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Naturally any proof that Einstein's theories are a load of crap would be offensive to an incurably indoctrinated member of the Einsteinian church.

    No, it doesn't work that way. Also, there is no such thing as "Einsteinian church".
    This sort of strawman confabulation is infantile and makes you look like a flake.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Fri May 5 20:03:29 2023
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 11:26:08 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
    that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
    out that way).

    Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of
    the equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives
    are correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are
    probably (?) within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity
    of being able to detect EP violations.

    That would be interesting. It would mean at the very least a
    reinterpretation of the GR model: no curved spacetime but
    a Minkowski spacetime with a symmetric tensor field on it
    (analogous to classical electrodynamics).

    Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation"
    of GR, merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.

    Yes.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Jane on Fri May 5 20:04:11 2023
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:07:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
    On Thu, 04 May 2023 23:26:05 -0700, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    On Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 9:25:09 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

    The validity of GR is much more at risk due to puzzles like dark matter >> and dark energy. To date they do not refute GR, but it appears to me
    that they have the potential to do so if future experiments and
    measurements work out that way (but IMHO it is likely they won't turn
    out that way).

    Most of the proposed alternatives to GR predict violations of the equivalence principle at some level, and if these alternatives are correct, experiments testing the equivalence principle are probably (?) within only a few orders of magnitude of sensitivity of being able to detect EP violations.

    Of course, this would be far from being any sort of "refutation" of GR, merely the ascertaining of limits to its applicability.

    Any theory based on constant light speed is obviously wrong.

    But your post above is not even wrong. It's just word salad.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri May 5 23:19:43 2023
    On Saturday, 6 May 2023 at 03:39:07 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:07:54 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

    Any theory based on constant light speed is obviously wrong.
    And your evidence in support of this claim is what, exactly?

    Well, even your idiot guru was unable to stick
    for this nonsensical assertion for long and his
    GR shit had to withdraw.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)