• Re: Rotated relativistic disk

    From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to larry harson on Sat Aug 19 22:17:23 2023
    On 8/16/23 6:00 PM, larry harson wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:40:27 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 8/15/23 6:19 PM, JanPB wrote:
    The radius does not change if we assume the disc is made of a
    substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
    contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
    Instead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
    isosceles triangles with their apexes all at the center, and their
    bases at the circumference, such that when not rotating they fill
    the disk (with a slightly jagged circumference). Assume each
    triangle is able to resist any centrifugal force. Then when the
    collection rotates, gaps form between the triangles, due to the
    "length contraction" of their bases.

    Tom Roberts

    Here's a question that some may find interesting: Why do the bases of
    the triangles 'length contract' but not the gaps between the bases of adjacent triangles?

    Because the bases of the triangles are pulled together by inter-atomic
    bonds, while the gaps are not.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Aug 19 22:02:05 2023
    On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 04:11:41 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 4:47:32 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    The relativists here continue as bottom feeders attacking the worst critics because they can't handle the best.
    Even the best of the best critics have no evidence to overturn Einstein... so far...

    You haven't even contended with Rutherford's and Tesla's criticisms you vacuous moron.
    I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.

    Neither Rutherford nor Tesla overturned Einstein, no matter how much you would like that to be the case.

    The problem with your opinion is you confuse the recognition of a fact with a fact. They already knew it was nonsense, but you still do not know. They weren't concerned with overturning errors in your brain.
    It is not my opinion. It is a fact that you do not have a lick of evidence in support of your pathetic claim. If Tesla and/or Rutherford overturned Einstein I would sure like to see the frickin' EVIDENCE... but there is little chance that you can do so!
    Talk is cheap but evidence rules. Got any?

    Come on, trash, EVIDENCE can only make you spitting
    with Polish jokes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 20 07:08:02 2023
    Am 19.08.2023 um 08:19 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-08-19 04:58:23 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

    Am 17.08.2023 um 04:05 schrieb Sylvia Else:
    > Hans J. Zweig

    It doesn't matter how many nutters there are. Science is not a
    democracy.

    Well, actually it's an aristocracy and only the top level decides,
    what is true.

    Nonsense.

    Sure, most of the scientific elite does not belong to nobelity.


    You ain't going to change this by complaints or arguments.

    No, but it's almost entirely nutters in this group who think they can
    change what is true by waving their hands and shouting nah, neh, nah.

    Nah, nah, nana...?


    Unless you believe what you are told, you will rethink your errors in
    places where it is cold and you are hungry.


    In a way I made a joke and do not really think, the US sent their
    dissidents to Siberia for reeducation.

    They had other camps, which were predominately hot.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Python@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 20 07:07:19 2023
    Le 20/08/2023 à 07:02, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
    On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 04:11:41 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 4:47:32 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    The relativists here continue as bottom feeders attacking the worst critics because they can't handle the best.
    Even the best of the best critics have no evidence to overturn Einstein... so far...

    You haven't even contended with Rutherford's and Tesla's criticisms you vacuous moron.
    I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.

    Neither Rutherford nor Tesla overturned Einstein, no matter how much you would like that to be the case.

    The problem with your opinion is you confuse the recognition of a fact with a fact. They already knew it was nonsense, but you still do not know. They weren't concerned with overturning errors in your brain.
    It is not my opinion. It is a fact that you do not have a lick of evidence in support of your pathetic claim. If Tesla and/or Rutherford overturned Einstein I would sure like to see the frickin' EVIDENCE... but there is little chance that you can do
    so! Talk is cheap but evidence rules. Got any?

    Come on, trash, EVIDENCE can only make you spitting
    with Polish jokes.

    such a bad night Maciej? Again? How sad...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Aug 19 22:15:21 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:10:12 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

    <snip>

    Despite the rabid lefturd tilt towards force feeding critical race theory and other rubbish of the same kind, the US high school students still manage to score in the top 3 at the math/physics/chemistry Olympiad. For how long, remains to be seen....
    At the same time, UK, France, Germany bring up the trailing end.....

    Russia is banned, asshole.

    If not, they would make all sort of new orifices in participants, judges and public.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Aug 20 10:38:49 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/18/2023 7:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Isn't it just beautiful how Tesla makes perfectly clear that the Emperor
    of modern physics has no clothes with simple logic?" - "Electrical
    Engineer disproves Einsteins Relativity Theory: The Ruins of 106 Years Relativity"

    Again, why are so many cranks electrical engineers?

    Don't know. A root cause, at least in this part of the world,
    is that fundamentalist christians are over-represented
    among (electrical) engineers. (wrt the general population)

    So there is also no lack of engineers who know,
    from their general expertise on everything of course,
    that evolution must be false.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Aug 20 10:38:49 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:01:21?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    On 2023-08-19 15:24:30 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:49:08?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden:

    The idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > on
    superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
    Even half a century ago that was a myth. When I was doing my post-doc> >> at Berkeley (1967–1970) someone claimed to me that American education,>
    in physics and chemistry was the best in the world. If that was true,
    asked him, why it was that vitrtualy all the staff in the
    biochemistry> department had as many foreign post-docs as their grants >> could pay for?> He had no coherent answer.
    The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in the US.
    Wrong on both counts. First, I was asking why professors wanted to have foreign post-docs, not why foreign post-docs wanted to go there.
    Second, a J1 visa did not confer any right to stay in the USA; on the contrary, it required you to return to your home country for a
    specified period (a minimum of two years, I think).


    It doesn't, it is simply a delay tactic until they get a job offer along
    with the conversion to H1-B.

    As to the superiority in the education system, has it occurred to you that this is why they flock to Berkley, Stanford, MIT, etc?
    I thought we were talking about high schools.

    You are the one who switched to your post-doc experience (at Berkeley)> Remember?

    It is you who doesn't remember correctly.
    Athel replied to remarks by me about American decline in science and
    technology in general.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to whodat on Sun Aug 20 10:38:47 2023
    whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

    On 8/18/2023 1:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:45:15?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:


    Don't so lazy. The full original text is on-line at
    <https://archive.org/stream/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein/Hundert%20Autoren%2
    0gegen%20Einstein%20%281931%29_djvu.txt>
    English translation already mentioned at
    <https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20The
    ory/Download/8680>

    Extract some (according to you) still relevant and meaningful criticism
    of relativity, and we can discuss that,

    Jan

    [correction: it was 28 authors, not 38, as I incorrectly remembered]

    What kind of predator attacks the weak? Why wouldn't you start with the strongest critics if relativity can be defended at all?

    ALL predators. You are an idiot.

    Yes, and that is why predators are believed to be -a good thing-.
    They eliminate the weak, the elderly, and generally the unfit,
    and keep the prey population healthy.

    However: some prey are so weak that they don't need a predator.
    They eliminate themselves, and end up in a zoo, or an asylum,
    like this forum, where they are kept for amusement value,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 11:21:04 2023
    On 2023-08-20 08:38:49 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:01:21?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    On 2023-08-19 15:24:30 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:49:08?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>>>
    The idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > on
    superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
    Even half a century ago that was a myth. When I was doing my post-doc> >>>>> at Berkeley (1967–1970) someone claimed to me that American education,> >>>>> in physics and chemistry was the best in the world. If that was true, >>>>> I> asked him, why it was that vitrtualy all the staff in the
    biochemistry> department had as many foreign post-docs as their grants >>>>> could pay for?> He had no coherent answer.
    The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in the US. >>> Wrong on both counts. First, I was asking why professors wanted to have
    foreign post-docs, not why foreign post-docs wanted to go there.
    Second, a J1 visa did not confer any right to stay in the USA; on the
    contrary, it required you to return to your home country for a
    specified period (a minimum of two years, I think).


    It doesn't, it is simply a delay tactic until they get a job offer along
    with the conversion to H1-B.

    As to the superiority in the education system, has it occurred to you
    that this is why they flock to Berkley, Stanford, MIT, etc?
    I thought we were talking about high schools.

    You are the one who switched to your post-doc experience (at Berkeley)>
    Remember?

    It is you who doesn't remember correctly.
    Athel replied to remarks by me about American decline in science and technology in general.

    Yes. At least you don't need a remedial course in reading comprehension.

    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist
    buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate
    misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That
    was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto
    and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.

    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Sun Aug 20 12:56:01 2023
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate
    misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That
    was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto
    and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.

    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent
    (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism
    in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Aug 20 12:39:08 2023
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:22:02?PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:37:28?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:

    The relativists here continue as bottom feeders attacking the worst critics because they can't handle the best.
    Even the best of the best critics have no evidence to overturn
    Einstein... so far...
    You haven't even contended with Rutherford's and Tesla's criticisms you vacuous moron.

    Still awaiting your source for Rutherford overturning relativity.

    Do you have one, or are you merely repeating your bluff?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 07:02:51 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That
    was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto
    and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent
    (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism
    in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan

    You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even write Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).
    But what is interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment. Keep sucking dick to your beloved palis. You and Athel.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Sun Aug 20 07:04:55 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:21:08 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    On 2023-08-20 08:38:49 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:01:21?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    On 2023-08-19 15:24:30 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:49:08?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>>>
    The idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > on >>>>>> superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
    Even half a century ago that was a myth. When I was doing my post-doc> >>>>> at Berkeley (1967–1970) someone claimed to me that American education,>
    in physics and chemistry was the best in the world. If that was true, >>>>> I> asked him, why it was that vitrtualy all the staff in the
    biochemistry> department had as many foreign post-docs as their grants >>>>> could pay for?> He had no coherent answer.
    The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in the US. >>> Wrong on both counts. First, I was asking why professors wanted to have >>> foreign post-docs, not why foreign post-docs wanted to go there.
    Second, a J1 visa did not confer any right to stay in the USA; on the >>> contrary, it required you to return to your home country for a
    specified period (a minimum of two years, I think).


    It doesn't, it is simply a delay tactic until they get a job offer along >> with the conversion to H1-B.

    As to the superiority in the education system, has it occurred to you >>>> that this is why they flock to Berkley, Stanford, MIT, etc?
    I thought we were talking about high schools.

    You are the one who switched to your post-doc experience (at Berkeley)> >> Remember?

    It is you who doesn't remember correctly.
    Athel replied to remarks by me about American decline in science and technology in general.
    Yes. At least you don't need a remedial course in reading comprehension.

    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate
    misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That
    was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto
    and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.

    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    I wasn't misquoting you, I was simply pointing out that you are wrong about the US high school level. (while puffing yourself about the postdoc at Berkeley).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 07:10:01 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:38:52 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:01:21?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    On 2023-08-19 15:24:30 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:49:08?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden:

    The idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > on
    superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
    Even half a century ago that was a myth. When I was doing my post-doc>
    at Berkeley (1967–1970) someone claimed to me that American education,>
    in physics and chemistry was the best in the world. If that was true, >> I> asked him, why it was that vitrtualy all the staff in the
    biochemistry> department had as many foreign post-docs as their grants
    could pay for?> He had no coherent answer.
    The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in the US.
    Wrong on both counts. First, I was asking why professors wanted to have foreign post-docs, not why foreign post-docs wanted to go there.
    Second, a J1 visa did not confer any right to stay in the USA; on the contrary, it required you to return to your home country for a
    specified period (a minimum of two years, I think).


    It doesn't, it is simply a delay tactic until they get a job offer along with the conversion to H1-B.

    As to the superiority in the education system, has it occurred to you that this is why they flock to Berkley, Stanford, MIT, etc?
    I thought we were talking about high schools.

    You are the one who switched to your post-doc experience (at Berkeley)> Remember?

    It is you who doesn't remember correctly.
    Athel replied to remarks by me about American decline in science and technology in general.

    Jan



    Athel was puffing himself up about his postdoc at Berkeley.
    There is no "American decline" . As pointed out, the US high school students place in the top 3 at math/physics/chemistry Olympiads. While your Netherlands is at the bottom. So is Athel's UK / France.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Sun Aug 20 07:57:48 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    On 2023-08-20 14:02:51 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing
    racist> > buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and
    deliberate> > misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards
    nutters. That> > was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho >>> Valev, Ken Seto> > and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars. >> Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.> When you say
    that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent> (and many
    others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism> in the
    establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,>> Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan

    You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even write
    Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).
    Nor can you, apparently. Her name was Hannah Arendt.

    She, a nazi cocksucker (Heidegger). You and Jan, pali cocksuckers. And US detractors. Keep it up, dumbestfucks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Aug 20 16:49:59 2023
    On 2023-08-20 14:02:51 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing
    racist> > buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and
    deliberate> > misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards
    nutters. That> > was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho
    Valev, Ken Seto> > and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.> When you say
    that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent> (and many
    others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism> in the
    establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,>> Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan

    You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even write
    Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).

    Nor can you, apparently. Her name was Hannah Arendt.

    But what is interesting is that you are still butthurt for being
    exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment. Keep sucking dick
    to your beloved palis. You and Athel.


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Aug 20 08:13:06 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:02:54 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That
    was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto
    and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent
    (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan

    You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even write Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).
    But what is interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment. Keep sucking dick to your beloved palis. You and Athel.

    Jan is Jewish, fucking retarded!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Aug 20 08:26:19 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 8:13:08 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:02:54 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist
    buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan

    You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even write Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).
    But what is interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment. Keep sucking dick to your beloved palis. You and Athel.
    Jan is Jewish,


    So are you, Dick
    It never stopped you from sucking nazi cock and licking their boots


    fucking retarded!


    Appropriate signature, Dick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Aug 20 11:52:44 2023
    On 8/20/2023 1:15 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:10:12 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

    <snip>

    Despite the rabid lefturd tilt towards force feeding critical race theory and other rubbish of the same kind, the US high school students still manage to score in the top 3 at the math/physics/chemistry Olympiad. For how long, remains to be seen....
    At the same time, UK, France, Germany bring up the trailing end.....

    Russia is banned, asshole.

    If not, they would make all sort of new orifices in participants, judges and public.

    What, are you claiming the 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ians卐 would machine-gun the Olympics
    or something if invited? I know they target civilians but even they
    aren't that bad!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Aug 20 18:13:08 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That
    was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto
    and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent
    (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism
    in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan

    Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.
    I shouldn't have mentioned him?

    You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even write Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself). But what is interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment.

    Sigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.
    And yes, I admit to giving up on you.
    You may be able to do the sums,
    but you do't understand the basics of it,

    Jan

    Keep sucking dick to your beloved palis.
    You and Athel.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Aug 20 12:13:02 2023
    On 8/19/2023 8:01 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:18:07 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 10:43 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 10:36:30 AM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 1:50 AM, Volney wrote:

    Relativity only has to be defeated *once*, like any other theory. It is >>>>> noteworthy that it never has been defeated.

    Even Einstein noted that, in response to some group "100 Scientists
    against Einstein" or some similar name. He commented he only needed one >>>>> of them.

    Here it is, with well over 100 years of cranks and crackpots whining >>>>> over relativity, only needing just one disproof, but so far...nothing... >>>>> So expect to hear the cranks whining impotently for the next 100 years... >>
    I asked Jane, repeatedly, "where's the beef?" That meaning anything
    of substance that would defeat relativity. Nothing forthcoming. Then
    here came Laurence, again lots of arm waving and claims that relativity >>>> has been refuted, and again *nothing* of substance, just the repetitive >>>> whining that this one or that one has shown that relativity is defeated. >>>>
    All bun, no meat, with any of these claims. I guess it proves some
    people can live on carbs alone. That can't be a very good life.

    It's very simple. It's only required that, finally, the constancy of c on vacuum be disproved, because vacuum doesn't exist.

    Vacuum is a convenient FICTION, where n = 1 in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

    Once it is learned that n < 1 or n > 1 in different parts of the infinite universe, you'll have FTL c' = c/n (for n < 1).

    Now that would violate the first postulate (not just the second),
    wouldn't it.

    Permittivity and permeability are the foundations of Maxwell's theory and the basis of modern RF Engineering and physics.

    This is beyond the matter of light speed and electromagnetism. Them involve the ENTIRE science of electricity and magnetism.

    But what could you know, Mr. PC repairman.

    c₀ =1/√(μ₀ε₀)

    You just contradicted yourself when you claimed "This is beyond the
    matter of light speed and electromagnetism." This is the speed of light according to Maxwell.

    CONSTANTS IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE? GTFO!

    That's what the first postulate states. Do you think that μ₀ and/or ε₀ are different elsewhere? That would have to be true if c was different elsewhere.

    Try to measure them in the center of Andromeda.

    What? You can't?. Then shut the fuck up.

    Astronomers and physicists are much more clever than you are. They come
    up with ideas to measure such things indirectly, what would happen if
    such constants were different. An obvious example may be "what if ε₀
    were different in Andromeda?" One would say "The speed of light there
    would be different because Maxwell said c=1/√(μ₀ε₀)". They'd measure the
    speed of light in Andromeda and see it's c, of course, and conclude "It
    appears that ε₀, or at least the product μ₀ε₀, is the same in Andromeda
    as it is here."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 18:26:28 2023
    On 2023-08-20 16:13:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:38:52?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:01:21?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>>>> On 2023-08-19 15:24:30 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:49:08?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>
    The idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > on >>>>>>>> superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
    Even half a century ago that was a myth. When I was doing my
    post-doc> at Berkeley (1967–1970) someone claimed to me that
    American education,> in physics and chemistry was the best in the >>>>>>> world. If that was true, I> asked him, why it was that vitrtualy >>>>>>> all the staff in the biochemistry> department had as many foreign >>>>>>> post-docs as their grants could pay for?> He had no coherent
    answer.
    The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in
    the US.
    Wrong on both counts. First, I was asking why professors wanted to have >>>>> foreign post-docs, not why foreign post-docs wanted to go there.
    Second, a J1 visa did not confer any right to stay in the USA; on the >>>>> contrary, it required you to return to your home country for a
    specified period (a minimum of two years, I think).


    It doesn't, it is simply a delay tactic until they get a job offer along >>>> with the conversion to H1-B.

    As to the superiority in the education system, has it occurred to you >>>>>> that this is why they flock to Berkley, Stanford, MIT, etc?
    I thought we were talking about high schools.

    You are the one who switched to your post-doc experience (at Berkeley)> >>>> Remember?

    It is you who doesn't remember correctly.
    Athel replied to remarks by me about American decline in science and
    technology in general.

    Jan

    Athel was puffing himself up about his postdoc at Berkeley.

    I don't see any puff. AC-B actually was a post-doc at Berkely.
    (and he became a full-grown scientist there)

    In any case, whatever reputation I may have today doesn't depend of
    whatever qualifications I may have had in 1967.


    There is no "American decline" .

    Oh well, I suppose that if you insist you can argue
    that it never amounted to much to begin with.
    It has always depended on a strong inverse brain drain.
    The USA has found a way to make the rest of the world pay
    for the deficiencies of its own educational system.

    As pointed out, the US high school students place in the top 3 at
    math/physics/chemistry Olympiads. While your Netherlands is at the bottom. >> So is Athel's UK / France.

    Yeah, sure. The problems with the American high school system are hardly news. See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It. <https://www.amazon.com/Trapped-Mediocrity-Schools-Arent-World-Class/dp/144221547X>

    for an all-American analysis of it,

    Jan


    --
    athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 09:27:07 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:13:11 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist
    buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan
    Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.
    I shouldn't have mentioned him?


    Nothing to do with Einstein,. everything to do with your sucking up to fakestinians.


    But what is
    interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment.
    Sigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.

    So, do you still maintain that Alveger measured OWLS?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 09:23:48 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:13:12 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:38:52?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:01:21?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden:
    On 2023-08-19 15:24:30 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:49:08?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden

    The idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > on >>> superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
    Even half a century ago that was a myth. When I was doing my
    post-doc> at Berkeley (1967–1970) someone claimed to me that
    American education,> in physics and chemistry was the best in the >> world. If that was true, I> asked him, why it was that vitrtualy >> all the staff in the biochemistry> department had as many foreign >> post-docs as their grants could pay for?> He had no coherent
    answer.
    The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in the US.
    Wrong on both counts. First, I was asking why professors wanted to have
    foreign post-docs, not why foreign post-docs wanted to go there. Second, a J1 visa did not confer any right to stay in the USA; on the
    contrary, it required you to return to your home country for a specified period (a minimum of two years, I think).


    It doesn't, it is simply a delay tactic until they get a job offer along
    with the conversion to H1-B.

    As to the superiority in the education system, has it occurred to you
    that this is why they flock to Berkley, Stanford, MIT, etc?
    I thought we were talking about high schools.

    You are the one who switched to your post-doc experience (at Berkeley)>
    Remember?

    It is you who doesn't remember correctly.
    Athel replied to remarks by me about American decline in science and technology in general.

    Jan

    Athel was puffing himself up about his postdoc at Berkeley.
    I don't see any puff. AC-B actually was a post-doc at Berkely.
    (and he became a full-grown scientist there)
    There is no "American decline" .
    Oh well, I suppose that if you insist you can argue
    that it never amounted to much to begin with.
    It has always depended on a strong inverse brain drain.
    The USA has found a way to make the rest of the world pay
    for the deficiencies of its own educational system.
    As pointed out, the US high school students place in the top 3 at math/physics/chemistry Olympiads. While your Netherlands is at the bottom. So is Athel's UK / France.
    Yeah, sure. The problems with the American high school system are hardly news. See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It. <https://www.amazon.com/Trapped-Mediocrity-Schools-Arent-World-Class/dp/144221547X>
    for an all-American analysis of it,

    Jan
    Yet, stubborn dumbfuck, the US teams win. While your country dwells at the bottom. Keep it up.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 09:32:49 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:13:12 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our
    Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It. <https://www.amazon.com/Trapped-Mediocrity-Schools-Arent-World-Class/dp/144221547X>
    for an all-American analysis of it,


    I agree with the intro of her book. I can only hope that once inside the book she doesn't advocate for :

    -critical race theory
    -making math "equitable"

    ...any other leftard bullshit that is what is really wasting the time of American students. US students win at Olympiads despite and in spite of the leftard ideas about what teaching should be all about.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Sun Aug 20 18:35:28 2023
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2023-08-20 14:02:51 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04╯AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing
    racist> > buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and
    deliberate> > misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards
    nutters. That> > was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho
    Valev, Ken Seto> > and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars. >> Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.> When you say
    that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent> (and many
    others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism> in the
    establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,>> Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan

    You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even write
    Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).

    Nor can you, apparently. Her name was Hannah Arendt.

    Yes, there are some names that always need double-checking.
    Julius Caesar/Ceasar is another one. And Messerschmitt also.
    I don't always bother.
    (and I don't like the lazy French solution of Jules Cesar)

    However, Daedalus and DREADCO always come out right,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Aug 20 18:35:27 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 7:50:05?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    On 2023-08-20 14:02:51 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing
    racist> > buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and
    deliberate> > misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards >>> nutters. That> > was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho >>> Valev, Ken Seto> > and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.> When you say
    that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent> (and many
    others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism> in the >> establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,>> Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan

    You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even write
    Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).
    Nor can you, apparently. Her name was Hannah Arendt.

    She, a nazi cocksucker (Heidegger). You and Jan, pali cocksuckers. And US detractors. Keep it up, dumbestfucks.

    Well, this is a coming out, you showing your true colours.

    Who could have guessed?

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 09:43:46 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:35:30 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 7:50:05?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
    On 2023-08-20 14:02:51 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing
    racist> > buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and
    deliberate> > misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards >>> nutters. That> > was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho
    Valev, Ken Seto> > and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.> When you say >> that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent> (and many
    others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism> in the
    establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,>> Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan

    You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even write Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).
    Nor can you, apparently. Her name was Hannah Arendt.

    She, a nazi cocksucker (Heidegger). You and Jan, pali cocksuckers. And US detractors. Keep it up, dumbestfucks.
    Well, this is a coming out, you showing your true colours.

    Who could have guessed?


    ...that I got your number? It was obvious.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Aug 20 18:56:56 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:13:11?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of
    liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism
    in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan
    Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.
    I shouldn't have mentioned him?

    Nothing to do with Einstein,. everything to do with your sucking up to fakestinians.

    You deny that Einstein distanced himself,
    in quite explicit terms, from Jewish terrorism in 1948,
    as in massacring Palestinian villages?
    (by the Stern gang, and Menachim Begin's organisation)

    But what is
    interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment.
    Sigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.

    So, do you still maintain that Alveger measured OWLS?

    Yes of course, what else could they possibly have done?
    The photons that they measured the speed of only go one way,
    so you can only measure their speed going one way,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Athel Cornish-Bowden on Sun Aug 20 18:56:57 2023
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2023-08-20 16:13:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:38:52?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:01:21?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden: >>>>> On 2023-08-19 15:24:30 +0000, Dono. said:

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 2:49:08?AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>
    The idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > on >>>>>>>> superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
    Even half a century ago that was a myth. When I was doing my
    post-doc> at Berkeley (1967–1970) someone claimed to me that >>>>>>> American education,> in physics and chemistry was the best in the >>>>>>> world. If that was true, I> asked him, why it was that vitrtualy >>>>>>> all the staff in the biochemistry> department had as many foreign >>>>>>> post-docs as their grants could pay for?> He had no coherent
    answer.
    The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in
    the US.
    Wrong on both counts. First, I was asking why professors wanted to have >>>>> foreign post-docs, not why foreign post-docs wanted to go there.
    Second, a J1 visa did not confer any right to stay in the USA; on the >>>>> contrary, it required you to return to your home country for a
    specified period (a minimum of two years, I think).


    It doesn't, it is simply a delay tactic until they get a job offer along >>>> with the conversion to H1-B.

    As to the superiority in the education system, has it occurred to you >>>>>> that this is why they flock to Berkley, Stanford, MIT, etc?
    I thought we were talking about high schools.

    You are the one who switched to your post-doc experience (at Berkeley)> >>>> Remember?

    It is you who doesn't remember correctly.
    Athel replied to remarks by me about American decline in science and
    technology in general.

    Jan

    Athel was puffing himself up about his postdoc at Berkeley.

    I don't see any puff. AC-B actually was a post-doc at Berkely.
    (and he became a full-grown scientist there)

    In any case, whatever reputation I may have today doesn't depend of
    whatever qualifications I may have had in 1967.

    No, of course not. This is just Dono going into ad-hominem mode
    to distract attention from the fact that American science
    and technology is largely parasitic.

    They are dependent on importing free (to them) talent
    from all over the world.
    It is a form of the rich stealing from the poor,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 10:04:34 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:56:59 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:13:11?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism
    in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan
    Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.
    I shouldn't have mentioned him?

    Nothing to do with Einstein,. everything to do with your sucking up to fakestinians.
    You deny that Einstein distanced himself,
    in quite explicit terms, from Jewish terrorism in 1948,
    as in massacring Palestinian villages?
    (by the Stern gang, and Menachim Begin's organisation)


    I never said that, crank. What I said is that you are a fakestinian lover. Typical of the lefturds.
    But what is
    interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not
    grasped the Alveger experiment.
    Sigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.

    So, do you still maintain that Alveger measured OWLS?
    Yes of course, what else could they possibly have done?

    I already explained that to you. You need to go back and re-read the post, it was quite detailed.
    OWLS is not measurable. Incidentally, wiki has a very good article on this, I recommend that you read it and stop making a fool of yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light).
    Also, Zhang has a very good chapter on this subject in his excellent book.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 10:07:41 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:57:00 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    American science
    and technology is largely parasitic.


    Just when I thought that you couldn't stoop any lower.

    They are dependent on importing free (to them) talent from all over the world.
    It is a form of the rich stealing from the poor,

    Lefturdism is a mental disease. An incurable one. The kids that beat the stuffing out of the European teams at the Olympiads are US born.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Aug 20 19:49:12 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:56:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:13:11?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho
    Valev, Ken Seto and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan
    Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.
    I shouldn't have mentioned him?

    Nothing to do with Einstein,. everything to do with your sucking up to fakestinians.
    You deny that Einstein distanced himself,
    in quite explicit terms, from Jewish terrorism in 1948,
    as in massacring Palestinian villages?
    (by the Stern gang, and Menachim Begin's organisation)


    I never said that, crank. What I said is that you are a fakestinian lover. Typical of the lefturds.
    But what is interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment.
    Sigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.

    So, do you still maintain that Alveger measured OWLS?
    Yes of course, what else could they possibly have done?

    I already explained that to you. You need to go back and re-read the post,
    it was quite detailed.

    Yes, I remember. You completely misunderstood what it is all about.
    With things that are so thoroughly wrong
    there is no point in going into details.

    OWLS is not measurable. Incidentally, wiki has a very good article on
    this, I recommend that you read it and stop making a fool of yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light). Also, Zhang has a very good chapter on this subject in his excellent book.

    Yes, I know, it is junk. They badly need a Deletian there, [1]

    Jan

    [1] For Prokary: sorry, if it was you who wrote it,
    but there is no point in mincing words.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 11:07:03 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:49:15 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    OWLS is not measurable. Incidentally, wiki has a very good article on this, I recommend that you read it and stop making a fool of yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light). Also, Zhang has a very good chapter on this subject in his excellent book.
    Yes, I know, it is junk. They badly need a Deletian there, [1]

    Jan

    [1] For Prokary: sorry, if it was you who wrote it,
    but there is no point in mincing words.

    In the "Speed of light" article, I had a major dispute with two other editors, including one who was once a frequent denizen of these groups (Martin
    Hogbin). After we reached a consensus, Martin, over the next year,
    gradually reverted everything to the way that he liked it, throwing out
    our compromise wording. I had no energy to get into another dispute
    with these two other editors.

    In the "One way speed of light" article, both of these editors made large contributions. You can see from the following that I made zero
    contribution to this article. That's sometimes the way that things
    work out. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/One-way_speed_of_light



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Aug 20 11:29:30 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:07:06 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:49:15 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    OWLS is not measurable. Incidentally, wiki has a very good article on this, I recommend that you read it and stop making a fool of yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light). Also, Zhang has a
    very good chapter on this subject in his excellent book.
    Yes, I know, it is junk. They badly need a Deletian there, [1]

    Jan

    [1] For Prokary: sorry, if it was you who wrote it,
    but there is no point in mincing words.
    In the "Speed of light" article, I had a major dispute with two other editors,
    including one who was once a frequent denizen of these groups (Martin Hogbin). After we reached a consensus, Martin, over the next year,
    gradually reverted everything to the way that he liked it, throwing out
    our compromise wording. I had no energy to get into another dispute
    with these two other editors.

    In the "One way speed of light" article, both of these editors made large contributions. You can see from the following that I made zero
    contribution to this article. That's sometimes the way that things
    work out. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/One-way_speed_of_light

    It appears that "One way speed of light" was split out from "Speed of light" into
    a separate article. The history of this article documents its former existence as part of the "Speed of light" article, and I can see a historical record of my
    contributions, 100% of which Martin tossed out.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 20 11:36:14 2023
    Exceptionalism of the USA space science: 50 years ago, astronauts played golf in the Moon.

    Months ago, Japan and India missions crashed on the Moon, while trying to land there.

    Now the Russian fucked up, as the autonomous spacecraft committed sepuku against the South Pole.

    Next, the second Indian mission, with russian technology.

    Something very fishy here: '70s tech and computers better than today?

    And they even packed a lunar rover in a tiny module.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 20 20:30:46 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:49:15?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    OWLS is not measurable. Incidentally, wiki has a very good article on this, I recommend that you read it and stop making a fool of yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light). Also, Zhang has a very good chapter on this subject in his excellent book.
    Yes, I know, it is junk. They badly need a Deletian there, [1]

    Jan

    [1] For Prokary: sorry, if it was you who wrote it,
    but there is no point in mincing words.

    In the "Speed of light" article, I had a major dispute with two other editors,
    including one who was once a frequent denizen of these groups (Martin Hogbin). After we reached a consensus, Martin, over the next year,
    gradually reverted everything to the way that he liked it, throwing out
    our compromise wording. I had no energy to get into another dispute
    with these two other editors.

    In the "One way speed of light" article, both of these editors made large contributions. You can see from the following that I made zero
    contribution to this article. That's sometimes the way that things
    work out. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/One-way_speed_of_light

    Good for you. It is junk, as it stands.
    (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of
    the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you.
    Don't know what you would have written of course,
    but it could hardly have been worse.

    And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip,
    just from hearsay of course.
    The one with the most staying power often gets his way,
    even if his positions make little sense.
    He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes.
    Changing things could be an uphill battle.

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 12:05:24 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Good for you. It is junk, as it stands.
    (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of
    the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you.
    Don't know what you would have written of course,
    but it could hardly have been worse.

    And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip,
    just from hearsay of course.
    The one with the most staying power often gets his way,
    even if his positions make little sense.
    He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes.
    Changing things could be an uphill battle.

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)

    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the
    clock synchronization issue.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 12:11:54 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 10:49:15 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:56:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:13:11?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing
    racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards
    nutters. That was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho
    Valev, Ken Seto and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
    When you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent (and many others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan
    Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.
    I shouldn't have mentioned him?

    Nothing to do with Einstein,. everything to do with your sucking up to fakestinians.
    You deny that Einstein distanced himself,
    in quite explicit terms, from Jewish terrorism in 1948,
    as in massacring Palestinian villages?
    (by the Stern gang, and Menachim Begin's organisation)


    I never said that, crank. What I said is that you are a fakestinian lover. Typical of the lefturds.
    But what is interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment.
    Sigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.

    So, do you still maintain that Alveger measured OWLS?
    Yes of course, what else could they possibly have done?

    I already explained that to you. You need to go back and re-read the post, it was quite detailed.
    Yes, I remember. You completely misunderstood what it is all about.
    With things that are so thoroughly wrong
    there is no point in going into details.


    Your ignorance is surpassed only by your arrogance, I will leave you bask in both.


    OWLS is not measurable. Incidentally, wiki has a very good article on this, I recommend that you read it and stop making a fool of yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light). Also, Zhang has a very good chapter on this subject in his excellent book.
    Yes, I know, it is junk. They badly need a Deletian there, [1]

    Jan


    It is taken almost ad literam from the excellent Zhang book. Too bad that you are so arrogant to refuse to read it.



    [1] For Prokary: sorry, if it was you who wrote it,
    but there is no point in mincing words.

    He didn't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Aug 20 13:24:59 2023
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:40:58 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    [correction: it was 28 authors, not 38, as I incorrectly remembered]
    So you want to criticize the 28 weakest opponents of relativity and ignore
    the other 1,500? How lame brained!

    Huh? You have a reading disability as well?
    There is nothing there, so nothing to criticise.
    Einstein's comment already dealt with that.
    Here is where you agreed with Einstein calling all his opponents anti-Semitic.
    Congratulations for standing with Einstein's tarring of all his opponents as anti-Semitic.
    OK, so you -have- a reading disability,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to starmaker@ix.netcom.com on Sun Aug 20 13:43:30 2023
    On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:25:48 -0700, The Starmaker
    <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    the problem yous people have
    is dis einstein culture.

    in order to knock
    einstein off the einstein
    culture is to knock einstein
    off the top of the totem pole
    he was put on by others.

    and you do dat by
    making the constant
    speed of light invalid.

    but, whether you do
    dat online or science
    peer reviews...you
    will be attacked always
    by the mob who will
    try to keep einstein
    on top of the totem pole.

    if you dare

    This might disappoint most of yous if not all of yous...

    but
    you
    will be attacked always
    by 'the mob' who will
    try to keep Einstein
    on top of the totem pole..

    and I'm sure they figured out
    by now how 'they' will do it...

    This is How..

    just as Albert Einstein
    updated' Isaac Newton...

    Israel will find 'one of their own'
    to 'Update' Albert Einstein.

    And put that person on top
    of the totem pole for another
    100 years.


    And if anybody 'disagrees' with them,
    they will weaponize their religion against yous.

    ('the mob' is just a bunch of religious gangsters)


    MOND




    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
    the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Python on Sun Aug 20 15:43:45 2023
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
    Le 20/08/2023 à 01:47, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    The relativists here continue as bottom feeders attacking the worst critics because they can't handle the best.
    Even the best of the best critics have no evidence to overturn Einstein... so far...

    You haven't even contended with Rutherford's and Tesla's criticisms you vacuous moron.
    I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.

    Neither Rutherford nor Tesla overturned Einstein, no matter how much you would like that to be the case.
    The problem with your opinion is you confuse the recognition of a fact with a fact. They already knew it was nonsense, but you still do not know. They weren't concerned with overturning errors in your brain.
    Seriously, you cannot be THAT delusional, Laurence. You are a fake,
    just trolling, aren't you?
    Very many scientists have known all along that relativity is a pseudoscience, and we can know already for the reasons they did without waiting for a seal of approval from the newspapers or Nobel Committees. The reasons Tesla and Rutherford gave are
    enough to know. They pointed out it is illogical nonsense. For example, curved space is a pure reification fallacy, so we know just from that it is nonsense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Python on Sun Aug 20 16:15:40 2023
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
    Le 20/08/2023 à 01:47, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    The relativists here continue as bottom feeders attacking the worst critics because they can't handle the best.
    Even the best of the best critics have no evidence to overturn Einstein... so far...

    You haven't even contended with Rutherford's and Tesla's criticisms you vacuous moron.
    I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.

    Neither Rutherford nor Tesla overturned Einstein, no matter how much you would like that to be the case.
    The problem with your opinion is you confuse the recognition of a fact with a fact. They already knew it was nonsense, but you still do not know. They weren't concerned with overturning errors in your brain.
    Seriously, you cannot be THAT delusional, Laurence. You are a fake,
    just trolling, aren't you?
    Far more than 1,500 accomplished scientists already know relativity is pseudoscience.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sun Aug 20 16:38:27 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:43:15 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:25:48 -0700, The Starmaker
    <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

    the problem yous people have
    is dis einstein culture.

    in order to knock
    einstein off the einstein
    culture is to knock einstein
    off the top of the totem pole
    he was put on by others.

    and you do dat by
    making the constant
    speed of light invalid.

    but, whether you do
    dat online or science
    peer reviews...you
    will be attacked always
    by the mob who will
    try to keep einstein
    on top of the totem pole.

    if you dare
    This might disappoint most of yous if not all of yous...

    but
    you
    will be attacked always
    by 'the mob' who will
    try to keep Einstein
    on top of the totem pole..

    and I'm sure they figured out
    by now how 'they' will do it...

    This is How..

    just as Albert Einstein
    updated' Isaac Newton...

    Israel will find 'one of their own'
    to 'Update' Albert Einstein.

    And put that person on top
    of the totem pole for another
    100 years.


    And if anybody 'disagrees' with them,
    they will weaponize their religion against yous.

    ('the mob' is just a bunch of religious gangsters)


    MOND
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
    the unchallengeable.

    Einstein the genius was the first of his kind.
    He said science would go on and that he
    did not find the Unified field.
    He wasn't the problem. Authority at any
    time is the problem.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Aug 20 18:09:12 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:43 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
    Le 20/08/2023 à 01:47, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    The relativists here continue as bottom feeders attacking the worst critics because they can't handle the best.
    Even the best of the best critics have no evidence to overturn Einstein... so far...

    You haven't even contended with Rutherford's and Tesla's criticisms you vacuous moron.
    I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.

    Neither Rutherford nor Tesla overturned Einstein, no matter how much you would like that to be the case.

    The problem with your opinion is you confuse the recognition of a fact with a fact. They already knew it was nonsense, but you still do not know. They weren't concerned with overturning errors in your brain.

    Seriously, you cannot be THAT delusional, Laurence. You are a fake,
    just trolling, aren't you?

    Far more than 1,500 accomplished scientists already know relativity is pseudoscience.

    It is amazing how much science you can believe without a shred of evidence! If you read it on the internet it must be true!

    "Do not believe everything you read on the internet"
    - Abraham Lincoln

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Aug 20 18:20:23 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 6:09:15 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:15:43 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 4:55:52 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
    Le 20/08/2023 à 01:47, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 5:22:02 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    The relativists here continue as bottom feeders attacking the worst critics because they can't handle the best.
    Even the best of the best critics have no evidence to overturn Einstein... so far...

    You haven't even contended with Rutherford's and Tesla's criticisms you vacuous moron.
    I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.

    Neither Rutherford nor Tesla overturned Einstein, no matter how much you would like that to be the case.

    The problem with your opinion is you confuse the recognition of a fact with a fact. They already knew it was nonsense, but you still do not know. They weren't concerned with overturning errors in your brain.

    Seriously, you cannot be THAT delusional, Laurence. You are a fake,
    just trolling, aren't you?

    Far more than 1,500 accomplished scientists already know relativity is pseudoscience.
    It is amazing how much science you can believe without a shred of evidence! If you read it on the internet it must be true!

    You have never done anything but quote the internet paul.


    "Do not believe everything you read on the internet"
    - Abraham Lincoln

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Aug 20 19:15:56 2023
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 8:17:31 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/16/23 6:00 PM, larry harson wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:40:27 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 8/15/23 6:19 PM, JanPB wrote:
    The radius does not change if we assume the disc is made of a
    substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
    contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
    Instead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
    isosceles triangles with their apexes all at the center, and their
    bases at the circumference, such that when not rotating they fill
    the disk (with a slightly jagged circumference). Assume each
    triangle is able to resist any centrifugal force. Then when the
    collection rotates, gaps form between the triangles, due to the
    "length contraction" of their bases.

    Tom Roberts

    Here's a question that some may find interesting: Why do the bases of
    the triangles 'length contract' but not the gaps between the bases of adjacent triangles?
    Because the bases of the triangles are pulled together by inter-atomic bonds, while the gaps are not.

    Tom Roberts

    Atoms are not contracting in length.
    It would interfere with chemistry.
    That science has never belonged.
    Distance doesn't go away either...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 00:35:59 2023
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove
    relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or experimental evidence discovered. None.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Aug 20 21:52:10 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Hey, underwater basket weaving is an honorable profession... assuming that this is all you are qualified to do...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Aug 20 22:46:02 2023
    On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 06:36:04 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory.

    Only such an agnorant idiot can believe such a nonsensical
    lie, stupid Mike. And the mumble of your idiot guru was not
    even consistent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Aug 20 23:28:11 2023
    On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 08:15:43 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)
    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
    The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved
    around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

    I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists.
    D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate
    is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong.

    You surely are, poor fanatic trash. You should have
    followed Poincare instead your idiot guru.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Aug 20 23:15:40 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)
    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.

    The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved
    around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

    I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists.
    D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate
    is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will,
    Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong.

    The central section that Martin and I fought over was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#The_one-way_speed
    In the current way that this section is worded, the conventionalists
    just plain won the war, pure and simple. Zhang and Anderson are
    right, while Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian are wrong, et cetera.

    The entire article reflects this viewpoint.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 21 10:36:36 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)
    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.

    The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved
    around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

    I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists.
    D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate
    is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong.

    Now that is strange indeed. Clifford Will ... and Ohanian
    are -the- (world-renowned) experts and authorities
    on the use and interpretation of general relativity.
    In particular,
    Clifford M. Will, Theory and experiment in gravitational physics,
    2nd Edition (2018)
    is considered to be the standard reference on the subject.

    The central section that Martin and I fought over was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#The_one-way_speed
    In the current way that this section is worded, the conventionalists
    just plain won the war, pure and simple. Zhang and Anderson are
    right, while Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian are wrong, et cetera.

    The entire article reflects this viewpoint.

    Strange how philosophers of science always succeed
    in laying perfectly good physics waste,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Aug 21 10:36:37 2023
    Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95 years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Hey, underwater basket weaving is an honorable profession... assuming that this is all you are qualified to do...

    You are right. 'Majoring in fly casting at Oregon with a Ph.D. in
    game-fish at Florida' is the canonical reference,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Aug 21 06:21:25 2023
    On Monday, 21 August 2023 at 10:36:40 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)
    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.

    The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved
    around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

    I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists.
    D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate
    is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong.
    Now that is strange indeed. Clifford Will ... and Ohanian
    are -the- (world-renowned) experts and authorities
    on the use and interpretation of general relativity.
    In particular,
    Clifford M. Will, Theory and experiment in gravitational physics,
    2nd Edition (2018)
    is considered to be the standard reference on the subject.

    And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your bunch of
    idiots improper clocks keep measuring improper t'=t in
    improper seconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon Aug 21 06:40:56 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:15:43 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)
    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
    The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved
    around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

    I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists.
    D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate
    is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong.

    The central section that Martin and I fought over was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#The_one-way_speed
    In the current way that this section is worded, the conventionalists
    just plain won the war, pure and simple. Zhang and Anderson are
    right, while Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian are wrong, et cetera.

    The entire article reflects this viewpoint.


    Mansouri and Sexl are clearly on the side that OWLS measurement is dependent on the clock synchro (which is dependent on OWLS measurement). You only need to read and understand their papers to know that. I am not familiar with Clifford and Ohanian's
    positions but I am very familiar with the Mansouri-Sexl papers and with Zhang book.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon Aug 21 07:11:15 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:40:59 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:15:43 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)
    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely
    denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
    The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved
    around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

    I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists.
    D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate
    is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong.

    The central section that Martin and I fought over was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#The_one-way_speed
    In the current way that this section is worded, the conventionalists
    just plain won the war, pure and simple. Zhang and Anderson are
    right, while Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian are wrong, et cetera.

    The entire article reflects this viewpoint.
    Mansouri and Sexl are clearly on the side that OWLS measurement is dependent on the clock synchro (which is dependent on OWLS measurement). You only need to read and understand their papers to know that. I am not familiar with Clifford and Ohanian's
    positions but I am very familiar with the Mansouri-Sexl papers and with Zhang book.

    Neither does that quite correspond to my reading of Mansouri and Sexl,
    but that is how Martin interpreted their writings.
    | Some authors such as Mansouri and Sexl (1977)[9][10] as well as Will
    | (1992)[11] argued that this problem doesn't affect measurements of the
    | isotropy of the one-way speed of light, for instance, due to direction-
    | dependent changes relative to a "preferred" (aether) frame Σ. They based
    | their analysis on a specific interpretation of the RMS test theory in relation
    | to experiments in which light follows a unidirectional path and to slow clock-
    | transport experiments. Will agreed that it is impossible to measure the
    | one-way speed between two clocks using a time-of-flight method without |synchronization scheme, though he argued: "...a test of the isotropy of the
    | speed between the same two clocks as the orientation of the propagation
    | path varies relative to Σ should not depend on how they were synchronized...".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#The_one-way_speed

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon Aug 21 07:29:50 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 7:11:18 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    Will agreed that it is impossible to measure the
    | one-way speed between two clocks using a time-of-flight method without |synchronization scheme, though he argued: "...a test of the isotropy of the | speed between the same two clocks as the orientation of the propagation
    | path varies relative to Σ should not depend on how they were synchronized...".


    But it does! Looks like Will did not read any of the papers on tests of OWLS isotropy. All these tests, with no exception, assume one of the two clock synchronization conventions outlined in the Mansouri papers. The theory of these tests cannot be
    derived absent one of the two conventions. Which convention is chosen depends on which one makes the theory of the experiment simpler. The more modern tests assume the more complex synchronizations described by the Standard Model Extension. Either way,
    you cannot have a test of OWLS (an)isotropy without first assuming a clock synchro convention. So, the wiki page is correct.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon Aug 21 08:13:29 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 7:11:18 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    Will agreed that it is impossible to measure the
    | one-way speed between two clocks using a time-of-flight method without |synchronization scheme, though he argued: "...a test of the isotropy of the
    | speed between the same two clocks as the orientation of the propagation | path varies relative to Σ should not depend on how they were synchronized...".
    But it does! Looks like Will did not read any of the papers on tests of OWLS isotropy. All these tests, with no exception, assume one of the two clock synchronization conventions outlined in the Mansouri papers. The theory of these tests cannot be
    derived absent one of the two conventions. Which convention is chosen depends on which one makes the theory of the experiment simpler. The more modern tests assume the more complex synchronizations described by the Standard Model Extension. Either way,
    you cannot have a test of OWLS (an)isotropy without first assuming a clock synchro convention. So, the wiki page is correct.

    On the contrary, one can test OWLS isotropy with clocks that have
    not been synchronized at all. In addition, I presented Martin several
    examples of single-clock tests of OWLS isotropy, challenging him
    to find where the second clock was hidden which he claimed needed
    to be synchronized. He never located the second clock.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 10:03:00 2023
    On 8/20/2023 11:35 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the
    simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be
    said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that
    space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck
    with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or experimental evidence discovered. None.

    The Irish have an adage that does a good job of explaining Laurence's
    dilemma. "Eager eyes see far." This, naturally, includes things that
    nobody can possibly see, but they're so very eager.

    The first, and only, time I went deer hunting was in my 20's and I got
    out to the meadow where I had seen deer earlier shortly before dawn. I
    could make out deer at the far end of the meadow moving around grazing
    and I wondered why they were staying so far away. As it slowly became
    lighter I finally understood, what I saw as deer in the distance was
    actually mounds of dirt. I was so disgusted with myself I never went
    deer hunting again.

    That is my most extreme example but it explains many things clearly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon Aug 21 18:03:14 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:15:43?PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)
    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and
    completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
    The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved
    around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

    I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists.
    D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate
    is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong.

    The central section that Martin and I fought over was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#The_one-way_speed
    In the current way that this section is worded, the conventionalists
    just plain won the war, pure and simple. Zhang and Anderson are
    right, while Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian are wrong, et cetera.

    The entire article reflects this viewpoint.


    Mansouri and Sexl are clearly on the side that OWLS measurement is
    dependent on the clock synchro (which is dependent on OWLS measurement).
    You only need to read and understand their papers to know that. I am not familiar with Clifford and Ohanian's positions but I am very familiar with the Mansouri-Sexl papers and with Zhang book.

    Ah! That explains your one-sided and unphysical take on it,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon Aug 21 10:49:21 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:13:32 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 7:11:18 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    Will agreed that it is impossible to measure the
    | one-way speed between two clocks using a time-of-flight method without |synchronization scheme, though he argued: "...a test of the isotropy of the
    | speed between the same two clocks as the orientation of the propagation
    | path varies relative to Σ should not depend on how they were synchronized...".
    But it does! Looks like Will did not read any of the papers on tests of OWLS isotropy. All these tests, with no exception, assume one of the two clock synchronization conventions outlined in the Mansouri papers. The theory of these tests cannot be
    derived absent one of the two conventions. Which convention is chosen depends on which one makes the theory of the experiment simpler. The more modern tests assume the more complex synchronizations described by the Standard Model Extension. Either way,
    you cannot have a test of OWLS (an)isotropy without first assuming a clock synchro convention. So, the wiki page is correct.
    On the contrary, one can test OWLS isotropy with clocks that have
    not been synchronized at all. In addition, I presented Martin several examples of single-clock tests of OWLS isotropy, challenging him
    to find where the second clock was hidden which he claimed needed
    to be synchronized. He never located the second clock.

    You completely missed the point: sure, there are a lot of tests of OWLS anisotropy that use ZERO clocks (actually most of them do). What the theory requires is not the presence of ANY clocks in the test but the presence of one of the two clock
    synchronization conventions. "Subtle is the Lord"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Aug 21 10:50:33 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:03:17 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:15:43?PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:05:26?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)
    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
    The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolved
    around the conventionality thesis, which is summarized here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-convensimul/

    I am an anti-conventionalist. Martin and D.H were conventionalists.
    D.H was willing to allow language indicating that the debate
    is far from settled. Martin, however, considered that the anti-conventionalists, who include authorities such as Clifford Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian, are just plain wrong.

    The central section that Martin and I fought over was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#The_one-way_speed In the current way that this section is worded, the conventionalists just plain won the war, pure and simple. Zhang and Anderson are
    right, while Will, Mansouri & Sexl, and Ohanian are wrong, et cetera.

    The entire article reflects this viewpoint.


    Mansouri and Sexl are clearly on the side that OWLS measurement is dependent on the clock synchro (which is dependent on OWLS measurement). You only need to read and understand their papers to know that. I am not familiar with Clifford and Ohanian's positions but I am very familiar with the Mansouri-Sexl papers and with Zhang book.
    Ah! That explains your one-sided and unphysical take on it,

    Keep it up. The ignorance surpassed only by your arrogance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon Aug 21 10:58:19 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:49:24 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:13:32 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 7:11:18 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    Will agreed that it is impossible to measure the
    | one-way speed between two clocks using a time-of-flight method without
    |synchronization scheme, though he argued: "...a test of the isotropy of the
    | speed between the same two clocks as the orientation of the propagation
    | path varies relative to Σ should not depend on how they were synchronized...".
    But it does! Looks like Will did not read any of the papers on tests of OWLS isotropy. All these tests, with no exception, assume one of the two clock synchronization conventions outlined in the Mansouri papers. The theory of these tests cannot be
    derived absent one of the two conventions. Which convention is chosen depends on which one makes the theory of the experiment simpler. The more modern tests assume the more complex synchronizations described by the Standard Model Extension. Either way,
    you cannot have a test of OWLS (an)isotropy without first assuming a clock synchro convention. So, the wiki page is correct.
    On the contrary, one can test OWLS isotropy with clocks that have
    not been synchronized at all. In addition, I presented Martin several examples of single-clock tests of OWLS isotropy, challenging him
    to find where the second clock was hidden which he claimed needed
    to be synchronized. He never located the second clock.
    You completely missed the point: sure, there are a lot of tests of OWLS anisotropy that use ZERO clocks (actually most of them do). What the theory requires is not the presence of ANY clocks in the test but the presence of one of the two clock
    synchronization conventions. "Subtle is the Lord"

    The brilliance of Mansouri and Sexl (and later, the brilliance of the creators of SME) is that they created a parametrized theory of SR that can be used to test, amongst many other things, the OWLS anisotropy without employing any clocks at all. So, the
    fact that Martin could not answer your challenge only means that he was not familiar enough with RMS/SME theories and/or the experiments based on these theories. The page on "Test theories of SR" is in badly need of a rewrite, maybe you should study the
    papers and the experiments , learn the subtleties and rewrite the page. That would be very useful. BTW, I am not seeing any theory on the I-S experiment, I am still waiting....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 13:30:02 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or experimental evidence discovered. None.
    I have mentioned before that an illogical theory does not have predictive value so you are incorrect. BTW this is why Dingle remains absolutely correct and why his refutation of special relativity is eternally true.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 13:38:15 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or experimental evidence discovered. None.
    To be clear, because special relativity predicts that relative motion causes time dilation, and because both twins are in relative motion, it predicts both twins' time dilates. This is a contradictory and illogical prediction with no predictive value.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 13:48:38 2023
    On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:47:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:32:03 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

    Most of the other people on your list are nonentities, rightly
    forgotten. Does anyone still take Herbert Dingle seriously, for example?
    Every rational person will forever continue to take Dingle seriously since he definitively refuted special relativity forever.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 14:05:55 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or experimental evidence discovered. None.
    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 14:09:15 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or experimental evidence discovered. None.
    If it were only one twin that would not be relative motion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 14:18:59 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or experimental evidence discovered. None.
    If only one is moving it must necessarily be absolute motion. Then the cause would have to be absolute and not relative motion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 21 23:21:32 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Good for you. It is junk, as it stands.
    (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of
    the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you.
    Don't know what you would have written of course,
    but it could hardly have been worse.

    And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip, just from hearsay of course.
    The one with the most staying power often gets his way,
    even if his positions make little sense.
    He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes.
    Changing things could be an uphill battle.

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)

    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the
    clock synchronization issue.


    PS For your amusement, my take on it.
    The whole clock synchronisation issue became completely irrelevant in
    1983, when the speed of light obtained a defined value.
    It is no longer measurable, not one-way, both ways, or anyway.
    This was of course not for fun,
    but because it is really impossible experimentally
    to measure the speed of light to adequate accuracy.

    The problem became one of measuring distances.
    In these terms the problem becomes meaningless.
    There is no way that a distance can have two values,
    one measured from left to right,
    and another one measuring from right to left,
    or that only the average of the two can have meaning,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon Aug 21 23:21:33 2023
    Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 10:49:15?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:56:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:13:11?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
    Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
    [-]
    Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wing racist buddy. I had previously ignored Dono.'s repeated and deliberate misquoting, because he was mainly directing it towards nutters. That was wrong of me. Now I
    see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
    Yes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie. When
    you say that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah
    Ahrent (and many others) vehemently protested against the
    role Jewish terrorism in the establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,

    Jan
    Typical antisemite, Jan
    Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.
    I shouldn't have mentioned him?

    Nothing to do with Einstein,. everything to do with your sucking
    up to fakestinians.
    You deny that Einstein distanced himself,
    in quite explicit terms, from Jewish terrorism in 1948,
    as in massacring Palestinian villages?
    (by the Stern gang, and Menachim Begin's organisation)


    I never said that, crank. What I said is that you are a fakestinian lover. Typical of the lefturds.
    But what is interesting is that you are still butthurt for
    being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment.
    Sigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.

    So, do you still maintain that Alveger measured OWLS?
    Yes of course, what else could they possibly have done?

    I already explained that to you. You need to go back and re-read the post,
    it was quite detailed.
    Yes, I remember. You completely misunderstood what it is all about.
    With things that are so thoroughly wrong
    there is no point in going into details.


    Your ignorance is surpassed only by your arrogance, I will leave you bask
    in both.

    Basking in good company.

    OWLS is not measurable. Incidentally, wiki has a very good article on this, I recommend that you read it and stop making a fool of yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light). Also, Zhang has a very good chapter on this subject in his excellent book.
    Yes, I know, it is junk. They badly need a Deletian there, [1]

    Jan


    It is taken almost ad literam from the excellent Zhang book.

    I was afraid of that.

    Too bad that you are so arrogant to refuse to read it.

    Practicalities, I don't have it at hand.
    Not really a problem, from second hand comments it is obvious
    that it must be thoroughly misguided,
    like the entire conventionalist position.
    I won't waste much time on it.

    [1] For Prokary: sorry, if it was you who wrote it,
    but there is no point in mincing words.

    He didn't.

    Indeed, good for him,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 21 21:25:08 2023
    Le 21/08/2023 à 23:09, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove
    relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.
    If it were only one twin that would not be relative motion.

    The problem is simpler than that.

    The problem, I kept saying, is purely human.

    We now have enough experimentation and largely sufficient theoretical
    bases to do a good job.

    The problem is that we don't WANT.

    And we are in such a point of denial so great, and from all sides (both seasoned physicists and Newtonian cranks) that all this turns today, in
    2023, into a farce.

    All this has become completely absurd by the fault of all or almost all.

    And everybody saying, and teaching anything anyhow.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 19:01:20 2023
    On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:52:06 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 1:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/18/2023 6:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>
    Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
    If that were actually true you would have noting to argue against.

    Yet here you are...

    Explain this to me, logically, please, if you can.

    Do you mean aside from the attribution not being a quote of mine?
    Get some fresh air and exercise. My point is exactly that there is
    nothing to argue against. That is what Rutherford said.

    "There is nothing to argue against" means agreement in any sane world.

    No, in a sane world, it means relativity doesn't have a case. Case dismissed.

    Whodat did say 'agreement in any sane world'. But in the insane bizarro
    world of Laurence, "I can't find anything to argue against" means it's
    wrong. And he thinks his bizarro world is sane.

    There's nothing to argue against 2+2=4, so that's wrong in Laurence's bizarroworld?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 16:07:22 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:52:06 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 1:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/18/2023 6:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>
    Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
    If that were actually true you would have noting to argue against.

    Yet here you are...

    Explain this to me, logically, please, if you can.

    Do you mean aside from the attribution not being a quote of mine?
    Get some fresh air and exercise. My point is exactly that there is
    nothing to argue against. That is what Rutherford said.

    "There is nothing to argue against" means agreement in any sane world.

    No, in a sane world, it means relativity doesn't have a case. Case dismissed.

    Whodat did say 'agreement in any sane world'. But in the insane bizarro world of Laurence, "I can't find anything to argue against" means it's wrong. And he thinks his bizarro world is sane.

    There's nothing to argue against 2+2=4, so that's wrong in Laurence's bizarroworld?
    Nitpicking is a fools' excuse.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 16:10:09 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:52:06 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 1:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/18/2023 6:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>
    Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
    If that were actually true you would have noting to argue against.

    Yet here you are...

    Explain this to me, logically, please, if you can.

    Do you mean aside from the attribution not being a quote of mine?
    Get some fresh air and exercise. My point is exactly that there is
    nothing to argue against. That is what Rutherford said.

    "There is nothing to argue against" means agreement in any sane world.

    No, in a sane world, it means relativity doesn't have a case. Case dismissed.

    Whodat did say 'agreement in any sane world'. But in the insane bizarro world of Laurence, "I can't find anything to argue against" means it's wrong. And he thinks his bizarro world is sane.

    There's nothing to argue against 2+2=4, so that's wrong in Laurence's bizarroworld?
    Ideologues defend ideologies by misconstruing as you are doing. 2+2= 5 in relativity. 2+2=4 in my world if you were to listen with any intelligence. Why don't you read the corrected comment? You are full of cheap excuses.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 16:06:32 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:52:06 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 1:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/18/2023 6:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>
    Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
    If that were actually true you would have noting to argue against.

    Yet here you are...

    Explain this to me, logically, please, if you can.

    Do you mean aside from the attribution not being a quote of mine?
    Get some fresh air and exercise. My point is exactly that there is
    nothing to argue against. That is what Rutherford said.

    "There is nothing to argue against" means agreement in any sane world.

    No, in a sane world, it means relativity doesn't have a case. Case dismissed.

    Whodat did say 'agreement in any sane world'. But in the insane bizarro world of Laurence, "I can't find anything to argue against" means it's wrong. And he thinks his bizarro world is sane.

    There's nothing to argue against 2+2=4, so that's wrong in Laurence's bizarroworld?
    So you fail to refute my argument by default.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 16:17:31 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:52:06 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 1:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/18/2023 6:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>
    Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
    If that were actually true you would have noting to argue against.

    Yet here you are...

    Explain this to me, logically, please, if you can.

    Do you mean aside from the attribution not being a quote of mine?
    Get some fresh air and exercise. My point is exactly that there is
    nothing to argue against. That is what Rutherford said.

    "There is nothing to argue against" means agreement in any sane world.

    No, in a sane world, it means relativity doesn't have a case. Case dismissed.

    Whodat did say 'agreement in any sane world'. But in the insane bizarro world of Laurence, "I can't find anything to argue against" means it's wrong. And he thinks his bizarro world is sane.

    There's nothing to argue against 2+2=4, so that's wrong in Laurence's bizarroworld?
    Nitpicking is a form of straw man fallacy. I gave you an argument using a steel man of special relativity and you are unable to refute it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon Aug 21 19:29:56 2023
    On 8/20/2023 2:36 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    Exceptionalism of the USA space science: 50 years ago, astronauts played golf in the Moon.

    Months ago, Japan and India missions crashed on the Moon, while trying to land there.

    Now the Russian fucked up, as the autonomous spacecraft committed sepuku against the South Pole.

    Next, the second Indian mission, with russian technology.

    Something very fishy here: '70s tech and computers better than today?

    I guess the Russians are up to their old tricks. Rush a mission for
    political purposes (in this case to beat India) and in doing so,
    something goes wrong and the mission fails. They even tried to get
    something to the moon just ahead of Apollo 11 but it failed.

    (to be fair, the US isn't innocent of this)

    I have mixed feelings on this. First, science and the world lost
    whatever science this probe could have provided. But it's hard to resist cheering whenever something Russian fails, particularly if it fails spectacularly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 16:26:09 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:52:06 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 1:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/18/2023 6:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>
    Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
    If that were actually true you would have noting to argue against.

    Yet here you are...

    Explain this to me, logically, please, if you can.

    Do you mean aside from the attribution not being a quote of mine?
    Get some fresh air and exercise. My point is exactly that there is
    nothing to argue against. That is what Rutherford said.

    "There is nothing to argue against" means agreement in any sane world.

    No, in a sane world, it means relativity doesn't have a case. Case dismissed.

    Whodat did say 'agreement in any sane world'. But in the insane bizarro world of Laurence, "I can't find anything to argue against" means it's wrong. And he thinks his bizarro world is sane.

    There's nothing to argue against 2+2=4, so that's wrong in Laurence's bizarroworld?
    Would you show me where I said 2+2 does not equal 4?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 19:41:40 2023
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.

    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
    described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can
    apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a
    constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround
    event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling
    twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 16:48:58 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or >> experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
    described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a
    constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling
    twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 19:50:01 2023
    On 8/21/2023 4:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove
    relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    I have mentioned before that an illogical theory does not have predictive value so you are incorrect.

    It *does* have predictive values, of course. I can do the twin paradox
    with specific speeds and distances and relativity predicts the age
    difference. This is done all the time with muon storage rings etc.

    But once again, if you want to prove relativity wrong, you have to
    create an experiment which specifically contradicts a prediction of
    relativity. 100+ years so far and it has never happened.

    BTW this is why Dingle remains absolutely correct and why his refutation of special relativity is eternally true.

    Dingle was wrong because he got the problem wrong.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 19:11:07 2023
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
    inertial motion.

    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.

    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?

    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much
    smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you
    answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
    ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 17:09:22 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:50:05 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

    <snip>

    Dingle was wrong because he got the problem wrong.

    And you, Mr. Nobody, pretend to be smarter than Dingle?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Demented cretin.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 20:07:02 2023
    On 8/21/2023 6:01 PM, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:52:06 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 1:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/18/2023 6:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>
    Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
    If that were actually true you would have noting to argue against.

    Yet here you are...

    Explain this to me, logically, please, if you can.

    Do you mean aside from the attribution not being a quote of mine?
    Get some fresh air and exercise. My point is exactly that there is
    nothing to argue against. That is what Rutherford said.

    "There is nothing to argue against" means agreement in any sane world.

    No, in a sane world, it means relativity doesn't have a case. Case
    dismissed.

    Whodat did say 'agreement in any sane world'. But in the insane bizarro
    world of Laurence, "I can't find anything to argue against" means it's
    wrong. And he thinks his bizarro world is sane.

    There's nothing to argue against 2+2=4, so that's wrong in Laurence's bizarroworld?

    Unfortunately "eager eyes" lives only in the bizarro world where
    impossible things are exclusively eagerly seen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Aug 21 18:56:30 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:11:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

    <snip>

    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much
    smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    Once again, you screw up biophysics.

    It depends on the angular velocity and the speed of processing of your visual system.
    If the rotation velocity is fast enough, you'll think that you're seeing a DISK surrounding you, and the walls vanish.

    This, of course, for a while. Then you start spinning aroud the room and throwing up, before you pass out and fall like a rock.

    Return your degree in physics. Better yet, burn it.



    ....
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    LIAR, DECEIVER. Try muons now.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Aug 21 20:07:40 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
    inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much
    smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts
    I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 20:12:09 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:50:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 4:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: >>
    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove
    relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists"
    who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also
    doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95
    years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or >> experimental evidence discovered. None.

    I have mentioned before that an illogical theory does not have predictive value so you are incorrect.
    It *does* have predictive values, of course. I can do the twin paradox
    with specific speeds and distances and relativity predicts the age difference. This is done all the time with muon storage rings etc.

    But once again, if you want to prove relativity wrong, you have to
    create an experiment which specifically contradicts a prediction of relativity. 100+ years so far and it has never happened.
    BTW this is why Dingle remains absolutely correct and why his refutation of special relativity is eternally true.
    Dingle was wrong because he got the problem wrong.
    I see you are ignorant of the early history of special relativity's claims about time dilation because Dingle correctly criticized that sufficiently to refute it. You are also unaware that GR was invoked to save SR's time dilation nonsense by more
    nonsense. You also have failed to give a cause but only mutter ambiguously about accelerations. Are you really claiming accelerations and turnarounds cause time dilation?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 20:13:43 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:07:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
    inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts

    I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.

    If you think that Tom, who has a Ph.D. in physics, is ignorant of experiments in particle accelerators, then you are among the dumbest people who *ever& visited this forum. It is YOUR ignorance that is huge! After all, Tom worked at Fermilab...

    https://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/index.html

    Could you possibly be a bigger fool than you are now?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Aug 21 22:24:31 2023
    On 8/21/2023 10:13 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:07:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
    inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much
    smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you
    answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >>> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
    ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts

    I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.

    If you think that Tom, who has a Ph.D. in physics, is ignorant of experiments in particle accelerators, then you are among the dumbest people who *ever& visited this forum. It is YOUR ignorance that is huge! After all, Tom worked at Fermilab...

    https://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/index.html

    Could you possibly be a bigger fool than you are now?

    Watch this space...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 20:18:33 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:12:12 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:50:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 4:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:55:28 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

    Tesla, the great: "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties".

    And yet, so far, there is zero evidence to support Tesla's claim that space cannot be curved... unless you can provide it... and good luck with that!

    Elementary logic is sufficient to know

    No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
    evidence to disprove a theory. Not "elementary logic" like Newton's
    bishops had, or which Copernicus' critics had.

    However, you need just ONE such observation/experiment to disprove
    relativity. Not 100 authors writing or "1,500 accomplished scientists" >> who just "know" relativity is "wrong". ONE experimental result. I also >> doubt these "1,500 accomplished scientists" are actually scientists.
    Either they aren't, or their words are taken out of context, or they
    have PhDs in the 'science' of underwater basketweaving, or they are 95 >> years old and demented to the point that they yell at the moon or
    something. No REAL physicist would just "know" relativity is wrong,
    since they would know that "knowing" relativity is wrong without
    evidence isn't science. Religion, maybe, but not science.

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    I have mentioned before that an illogical theory does not have predictive value so you are incorrect.
    It *does* have predictive values, of course. I can do the twin paradox with specific speeds and distances and relativity predicts the age difference. This is done all the time with muon storage rings etc.

    But once again, if you want to prove relativity wrong, you have to
    create an experiment which specifically contradicts a prediction of relativity. 100+ years so far and it has never happened.
    BTW this is why Dingle remains absolutely correct and why his refutation of special relativity is eternally true.

    Dingle was wrong because he got the problem wrong.

    I see you are ignorant of the early history of special relativity's claims about time dilation because Dingle correctly criticized that sufficiently to refute it. You are also unaware that GR was invoked to save SR's time dilation nonsense by more
    nonsense. You also have failed to give a cause but only mutter ambiguously about accelerations. Are you really claiming accelerations and turnarounds cause time dilation?

    https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm

    "Thus Dingle’s claim that Einstein never noticed this reciprocity is simply bizarre, as was Dingle’s "proof" of the logical inconsistency of special relativity. His reasoning can just as well be applied to “prove” that Euclidean geometry is
    logically inconsistent."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Aug 21 20:34:20 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:13:45 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:07:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts

    I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.
    If you think that Tom, who has a Ph.D. in physics, is ignorant of experiments in particle accelerators, then you are among the dumbest people who *ever& visited this forum. It is YOUR ignorance that is huge! After all, Tom worked at Fermilab...

    https://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/index.html

    Could you possibly be a bigger fool than you are now?
    Poor Tom can't distinguish between a result and an irrational interpretation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Mon Aug 21 23:33:45 2023
    On 8/21/23 8:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:11:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is
    perpendicular to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now
    rotate it so you are looking along its length -- it appears to have
    a width very much smaller than one meter. What "caused" this
    difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to
    "time dilation".

    Once again, you screw up biophysics.

    Nope. YOU screw up reading very basic English.

    It depends on the angular velocity and the speed of processing of
    your visual system.

    My words QUITE CLEARLY indicate the meterstick is not moving while you
    look at it, twice, with a 90-degree rotation between looks.

    [... further nonsense omitted]

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 21:41:29 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:13:45 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:07:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many
    particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts

    I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.
    If you think that Tom, who has a Ph.D. in physics, is ignorant of experiments in particle accelerators, then you are among the dumbest people who *ever& visited this forum. It is YOUR ignorance that is huge! After all, Tom worked at Fermilab...

    https://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/index.html

    Could you possibly be a bigger fool than you are now?

    Poor Tom can't distinguish between a result and an irrational interpretation.

    Poor Crossen doesn't know what he doesn't know and makes a fool of himself... AGAIN!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Aug 21 21:52:49 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 06:33:57 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 8:56 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:11:20 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is
    perpendicular to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now
    rotate it so you are looking along its length -- it appears to have
    a width very much smaller than one meter. What "caused" this
    difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to
    "time dilation".

    Once again, you screw up biophysics.
    Nope. YOU screw up reading very basic English.

    And we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Aug 21 21:53:35 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 06:41:32 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:13:45 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:07:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you
    answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many
    particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
    ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts

    I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.
    If you think that Tom, who has a Ph.D. in physics, is ignorant of experiments in particle accelerators, then you are among the dumbest people who *ever& visited this forum. It is YOUR ignorance that is huge! After all, Tom worked at Fermilab...

    https://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/index.html

    Could you possibly be a bigger fool than you are now?

    Poor Tom can't distinguish between a result and an irrational interpretation.
    Poor Crossen doesn't know what he doesn't know and makes a fool of himself... AGAIN!

    Come on, trash, stop making wise faces, the mumble
    of your idiot guru wasn't even consistent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 22:25:25 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 07:19:11 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 11:13 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:07:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    [...]
    Tom Roberts

    I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.

    If you think that Tom, who has a Ph.D. in physics, is ignorant of experiments in particle accelerators, then you are among the dumbest people who *ever& visited this forum. It is YOUR ignorance that is huge! After all, Tom worked at Fermilab...

    https://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/index.html

    Could you possibly be a bigger fool than you are now?
    Warning; Lawrence is likely to consider that as a challenge...

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Aug 22 01:26:53 2023
    On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or >>>> experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
    described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can
    apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a
    constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround
    event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling
    twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.

    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?

    Read the 1905 paper!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Aug 22 01:19:07 2023
    On 8/21/2023 11:13 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:07:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    [...]
    Tom Roberts

    I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.

    If you think that Tom, who has a Ph.D. in physics, is ignorant of experiments in particle accelerators, then you are among the dumbest people who *ever& visited this forum. It is YOUR ignorance that is huge! After all, Tom worked at Fermilab...

    https://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/index.html

    Could you possibly be a bigger fool than you are now?

    Warning; Lawrence is likely to consider that as a challenge...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Aug 22 01:31:42 2023
    On 8/21/2023 7:26 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:24 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:52:06 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/19/2023 1:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
    On 8/18/2023 6:31 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    <...>
    Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.
    If that were actually true you would have noting to argue against. >>>>>>
    Yet here you are...

    Explain this to me, logically, please, if you can.

    Do you mean aside from the attribution not being a quote of mine?
    Get some fresh air and exercise. My point is exactly that there is
    nothing to argue against. That is what Rutherford said.

    "There is nothing to argue against" means agreement in any sane world.

    No, in a sane world, it means relativity doesn't have a case. Case dismissed.

    Whodat did say 'agreement in any sane world'. But in the insane bizarro
    world of Laurence, "I can't find anything to argue against" means it's
    wrong. And he thinks his bizarro world is sane.

    There's nothing to argue against 2+2=4, so that's wrong in Laurence's
    bizarroworld?

    Would you show me where I said 2+2 does not equal 4?

    whodat said "There is nothing to argue against" means agreement in any
    sane world.
    You disagreed, you said it means it doesn't have a case.
    I said there is nothing to argue against 2+2=4. [do you agree?]
    So you apparently there isn't a case to state 2+2=4, according to your bizarroworld. So it must be false?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Aug 22 01:34:36 2023
    On 8/21/2023 8:09 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:50:05 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

    <snip>

    Dingle was wrong because he got the problem wrong.

    And you, Mr. Nobody, pretend to be smarter than Dingle?

    I didn't get the SR time dilation formula wrong. Dingle did.

    Demented cretin.

    Nice signature, Dick.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Aug 21 22:42:28 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:34:40 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 8:09 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

    <snip>

    Demented cretin.

    Nice signature, Dick.

    How sad. The cretin Einstein plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré.

    You plagiarize Dono.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 21 23:58:42 2023
    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or >> experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a
    constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.



    What time does time dilate? October, 1971????

    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Aug 22 01:00:50 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 07:31:47 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

    You disagreed, you said it means it doesn't have a case.
    I said there is nothing to argue against 2+2=4.

    Your bunch of idiots didn't "refute" this part of
    basic math, indeed. Yet, I guess.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Aug 22 00:38:30 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:21:36 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Good for you. It is junk, as it stands.
    (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you.
    Don't know what you would have written of course,
    but it could hardly have been worse.

    And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip, just from hearsay of course.
    The one with the most staying power often gets his way,
    even if his positions make little sense.
    He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes.
    Changing things could be an uphill battle.

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)

    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
    PS For your amusement, my take on it.
    The whole clock synchronisation issue became completely irrelevant in
    1983, when the speed of light obtained a defined value.
    It is no longer measurable, not one-way, both ways, or anyway.
    This was of course not for fun,
    but because it is really impossible experimentally
    to measure the speed of light to adequate accuracy.

    The problem became one of measuring distances.
    In these terms the problem becomes meaningless.
    There is no way that a distance can have two values,
    one measured from left to right,
    and another one measuring from right to left,
    or that only the average of the two can have meaning,

    I rather disagree that physics should change because of a
    change in the definition of a unit of measure. (Was the meter
    defined in terms of the speed of light, or the other way around?
    What difference does it make?) Physics did not change when
    the meter ceased to be tied to the circumference of the Earth
    or to scribed marks on a metal bar. Neither did it change when
    measures of time no longer depended on the rotation of the
    Earth. Nor has it changed when measures of mass no longer
    depended on a hunk of platinum-iridium alloy in a Paris vault.

    The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983.
    International standards bodies did not suddenly become
    empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means
    such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods.

    For the same reason, I disagreed with you when you stated that
    "A claim that the grating measures wavelength, must be based
    on a calibration of the spacing." https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1kXnHDM-DwI/m/b9JDV_QUAQAJ

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue Aug 22 01:02:29 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 09:38:33 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    I rather disagree that physics should change because of a
    change in the definition of a unit of measure.

    For sure you're not the only denying the reality
    idiot here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 22 11:54:08 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:21:36?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Good for you. It is junk, as it stands.
    (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you.
    Don't know what you would have written of course,
    but it could hardly have been worse.

    And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip, just from hearsay of course.
    The one with the most staying power often gets his way,
    even if his positions make little sense.
    He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes.
    Changing things could be an uphill battle.

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally
    incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)

    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
    PS For your amusement, my take on it.
    The whole clock synchronisation issue became completely irrelevant in
    1983, when the speed of light obtained a defined value.
    It is no longer measurable, not one-way, both ways, or anyway.
    This was of course not for fun,
    but because it is really impossible experimentally
    to measure the speed of light to adequate accuracy.

    The problem became one of measuring distances.
    In these terms the problem becomes meaningless.
    There is no way that a distance can have two values,
    one measured from left to right,
    and another one measuring from right to left,
    or that only the average of the two can have meaning,

    I rather disagree that physics should change because of a
    change in the definition of a unit of measure. (Was the meter
    defined in terms of the speed of light, or the other way around?

    Yes, of course, but that is not what I am saying.
    (and yes, the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light)
    It doesn't matter to physics, which is done in the best possible way,
    no matter what.
    It does matter to phollysophers of empirist/positivist/operationalist
    kinds, who insist that physics should somehow be 'derived' from
    experiments and nothing but experiments.
    (leaving litle or no room for theory)
    It doesn't hurt to point out that their imaginings correspond to things
    that just cannot be done in real world physics.

    What difference does it make?) Physics did not change when
    the meter ceased to be tied to the circumference of the Earth
    or to scribed marks on a metal bar. Neither did it change when
    measures of time no longer depended on the rotation of the
    Earth. Nor has it changed when measures of mass no longer
    depended on a hunk of platinum-iridium alloy in a Paris vault.

    Indeed. All those changes were designed to be backward-compatible.

    The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983.
    International standards bodies did not suddenly become
    empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means
    such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods.

    Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies.
    It emphasises the point that all this talk
    about different speeds of light (one way, two way, average)
    is completely unphysical. There is just the speed of light. Period.

    It also emphasises that this 'speed of light' is not
    a physical quantity at all.
    It is no more that a conversion factor between units,
    of no greater physical relevance than the foot/mile.
    (and yes, this alo holds for E=mc^2)

    What all those philosophies have in common is a rejection
    of the relativity postulate of Einstein 1905.
    (which insists that all this spcetime stuff is kinematics, not physics)

    For the same reason, I disagreed with you when you stated that
    "A claim that the grating measures wavelength, must be based
    on a calibration of the spacing." <https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1kXnHDM-DwI/m/b9JDV_ QUAQAJ>

    Incorrect reference. That's nothing about anything I participated in.
    (I'll make a second reply to you on this separate point)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Aug 22 03:05:20 2023
    On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 11:54:12 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:21:36?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 1:30:49?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Good for you. It is junk, as it stands.
    (obviously compiled by someone with only a second-hand understanding of
    the issues) Again, sorry, even if it isn't about you.
    Don't know what you would have written of course,
    but it could hardly have been worse.

    And yes, I have a second-hand idea of the way things work out at wikip,
    just from hearsay of course.
    The one with the most staying power often gets his way,
    even if his positions make little sense.
    He then has the power to effectively veto fundamental changes. Changing things could be an uphill battle.

    Don't think I want to be just negative: Wikipedia is usally incredibly good on math and phys subjects.

    Jan
    (don't do wikip)

    Martin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely
    denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
    PS For your amusement, my take on it.
    The whole clock synchronisation issue became completely irrelevant in 1983, when the speed of light obtained a defined value.
    It is no longer measurable, not one-way, both ways, or anyway.
    This was of course not for fun,
    but because it is really impossible experimentally
    to measure the speed of light to adequate accuracy.

    The problem became one of measuring distances.
    In these terms the problem becomes meaningless.
    There is no way that a distance can have two values,
    one measured from left to right,
    and another one measuring from right to left,
    or that only the average of the two can have meaning,

    I rather disagree that physics should change because of a
    change in the definition of a unit of measure. (Was the meter
    defined in terms of the speed of light, or the other way around?
    Yes, of course, but that is not what I am saying.
    (and yes, the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light)
    It doesn't matter to physics, which is done in the best possible way,
    no matter what.

    Every fanatic idiot of the world always believed
    that his way is the BEST WAY; neither you, nor
    your fellow idiots are special.

    It does matter to phollysophers of empirist/positivist/operationalist
    kinds, who insist that physics should somehow be 'derived' from
    experiments and nothing but experiments.
    (leaving litle or no room for theory)
    It doesn't hurt to point out that their imaginings correspond to things
    that just cannot be done in real world physics.

    Well, JJ, you're an idiot to believe that your physics would
    defend its idiocies without these lies.


    It is no more that a conversion factor between units,
    of no greater physical relevance than the foot/mile.

    Well, having no clue about any logic idiots like you
    or Pro can believe that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Aug 22 09:38:14 2023
    On 8/22/23 4:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    [...] (which insists that all this spacetime stuff is kinematics, not physics)

    Kinematics is clearly physics. I think you meant "dynamics", not "physics".

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Aug 22 09:58:13 2023
    On 8/21/2023 11:41 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:34:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:13:45 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:07:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
    inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular >>>>> to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you >>>>> are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much >>>>> smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you >>>>> answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >>>>> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very >>>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts

    I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.
    If you think that Tom, who has a Ph.D. in physics, is ignorant of experiments in particle accelerators, then you are among the dumbest people who *ever& visited this forum. It is YOUR ignorance that is huge! After all, Tom worked at Fermilab...

    https://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/index.html

    Could you possibly be a bigger fool than you are now?

    Poor Tom can't distinguish between a result and an irrational interpretation.

    Poor Crossen doesn't know what he doesn't know and makes a fool of himself... AGAIN!

    If you haven't figured it out yet you're talking to a third or fourth
    string mathematician.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Tue Aug 22 10:19:42 2023
    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    where a frame begins to move it experiences weight resistance
    and around it an observed opposite and equal appearance of
    motion.

    Motion appearance began in the history of the retro grade.
    Real motion creates an appearance...

    Mitchell Raemsch

    Begin to move on your world line and there is an
    equal but opposite appearance of motion around you...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Aug 22 10:41:11 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
    described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can >> apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a
    constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround
    event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling >> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.

    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Read the 1905 paper!
    According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Aug 22 10:47:37 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
    inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much
    smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts
    The particle accelerator experiment with Lithium merely measured the change in the number of transitions of electrons at one-third the speed of light compared with ions not moving. It only proved those transitions slowed. It did not prove that any other
    rate of change slows with speed much less that time itself (all rates of change) changes with speed. To conclude that it proves time changes with speed is an unwarranted inference, and math knowledge is irrelevant.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Aug 22 20:05:48 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/22/23 4:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    [...] (which insists that all this spacetime stuff is kinematics, not physics)

    Kinematics is clearly physics. I think you meant "dynamics", not "physics".

    Yes, OK, one may quarrel about words, while agreeing about content.

    In my usage, the 'kinematics' are those things
    that all physical theories must have in common,
    so the description in terms of events in space-time.
    (in particular a spacetime with ds^2 = dt^2 - dr^2)
    This may disagree with your usage of the words.

    All physical theories, like Maxwellian electrodynamics,
    are necessarily set -in- that spacetime. (no GR as yet) [1]

    In other words, the spacetime is an a-priori,
    you must have it first,
    before you can have any physical theories at all.
    (that is, Lorentz invariant physical theories,
    because the relativity postulate says
    that all physical theories must be Lorentz-invariant)

    All this is nothing but an Einsteinian modernisation
    of Kant's original idea of the a-priori.
    In Kant's version you need Euclidean geometry as an a-priori
    in order to be able to measure anything spatial at all.
    The very design of your instrumentation depends on it.
    (just imagine measuring anything at all
    with fluid Salvador Dali style instruments)

    The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was
    that all this mess with electrodynamics and aether,
    as it existed then, can be resolved once and for all,
    once you understand that it all hangs on the existence
    of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
    with space and time treated on an equal footing.
    So with an absolute fundamental velocity, the same for all.
    (not to be confused with c, but practically indistinguishable from it)

    Your usage in words may differ,
    but I don't think that you disagree in principle.

    OTOH, I may be completely mistaken in this.
    You might be one of those (neo)positivists/empirists/conventionalists/
    who reject the Einsteinian insight that you must -postulate-
    what space-time is like before you start doing physics.
    (in some form of the relativity postulates)
    Or more plainly, you might reject space-time physics as fundamental.

    As we have seen in this forum, and in some IMHO misguided literature,
    that rejection leads you into all kinds of pseudo-empirical
    and un-physical sophistry about various, and different
    'speeds of light', which may, or may not be measurable.

    If the latter, we must agree to disagree.
    I also hope that I may have been able to help
    to clarify the issues,

    Jan


    [1] Of course general relativity reinforces all this.
    You really get absolutely nowhere at all with it
    unless you -postulate- local Lorentz invariance
    for inertial observers as the basis for it all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Aug 22 11:28:26 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
    inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much
    smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whodat@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Aug 22 14:06:29 2023
    On 8/22/2023 1:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
    inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much
    smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you
    answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    [Both are geometrical projections of an invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many
    particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
    ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

    All bun, no beef !

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Aug 22 12:19:25 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>

    The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983.
    International standards bodies did not suddenly become
    empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means
    such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods.
    Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies.

    It is not a matter of philosophy.

    Two-way methods are more accurate than one-way
    methods for the high precision dissemination of time
    between standards organizations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Tue Aug 22 15:30:51 2023
    On 8/22/2023 1:42 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:34:40 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 8:09 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

    <snip>

    Demented cretin.

    Nice signature, Dick.

    How sad. The cretin Einstein plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré.

    You plagiarize Dono.

    I have noticed people (typically cranks) creating perfect .sig files for themselves and commented on it many times in the past, and it wasn't
    copying Dono.

    Just because both Dono and myself notice the obvious signatures you and
    others create doesn't mean one of us copied from the other. I mean
    phrases like "Demented cretin" describe yourself perfectly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 22 22:58:46 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>

    The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983. International standards bodies did not suddenly become
    empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means
    such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods.
    Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies.

    It is not a matter of philosophy.

    You are pulling one line out of context.

    Two-way methods are more accurate than one-way
    methods for the high precision dissemination of time
    between standards organizations.

    Yes of course.
    But now you are talking about real working physics,
    which is something else altogether.
    How else could it be done anyway?

    Actually it is not two way, but a great many ways,
    involving many stations, with corrections applied to corrections
    to get everything just right.
    Highly qualified profssionals doing very difficult things,
    They don't do philosophy while doing it.
    The speed of light doesn't come into it, thats just a given.

    It is only the low accuracy dissemination of time to secondary users
    (to a microsecond or so) that is one way,

    Jan

    BTW, you can see it happening in practice,
    when driving past a wind farm.
    Those synchronous one second flashers atop each windmill
    independently take their time from GPS time receivers.
    I've been told it looks quite impressive, from the air.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Tue Aug 22 15:19:49 2023
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    What time does time dilate? October, 1971????



    How amny clocks does it take to measure Time dilation??? you're gonna
    need a lot of clocks, and then point to the one dat looks like it
    worked.

    maybe the other clock...

    Truth is, Time dilation has never been proven my any experiment that
    wasn't a fraud.

    Only fraud experiments prove Time dilation.


    Might as well put a thousand clocks on a plane going in one direction...

    one of those clocks gotta work.



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Aug 22 19:52:35 2023
    On 8/22/23 1:05 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    On 8/22/23 4:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    [...] (which insists that all this spacetime stuff is kinematics,
    not physics)

    Kinematics is clearly physics. I think you meant "dynamics", not
    "physics".

    Yes, OK, one may quarrel about words, while agreeing about content.

    In my usage, the 'kinematics' are those things that all physical
    theories must have in common,

    Like the crackpots, I STRONGLY discourage you from using words with
    meanings from from your private vocabulary.

    In particle physics, "kinematics" includes not only the spacetime
    manifold, but also 4-momentum conservation and the many conclusions from
    it. "Dynamics" is how the various particle fields interact. Both are
    part of physics.

    Ditto for both classical and quantum mechanics, mutatis mutandis.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Tue Aug 22 17:49:02 2023
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can
    apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    What time does time dilate? October, 1971????


    How amny clocks does it take to measure Time dilation??? you're gonna
    need a lot of clocks, and then point to the one dat looks like it
    worked.

    maybe the other clock...

    Truth is, Time dilation has never been proven my any experiment that
    wasn't a fraud.

    Only fraud experiments prove Time dilation.

    Might as well put a thousand clocks on a plane going in one direction...

    one of those clocks gotta work.


    might as well put all the clocks in one of those 'collidiers', and throw
    in the kitchen sink.


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Aug 22 21:41:04 2023
    On 8/22/2023 4:58 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    It is only the low accuracy dissemination of time to secondary users
    (to a microsecond or so) that is one way,

    Jan

    BTW, you can see it happening in practice,
    when driving past a wind farm.
    Those synchronous one second flashers atop each windmill
    independently take their time from GPS time receivers.
    I've been told it looks quite impressive, from the air.

    Interesting. I didn't know they did that, but that makes sense. Which
    reminds me. The world news on one US TV network often uses the Tappan
    Zee Bridge near New York City as the background for a reporter. Its 8
    towers have the flashers in synch, I subconsciously assumed there was
    one flasher device on the bridge which flashed all the lights. Except
    for one day when one of the flashers was flashing once per second but
    not in synch with the others. GPS time would explain it if one failed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Aug 22 22:17:58 2023
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many
    particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
    ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take
    into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The
    fact they work at all shows the design is correct.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Aug 22 22:21:01 2023
    On 8/22/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or >>>>>> experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
    described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can >>>> apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a
    constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround
    event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling >>>> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.

    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?

    Read the 1905 paper!

    According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way.

    If you think "relative motion" and "inertial motion" are mutually
    exclusive or something, you are much more confused than I thought.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Tue Aug 22 20:06:00 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:48:31 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    The Starmaker wrote:

    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can
    apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling
    twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    What time does time dilate? October, 1971????


    How amny clocks does it take to measure Time dilation??? you're gonna
    need a lot of clocks, and then point to the one dat looks like it
    worked.

    maybe the other clock...

    Truth is, Time dilation has never been proven my any experiment that wasn't a fraud.

    Only fraud experiments prove Time dilation.

    Might as well put a thousand clocks on a plane going in one direction...

    one of those clocks gotta work.

    might as well put all the clocks in one of those 'collidiers', and throw
    in the kitchen sink.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    Well, I don't think all processes of change synchronize with Lithium.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Tue Aug 22 20:04:50 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:19:21 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    The Starmaker wrote:

    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can
    apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling
    twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it? Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    What time does time dilate? October, 1971????

    How amny clocks does it take to measure Time dilation??? you're gonna
    need a lot of clocks, and then point to the one dat looks like it
    worked.

    maybe the other clock...

    Truth is, Time dilation has never been proven my any experiment that
    wasn't a fraud.

    Only fraud experiments prove Time dilation.


    Might as well put a thousand clocks on a plane going in one direction...

    one of those clocks gotta work.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    Yes, and there are other processes of change besides oscillations of clocks like aging (except Paul hasn't aged since 3 years old).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Aug 22 20:07:13 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
    ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The
    fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
    You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from n process of change to all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Aug 22 20:09:27 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
    ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The
    fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
    You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Aug 22 20:10:14 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:21:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
    described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can
    apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a
    constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround
    event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling >>>> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.

    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?

    Read the 1905 paper!

    According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way.
    If you think "relative motion" and "inertial motion" are mutually
    exclusive or something, you are much more confused than I thought.
    As long it is relative motion Dingle's criticism applies full force.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Aug 22 23:20:25 2023
    On 8/22/23 10:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of
    times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's
    just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you
    don't know this.
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted
    conclusions.
    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators
    take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their
    design. The fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
    You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one
    process of change to all.

    But as I said, there are billions of measurements of "time dilation", by thousands of experimenters in hundreds of accelerators around the world. Moreover, "time dilation" is merely one minor aspect of a theory that is absolutely essential for designing those accelerators.

    What is truly unwarranted is your attempt to criticize physics without
    any knowledge or understanding of it.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Aug 22 21:50:05 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 04:18:03 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very
    ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Tue Aug 22 21:49:29 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 06:20:39 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/22/23 10:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of
    times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's
    just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you
    don't know this.
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted
    conclusions.
    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators
    take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their
    design. The fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
    You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one
    process of change to all.
    But as I said, there are billions of measurements of "time dilation", by thousands of experimenters in hundreds of accelerators

    And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by
    your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
    improper t'=t in improper seconds.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Aug 22 22:59:16 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 07:24:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:21:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>>>>
    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as >>>>>> described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can
    apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a >>>>>> constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround
    event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling
    twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.

    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?

    Read the 1905 paper!

    According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way.

    If you think "relative motion" and "inertial motion" are mutually
    exclusive or something, you are much more confused than I thought.

    As long it is relative motion Dingle's criticism applies full force.
    No comment on your lack of understanding of what "relative motion" and "inertial motion" even mean?

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Aug 23 01:24:11 2023
    On 8/22/2023 11:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:21:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 10:26:57 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

    And again, after 100+ years, there is NO such scientific observations or
    experimental evidence discovered. None.

    Please explain which twin is predicted to be time dilated when both are moving relative to the other and time dilation is caused by relative motion.
    And again, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as >>>>>> described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can >>>>>> apply it to the PORTIONS of the journey where one twin moves at a
    constant speed relative to the other. However the turnaround
    event/acceleration causes all of the effects which causes the traveling >>>>>> twin to age less. It is NOT symmetrical.

    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by inertial motion. How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?

    Read the 1905 paper!

    According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way.

    If you think "relative motion" and "inertial motion" are mutually
    exclusive or something, you are much more confused than I thought.

    As long it is relative motion Dingle's criticism applies full force.

    No comment on your lack of understanding of what "relative motion" and "inertial motion" even mean?

    Anyway, Dingle was wrong because he also misunderstood the problem.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Tue Aug 22 23:06:52 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue Aug 22 23:23:09 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 08:06:55 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?

    No, a mumbling idiot is just mumbling.
    For centuries people was listening
    physicists like pigs listening thunders,
    and the quality control of physics has
    completely degenerated.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Aug 23 11:08:08 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 8/22/2023 4:58 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    It is only the low accuracy dissemination of time to secondary users
    (to a microsecond or so) that is one way,

    Jan

    BTW, you can see it happening in practice,
    when driving past a wind farm.
    Those synchronous one second flashers atop each windmill
    independently take their time from GPS time receivers.
    I've been told it looks quite impressive, from the air.

    Interesting. I didn't know they did that, but that makes sense. Which
    reminds me. The world news on one US TV network often uses the Tappan
    Zee Bridge near New York City as the background for a reporter. Its 8
    towers have the flashers in synch, I subconsciously assumed there was
    one flasher device on the bridge which flashed all the lights. Except
    for one day when one of the flashers was flashing once per second but
    not in synch with the others. GPS time would explain it if one failed.

    Those flashers will have a back-up timebase of course.
    If its GPS is lost it will go on at its own rate.
    (and it will show)

    Taking time from GPS is obviously much simpler
    and more cost-effective than laying kilometers of wiring,

    Jan

    (If I lie, it is in good company,
    from the days when sci.geo.satellite-nav was alive)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Aug 23 11:08:08 2023
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

    On 8/22/23 1:05 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
    On 8/22/23 4:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    [...] (which insists that all this spacetime stuff is kinematics,
    not physics)

    Kinematics is clearly physics. I think you meant "dynamics", not
    "physics".

    Yes, OK, one may quarrel about words, while agreeing about content.

    In my usage, the 'kinematics' are those things that all physical
    theories must have in common,

    Like the crackpots, I STRONGLY discourage you from using words with
    meanings from from your private vocabulary.

    Go crack your own pot.
    This is not the way to conduct a physics discussion.
    You obviously do't have anything of physical relevance to contribute
    so you carp on words instead.

    In particle physics, "kinematics" includes not only the spacetime
    manifold, but also 4-momentum conservation and the many conclusions from
    it. "Dynamics" is how the various particle fields interact. Both are
    part of physics.

    Ditto for both classical and quantum mechanics, mutatis mutandis.

    Tom Roberts

    Must I really remind you of the standard meaning of 'kinematics'? ====================================================================== Kinematics is a subfield of physics, developed in classical mechanics,
    that describes the motion of points, bodies (objects), and systems of
    bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that cause
    them to move.[1][2][3] Kinematics, as a field of study, is often
    referred to as the "geometry of motion" and is occasionally seen as a
    branch of mathematics.[4][5][6] ===================================================================== <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics>
    or just about any other dictionary.

    Get it? Kinematics comes before physics,
    and it can even be seen as a branch of mathematics.

    It is you who doesn't speak the standard language,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 23 12:01:57 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?

    Sure, you can have it your way,
    if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules.
    But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics.
    (all of which you snipped for effect)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 23 03:10:45 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 12:02:01 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?
    Sure, you can have it your way,
    if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules.
    But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics.
    (all of which you snipped for effect)

    The mumble of JJ is more noble than ordinary
    talking of ordinary mortal worms. Can't you see
    that, poor halfbrain?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 23 04:22:40 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?
    Sure, you can have it your way,
    if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules.
    But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics.
    (all of which you snipped for effect)

    I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant*
    to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing .
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence .

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx. 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx. 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx. 30 degrees

    WHAT IS THE PRIMARY QUANTITY BEING MEASURED BY THE GRATING?
    And yes, this is a fundamental physics question.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 23 13:55:24 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30
    The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is
    The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?
    Sure, you can have it your way,
    if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules.
    But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics.
    (all of which you snipped for effect)

    I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant*
    to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.

    You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.

    And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you.
    This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion.

    You really should know better,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 23 05:08:04 2023
    On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 13:55:28 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30
    The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is
    The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?
    Sure, you can have it your way,
    if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules.
    But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics.
    (all of which you snipped for effect)

    I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant*
    to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
    You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.

    And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you.
    This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion.

    The correct way of an usenet discussion is listening and
    obeying the knights of The Shit! Everybody knows.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Wed Aug 23 10:46:57 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 9:20:39 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/22/23 10:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of
    times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's
    just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you
    don't know this.
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted
    conclusions.
    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators
    take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their
    design. The fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
    You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one
    process of change to all.
    But as I said, there are billions of measurements of "time dilation", by thousands of experimenters in hundreds of accelerators around the world. Moreover, "time dilation" is merely one minor aspect of a theory that is absolutely essential for designing those accelerators.

    What is truly unwarranted is your attempt to criticize physics without
    any knowledge or understanding of it.

    Tom Roberts
    Sadly, you can't understand something so simple. It doesn't matter how many "time dilation" measures have been made in experiments because they do not represent all rates of change. To take them as clocks representing all rates of change is a huge,
    unwarranted leap and a vast over-generalization. Time dilation is ignorant fiction. For example, there is no good reason to suppose that if Lithium time dilates at a certain speed aging would do the same. It is junk science called relativity. You have
    the institutions on your side; I have the science.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 23 13:15:18 2023
    On August 22, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was
    that all this mess with electrodynamics and aether,
    as it existed then, can be resolved once and for all,
    once you understand that it all hangs on the existence
    of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
    with space and time treated on an equal footing.

    Except they aren't.

    Length contraction acts only in the direction of the
    object's motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is
    independent of the object's direction.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 23 13:31:38 2023
    On August 23, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?

    I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant*
    to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing .
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence .
    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx. 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx. 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 7.40 KHz sound in water is approx. 30 degrees WHAT IS THE PRIMARY QUANTITY BEING MEASURED BY THE GRATING?
    And yes, this is a fundamental physics question.

    Not really, it's more like a loaded question.

    You assume the existence of a quantity, a well defined
    'thing', which is common to these three cases.

    Actually, they are distinct experiments, which have some
    conceptual analogies. Analyze each separately, report the
    observable results and predictions. Finis. Then your
    "fundamental physics question" becomes moot.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Aug 23 15:52:10 2023
    On 8/23/23 3:15 PM, RichD wrote:
    On August 22, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was that all this
    mess with electrodynamics and aether, as it existed then, can be
    resolved once and for all, once you understand that it all hangs
    on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
    with space and time treated on an equal footing.

    Except they aren't.

    Yes, they are.

    Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's
    motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the
    object's direction.

    Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length
    or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out
    differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only
    one time axis.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Physfitfreak on Wed Aug 23 14:45:48 2023
    On August 20, Physfitfreak wrote:
    Relativity only has to be defeated *once*, like any other theory.

    _Every_ theory in physics, its validation as well as its refutal, must
    be repeatable and must get repeated over and over for it to stand.

    What if it's a time varying theory, or the law of nature is time varying?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 23 15:10:54 2023
    On August 20, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    As pointed out, the US high school students place in the top 3 at
    math/physics/chemistry Olympiads.

    Yeah, sure.

    Olympic athletes aren't representative of the population.

    The problems with the American high school system are hardly
    news. See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It

    Check this shocking yet unsurprising recent case, from NYC: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=gJKhN2zgJoJVQi1ni3dxcg==
    A white bureaucrat sued the school system, claiming discrimination.
    It's a long document, set your word processor to to search for "white"

    For instance:
    "White culture's values are homogeneous and supremacist; that
    the "Protestant work ethic" is an example of White Supremacy
    and "[Chislett's] interest in excellence was perfectionism and
    consistent with White Supremacy"

    Thus USA decays into socialist tribalism, as ethnic groups fight for
    political influence, to grab larger shares of a shrinking pie -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 23 15:56:27 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:55:28 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30
    The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is
    The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?
    Sure, you can have it your way,
    if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules.
    But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics.
    (all of which you snipped for effect)

    I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant*
    to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
    You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.

    And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you.
    This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion.

    You really should know better,

    Jan, there are several people having considerably better accomplishments
    in physics than myself who have objected to your assertion that frequency
    is the primary quantity being measured by diffraction gratings. And that
    the change in definition of the speed of light in 1983 could have anything
    to do with the physics of diffraction gratings.

    For example, Tom Roberts wrote
    "I think Jan is confused. Every analysis I have seen of diffraction
    gratings uses the wavelength of the wave, not its frequency." https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1kXnHDM-DwI/m/GQ5yUeYbAQAJ

    Likewise, Paul Alsing wrote
    "Am I missing something here?" following up with a link. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/1kXnHDM-DwI/m/sm6M8RUSAQAJ

    If there is some sort of misunderstanding on our part as to what you
    have meant by your assertion, you have some explaining to do.
    You obviously have considerable knowledge of certain aspects of
    physics, but there are certain aspects in which your behavior resembles
    that of crackpots, for example your occasional use of a private vocabulary
    and your apparent belief that you cannot ever be wrong.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 00:44:40 2023
    On 8/22/2023 11:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >>>> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very >>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take
    into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The
    fact they work at all shows the design is correct.

    You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all.

    What, are you saying that it must be tested for all possible
    combinations? Like if x+2=2+x is true for x=10, x=1 and x=5 there's no
    evidence it's true for x=3 or x=7?

    Face it. Particle accelerators take into account SR, and they work. If
    they didn't take into account SR in their design, they wouldn't work.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Aug 23 22:36:44 2023
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>

    The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983. International standards bodies did not suddenly become
    empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means
    such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods.
    Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies.

    It is not a matter of philosophy.
    You are pulling one line out of context.

    Your single line was completely isolated from the rest
    of your post. How was it out of context?

    Two-way methods are more accurate than one-way
    methods for the high precision dissemination of time
    between standards organizations.
    Yes of course.
    But now you are talking about real working physics,
    which is something else altogether.
    How else could it be done anyway?

    Actually it is not two way, but a great many ways,
    involving many stations, with corrections applied to corrections
    to get everything just right.

    The two-way communication would typically be via a single
    satellite in geostationary orbit, thus minimizing the need
    for "corrections applied to corrections", which are still quite
    extensive.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Thu Aug 24 01:01:36 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 07:36:46 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>

    The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983. International standards bodies did not suddenly become
    empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means
    such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods.
    Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies.

    It is not a matter of philosophy.
    You are pulling one line out of context.

    Your single line was completely isolated from the rest
    of your post. How was it out of context?

    That's simple, trash: when a knight of The Shit
    says "out of context" it is out of context. Only
    crakpots may object. Are you one?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Aug 24 14:02:05 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On August 20, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    As pointed out, the US high school students place in the top 3 at
    math/physics/chemistry Olympiads.

    Yeah, sure.

    Olympic athletes aren't representative of the population.

    The problems with the American high school system are hardly
    news. See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It

    Check this shocking yet unsurprising recent case, from NYC: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=gJKhN2zgJoJVQi1n
    i3dxcg==

    Broken link or server.

    A white bureaucrat sued the school system, claiming discrimination.
    It's a long document, set your word processor to to search for "white"

    For instance:
    "White culture's values are homogeneous and supremacist; that
    the "Protestant work ethic" is an example of White Supremacy
    and "[Chislett's] interest in excellence was perfectionism and
    consistent with White Supremacy"

    Thus USA decays into socialist tribalism, as ethnic groups fight for political influence, to grab larger shares of a shrinking pie -

    ROTFL. 'Socialist tribalism', sure.
    Americans are completely clueless about things like 'socialism'.
    (the real thing)

    I will agree with you that the USA is descending into tribalism,
    sectarian quarrels, and crazy and blind partisanship,
    but none of it is 'socialist',
    except perhaps in their perverted sense of the word,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 24 14:02:04 2023
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:55:28?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing
    Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30
    The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is
    The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?
    Sure, you can have it your way,
    if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules.
    But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics.
    (all of which you snipped for effect)

    I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant*
    to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
    You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.

    And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you.
    This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion.

    You really should know better,

    Jan, there are several people [-]

    Sorry, I am not going to have third hand discussions with others
    through you.
    I did seriously try to explain to explain the physics of it to you.

    All you do is snip it all, come up with a quote-mine,
    and call my attempts at explanation 'spew'.

    So, if you don't mind, I really don't see
    why I should waste more time on you,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Aug 24 05:53:25 2023
    On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 14:02:08 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:55:28?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 5:02:01?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue, 22 Aug 2023, was seen to quote-mine:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:54:12?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    The frequency is the primary quantity,
    because it is the energy in a different unit.
    (or just the same unit, in natural units)
    And energy is all there is to it, really.

    Consider a set of parallel copper bars having 40 cm spacing Incoming waves impinge on the grating at zero degrees incidence.

    The first order diffraction of 1.5 GHz microwaves is approx 30 degrees
    The first order diffraction of 1.71 KHz sound in air is approx 30 The first order diffraction of degrees 7.40 KHz sound in water is The first order diffraction of approx 30 degrees

    Is frequency the primary quantity being measured by the grating?
    Sure, you can have it your way,
    if you go to the level of plumbing, carpentry, and tape rules.
    But we were discussing spectroscopy and fundamental physics.
    (all of which you snipped for effect)

    I snipped because all of that spew was totally *irrelevant*
    to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
    You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.

    And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you.
    This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion.

    You really should know better,

    Jan, there are several people [-]

    Sorry, I am not going to have third hand discussions with others
    through you.
    I did seriously try to explain to explain the physics of it to you.

    All you do is snip it all, come up with a quote-mine,
    and call my attempts at explanation 'spew'.

    So, if you don't mind, I really don't see
    why I should waste more time on you,

    Talking to a relativistic idiot is like playing
    chess with pigeon.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ken Seto@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 06:58:24 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:11:20 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused by
    inertial motion.
    No. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
    How does it cause that? How does acceleration cause it?
    Hold a meterstick in your hand and look at it while it is perpendicular
    to your sight-line -- it appears one meter wide. Now rotate it so you
    are looking along its length -- it appears to have a width very much
    smaller than one meter. What "caused" this difference? -- however you answer, that same answer applies to "time dilation".

    There's no absolute time dilation.There is clock time dilation because a moving clock second of moving clock second takes a larger amount of absolute.time to complete. .
    There is no material length contraction. The material length of a moving meter stick remains
    constant. However, the light path length (LPL) of a moving meter stick is shorter or longer than the material length of moving mater stick.
    Definition: LPL the length light must travel to cover the material length of a moving meter stick

    [Both are geometrical projections of aorter or longer n invariant
    quantity onto a specific coordinate system.]
    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Aug 24 10:50:32 2023
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:44:44 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 11:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many
    particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very >>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take >> into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The
    fact they work at all shows the design is correct.

    You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all.
    What, are you saying that it must be tested for all possible
    combinations? Like if x+2=2+x is true for x=10, x=1 and x=5 there's no evidence it's true for x=3 or x=7?

    Face it. Particle accelerators take into account SR, and they work. If
    they didn't take into account SR in their design, they wouldn't work.
    The unwarranted inference (and over-generalization) is from, e.g., Lithium to the aging process, among many other processes that do not change their rate with speed as Lithium does. There is no good reason to infer from the slower pace of Lithium at
    higher speeds to claim the rate of organisms aging does the same.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Tom Rob on Thu Aug 24 11:07:27 2023
    On August 23, Tom Rob wrote:
    The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was that all this
    mess with electrodynamics and aether, can be
    resolved once and for all, once you understand that it all hangs
    on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
    with space and time treated on an equal footing.

    Except they aren't.
    Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's
    motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the
    object's direction.

    Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length
    or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out
    differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only
    one time axis.

    I hadn't thought of it that way.

    In a universe with two time dimensions, what would time dilation look
    like? And what would the Lorentz transform look like? Considering that
    it's formed in terms of relative velocity, which is only sensible with a single time axis.


    ---
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Aug 24 14:28:15 2023
    On 8/24/2023 1:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:44:44 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 11:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.

    Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >>>>>> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very >>>>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
    It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
    It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take >>>> into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The >>>> fact they work at all shows the design is correct.

    You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all.

    What, are you saying that it must be tested for all possible
    combinations? Like if x+2=2+x is true for x=10, x=1 and x=5 there's no
    evidence it's true for x=3 or x=7?

    Face it. Particle accelerators take into account SR, and they work. If
    they didn't take into account SR in their design, they wouldn't work.

    The unwarranted inference (and over-generalization) is from, e.g., Lithium to the aging process, among many other processes that do not change their rate with speed as Lithium does. There is no good reason to infer from the slower pace of Lithium at
    higher speeds to claim the rate of organisms aging does the same.

    So you actually are saying it needs to be tried for all possible
    situations. First we have to speed some animal at .866c to see if it
    ages at half the rate. Then if it does, instead of, say a rat, we'd have
    to try it with a monkey. If it works with a monkey we have to try it
    with a platypus. And...

    Sorry, nobody's going to buy that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Aug 24 14:39:22 2023
    On 8/24/2023 2:07 PM, RichD wrote:
    On August 23, Tom Rob wrote:
    The fundamental understanding of Einstein 1905 was that all this
    mess with electrodynamics and aether, can be
    resolved once and for all, once you understand that it all hangs
    on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
    with space and time treated on an equal footing.

    Except they aren't.
    Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's
    motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the
    object's direction.

    Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length
    or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out
    differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only
    one time axis.

    I hadn't thought of it that way.

    In a universe with two time dimensions, what would time dilation look
    like? And what would the Lorentz transform look like? Considering that
    it's formed in terms of relative velocity, which is only sensible with a single time axis.

    That is an interesting thought experiment. Two time dimensions and
    either three or two (in case 5 total dimensions is too complicated to comprehend). Space-space rotations, multiple space-time transformations
    and a time-time transformation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu Aug 24 11:36:44 2023
    On August 24, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    The problems with the American high school system are hardly
    news. See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our
    Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It

    Check this shocking yet unsurprising recent case, from NYC: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=gJKhN2zgJoJVQi1n
    i3dxcg==

    Broken link or server.

    It works. Copy it across lines, then copy it into the address bar.
    Search for "white", if you're interested.

    This type of thing never happened in the past, it's the result of
    60 years of pseudo-intellectual liberal/socialist class war propaganda.

    A white bureaucrat sued the school system, claiming discrimination.
    For instance:
    "White culture's values are homogeneous and supremacist; that
    the "Protestant work ethic" is an example of White Supremacy
    and "[Chislett's] interest in excellence was perfectionism and
    consistent with White Supremacy"

    Thus USA decays into socialist tribalism, as ethnic groups fight for
    political influence, to grab larger shares of a shrinking pie -

    ROTFL. 'Socialist tribalism', sure.
    Americans are completely clueless about things like 'socialism'.
    (the real thing)
    I will agree with you that the USA is descending into tribalism,
    sectarian quarrels, and crazy and blind partisanship,
    but none of it is 'socialist',
    except perhaps in their perverted sense of the word.

    yeah, an accurate sense of socialism is 'sharing' ...
    A picture is worth a thousand words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_lamprey#/media/File:Pacific_lamprey_facing_right.jpg
    https://thakurfahad.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/noname.jpg https://wuweixp.com/democracy-under-attack/


    "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
    - G. Orwell: "Animal Farm"

    Do Orwell's books get any traction in Europe? He was the great
    prophet of the last century. They used to be popular here, but no
    longer - the left doesn't approve of his blunt portrayals of their agenda -
    (he was also banned in the soviet block)

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From larry harson@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Thu Aug 24 15:15:21 2023
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:31 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/16/23 6:00 PM, larry harson wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:40:27 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 8/15/23 6:19 PM, JanPB wrote:
    The radius does not change if we assume the disc is made of a
    substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
    contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
    Instead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
    isosceles triangles with their apexes all at the center, and their
    bases at the circumference, such that when not rotating they fill
    the disk (with a slightly jagged circumference). Assume each
    triangle is able to resist any centrifugal force. Then when the
    collection rotates, gaps form between the triangles, due to the
    "length contraction" of their bases.

    Tom Roberts

    Here's a question that some may find interesting: Why do the bases of
    the triangles 'length contract' but not the gaps between the bases of adjacent triangles?

    Because the bases of the triangles are pulled together by inter-atomic bonds, while the gaps are not.

    Yes, and more accurately: as the rotating bases are brought up to speed from rest in the lab frame, the necessary inter-atomic forces required to maintain rigidness of a base in its proper frame won't be uniformly distributed. Hence the leading edge will
    experience less of an average acceleration compared to the trailing edge; and will approach one another or 'length contract' in the lab frame.

    Ignoring the physics and focusing only on the maths of SR has lead me astray many times in the past.

    Larry Harson

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to larry harson on Thu Aug 24 19:38:58 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 3:15:23 PM UTC-7, larry harson wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:31 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/16/23 6:00 PM, larry harson wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:40:27 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 8/15/23 6:19 PM, JanPB wrote:
    The radius does not change if we assume the disc is made of a
    substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
    contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
    Instead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
    isosceles triangles with their apexes all at the center, and their
    bases at the circumference, such that when not rotating they fill
    the disk (with a slightly jagged circumference). Assume each
    triangle is able to resist any centrifugal force. Then when the
    collection rotates, gaps form between the triangles, due to the
    "length contraction" of their bases.

    Tom Roberts

    Here's a question that some may find interesting: Why do the bases of the triangles 'length contract' but not the gaps between the bases of adjacent triangles?

    Because the bases of the triangles are pulled together by inter-atomic bonds, while the gaps are not.

    Yes, and more accurately: as the rotating bases are brought up to speed from rest in the lab frame, the necessary inter-atomic forces required to maintain rigidness of a base in its proper frame won't be uniformly distributed. Hence the leading edge
    will experience less of an average acceleration compared to the trailing edge; and will approach one another or 'length contract' in the lab frame.

    Ignoring the physics and focusing only on the maths of SR has lead me astray many times in the past.

    Larry Harson

    How could rotation contract a disk?
    Where is there a direct measurement of length or distance going away?
    atoms would have a problem...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to RichD on Fri Aug 25 21:45:45 2023
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On August 24, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    The problems with the American high school system are hardly
    news. See for example: Katherine Baird, Trapped in Mediocrity: Why Our >> > Schools Aren't World-Class and What We Can Do About It

    Check this shocking yet unsurprising recent case, from NYC: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=gJKhN2zgJoJV
    Qi1n
    i3dxcg==

    Broken link or server.

    It works. Copy it across lines, then copy it into the address bar.
    Search for "white", if you're interested.

    This type of thing never happened in the past, it's the result of
    60 years of pseudo-intellectual liberal/socialist class war propaganda.

    OK,OK, Enough, enough. I really should have known better.
    The good old rule of the thumb applies still.
    "Never discus politics with Americans who want to.
    They are all crazy."

    A white bureaucrat sued the school system, claiming discrimination.
    For instance:
    "White culture's values are homogeneous and supremacist; that
    the "Protestant work ethic" is an example of White Supremacy
    and "[Chislett's] interest in excellence was perfectionism and
    consistent with White Supremacy"

    Thus USA decays into socialist tribalism, as ethnic groups fight for
    political influence, to grab larger shares of a shrinking pie -

    ROTFL. 'Socialist tribalism', sure.
    Americans are completely clueless about things like 'socialism'.
    (the real thing)
    I will agree with you that the USA is descending into tribalism,
    sectarian quarrels, and crazy and blind partisanship,
    but none of it is 'socialist',
    except perhaps in their perverted sense of the word.

    yeah, an accurate sense of socialism is 'sharing' ...
    A picture is worth a thousand words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_lamprey#/media/File:Pacific_lamprey_faci
    ng_right.jpg
    https://thakurfahad.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/noname.jpg https://wuweixp.com/democracy-under-attack/


    "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
    - G. Orwell: "Animal Farm"

    Do Orwell's books get any traction in Europe?

    Yes of course.
    Orwell is still hugely popular in Europe among high school students.
    They have to learn English, so they have to read English books.
    The easier and the shorter the better of course.
    'Animal Farm is their favorite, after Winnie the Pooh.
    And '1984' too, but less so.
    Too much digging in depth there, and by now too obsolete.

    He was the great prophet of the last century. They used to be popular
    here, but no longer - the left doesn't approve of his blunt portrayals of their agenda -
    (he was also banned in the soviet block)

    Yes, yes, crazy, crazy.
    No one except crazy Americans sees Orwell's books
    as having anything to do with 'socialism'. (their take on it)
    Orwell is obviously caricaturing Stalinism,
    and ruthless power hunger in general,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Aug 25 16:28:46 2023
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:39:00 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 3:15:23 PM UTC-7, larry harson wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:31 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/16/23 6:00 PM, larry harson wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:40:27 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/15/23 6:19 PM, JanPB wrote:
    The radius does not change if we assume the disc is made of a
    substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
    contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
    Instead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
    isosceles triangles with their apexes all at the center, and their
    bases at the circumference, such that when not rotating they fill
    the disk (with a slightly jagged circumference). Assume each
    triangle is able to resist any centrifugal force. Then when the
    collection rotates, gaps form between the triangles, due to the
    "length contraction" of their bases.

    Tom Roberts

    Here's a question that some may find interesting: Why do the bases of the triangles 'length contract' but not the gaps between the bases of adjacent triangles?

    Because the bases of the triangles are pulled together by inter-atomic bonds, while the gaps are not.

    Yes, and more accurately: as the rotating bases are brought up to speed from rest in the lab frame, the necessary inter-atomic forces required to maintain rigidness of a base in its proper frame won't be uniformly distributed. Hence the leading edge
    will experience less of an average acceleration compared to the trailing edge; and will approach one another or 'length contract' in the lab frame.

    Ignoring the physics and focusing only on the maths of SR has lead me astray many times in the past.

    Larry Harson
    How could rotation contract a disk?

    The "cause" is unknown (practically all "causes" in physics are unknown).
    The only reason this seems odd compared to other theories is that
    space is not a "medium" or "substance". So for now this is modelled by
    noticing that the phenomena observed in experiments fit into a certain kinematical and geometric "accounting".

    Nobody knows the "cause" for the finite speed of light and its constancy. Nobody knows the "cause" for the value of its speed.
    Nobody knows the "cause" for the Planck constant and why it's constant.
    Etc.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Aug 25 22:25:46 2023
    On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 01:28:48 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:39:00 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 3:15:23 PM UTC-7, larry harson wrote:
    On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:31 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/16/23 6:00 PM, larry harson wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:40:27 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 8/15/23 6:19 PM, JanPB wrote:
    The radius does not change if we assume the disc is made of a
    substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
    contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
    Instead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
    isosceles triangles with their apexes all at the center, and their >> bases at the circumference, such that when not rotating they fill >> the disk (with a slightly jagged circumference). Assume each
    triangle is able to resist any centrifugal force. Then when the
    collection rotates, gaps form between the triangles, due to the
    "length contraction" of their bases.

    Tom Roberts

    Here's a question that some may find interesting: Why do the bases of
    the triangles 'length contract' but not the gaps between the bases of
    adjacent triangles?

    Because the bases of the triangles are pulled together by inter-atomic bonds, while the gaps are not.

    Yes, and more accurately: as the rotating bases are brought up to speed from rest in the lab frame, the necessary inter-atomic forces required to maintain rigidness of a base in its proper frame won't be uniformly distributed. Hence the leading
    edge will experience less of an average acceleration compared to the trailing edge; and will approach one another or 'length contract' in the lab frame.

    Ignoring the physics and focusing only on the maths of SR has lead me astray many times in the past.

    Larry Harson
    How could rotation contract a disk?
    The "cause" is unknown (practically all "causes" in physics are unknown). The only reason this seems odd compared to other theories is that
    space is not a "medium" or "substance". So for now this is modelled by noticing that the phenomena observed in experiments fit into a certain kinematical and geometric "accounting".

    Nobody knows the "cause" for the finite speed of light and its constancy.

    I know it, poor halfbrain - your idiot guru has postulated it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Aug 26 07:53:39 2023
    On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:58:21 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:

    BTW, I am not seeing any theory on the I-S experiment, I am still waiting....

    Eventually. I'm really spending most of my time catching up on
    the literature on CRISPR. As I've stated elsewhere, a very simple
    argument indicates that the textbook mechanism of synthesis
    of a genetic element used in a recent enhancement to the basic
    technique must be wrong. Since I was the senior author on the
    original discovery paper, this concerns me a bit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ken Seto@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Aug 28 08:51:01 2023
    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 8:38:41 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    List of Critics of Relativity:


    A

    Max Abraham

    B

    Thomas G. Barnes
    Petr Beckmann
    Tom Bethell
    Léon Brillouin
    Steven B. Bryant

    C
    Jeremiah Joseph Callahan
    Robert D. Carmichael
    Conservapedia
    Gago Coutinho
    Heber Doust Curtis

    D

    Deutsche Physik
    Herbert Dingle
    Hugo Dingler
    John Doan
    Edward Henry Dowdye
    Pierre Duhem

    E

    Albert Eagle
    Louis Essen

    F
    Thomas C Van Flandern
    Theodor Fritsch

    G

    Ernst Gehrcke
    Lyubomir T. Gruyitch
    Édouard Guillaume

    H
    Ronald Hatch
    Oliver Heaviside
    Robert L. Henderson
    Gerard Heymans

    I
    Axel Idestrom
    Herbert E. Ives

    K
    Kamen George Kamenov
    Wallace Kantor
    Radwan Kassir
    Nikolai Kasterin
    Oskar Kraus

    L

    Joseph Larmor
    Jean-Marie Le Roux
    Philipp Lenard
    Si-Xian Liang
    Anatoly Logunov
    Paul Lorenzen
    Arthur Oncken Lovejoy
    Otto Luther
    Arthur Lynch (politician)

    M

    James MacKaye
    William Duncan MacMillan
    Stefan Marinov
    Paul Marmet
    Ian McCausland
    Hjalmar Mellin
    Dayton Miller
    Edward Arthur Milne
    Stjepan Mohorovičić

    Enrique Morales-Riveira
    Forest Ray Moulton

    N

    Harald Nordenson

    O

    Alfred O'Rahilly
    Arthur S. Otis

    P

    Menyhért Palágyi
    Leonard Parish
    Arthur Patschke
    Thomas Phipps
    Charles Lane Poor
    Jermain G. Porter
    S. J. Prokhovnik

    R
    Alfred O'Rahilly
    L. A. Redman
    Arvid Reuterdahl
    Walther Ritz
    N. Rudakov
    Rutherford, Ernest

    S

    Georges Sagnac
    Andrew Schlafly
    Rolf Schock
    Thomas Jefferson Jackson See
    Hugo von Seeliger
    Jonas Sepetys
    Jan Slowak
    Harold Slusher
    John Alexander Smith
    Gennadiy Sokolov
    Johannes Stark
    Michael Straus

    My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
    in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
    incomplete theory.

    T

    Bruno Thüring

    V

    Tom Van Flandern

    W

    Max Bernhard Weinstein
    Paul Weyland

    XYZ
    Hans J. Zweig

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Ken Seto on Mon Aug 28 09:55:31 2023
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 8:51:04 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 8:38:41 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    List of Critics of Relativity:


    A

    Max Abraham

    B

    Thomas G. Barnes
    Petr Beckmann
    Tom Bethell
    Léon Brillouin
    Steven B. Bryant

    C
    Jeremiah Joseph Callahan
    Robert D. Carmichael
    Conservapedia
    Gago Coutinho
    Heber Doust Curtis

    D

    Deutsche Physik
    Herbert Dingle
    Hugo Dingler
    John Doan
    Edward Henry Dowdye
    Pierre Duhem

    E

    Albert Eagle
    Louis Essen

    F
    Thomas C Van Flandern
    Theodor Fritsch

    G

    Ernst Gehrcke
    Lyubomir T. Gruyitch
    Édouard Guillaume

    H
    Ronald Hatch
    Oliver Heaviside
    Robert L. Henderson
    Gerard Heymans

    I
    Axel Idestrom
    Herbert E. Ives

    K
    Kamen George Kamenov
    Wallace Kantor
    Radwan Kassir
    Nikolai Kasterin
    Oskar Kraus

    L

    Joseph Larmor
    Jean-Marie Le Roux
    Philipp Lenard
    Si-Xian Liang
    Anatoly Logunov
    Paul Lorenzen
    Arthur Oncken Lovejoy
    Otto Luther
    Arthur Lynch (politician)

    M

    James MacKaye
    William Duncan MacMillan
    Stefan Marinov
    Paul Marmet
    Ian McCausland
    Hjalmar Mellin
    Dayton Miller
    Edward Arthur Milne
    Stjepan Mohorovičić

    Enrique Morales-Riveira
    Forest Ray Moulton

    N

    Harald Nordenson

    O

    Alfred O'Rahilly
    Arthur S. Otis

    P

    Menyhért Palágyi
    Leonard Parish
    Arthur Patschke
    Thomas Phipps
    Charles Lane Poor
    Jermain G. Porter
    S. J. Prokhovnik

    R
    Alfred O'Rahilly
    L. A. Redman
    Arvid Reuterdahl
    Walther Ritz
    N. Rudakov
    Rutherford, Ernest

    S

    Georges Sagnac
    Andrew Schlafly
    Rolf Schock
    Thomas Jefferson Jackson See
    Hugo von Seeliger
    Jonas Sepetys
    Jan Slowak
    Harold Slusher
    John Alexander Smith
    Gennadiy Sokolov
    Johannes Stark
    Michael Straus

    My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
    in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
    incomplete theory.

    T

    Bruno Thüring

    V

    Tom Van Flandern

    W

    Max Bernhard Weinstein
    Paul Weyland

    XYZ
    Hans J. Zweig
    Ken H. Seto is #1434 in Hertz's list.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Ken Seto on Mon Aug 28 15:20:43 2023
    Ken Seto wrote:


    My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
    in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
    incomplete theory.


    Can you post an incomplete link again?



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ken Seto@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Tue Aug 29 06:09:05 2023
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:20:43 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
    Ken Seto wrote:


    My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
    in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
    incomplete theory.
    Can you post an incomplete link again?

    I tried but failed. I can email a copy to you.



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Ken Seto on Tue Aug 29 09:45:27 2023
    Ken Seto wrote:

    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:20:43 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
    Ken Seto wrote:


    My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
    in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
    incomplete theory.
    Can you post an incomplete link again?

    I tried but failed. I can email a copy to you.


    I think you have already successfully posted many times an incomplete
    link.

    do it again.



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 3 17:48:57 2023
    On August 23, Tom Roberts wrote:
    once you understand that it all hangs
    on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
    with space and time treated on an equal footing.

    Except they aren't.

    Yes, they are.

    Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's
    motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the
    object's direction.

    Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length
    or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out
    differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only
    one time axis.

    A proper time time interval can be measured by a single inertial
    observer, ignoring the whole universe. By definition, he is
    stationary; space interval = 0

    A proper distance interval, where time interval = 0, cannot be
    measured by a single observer, alone. He must communicate
    with another observer on his grid, using synchronized clocks.

    So there's another time-space asymmetry.


    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hannu Poropudas@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 12 01:32:25 2023
    perjantai 18. elokuuta 2023 klo 11.24.08 UTC+3 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
    tiistai 15. elokuuta 2023 klo 8.49.39 UTC+3 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
    I put this copy below due I think that there exist possible MAGNETIC interaction with "radiation periphery" few kilometers high from the Earth's surface, which could have been revealed in the Philadelphia Experiment,
    if that experiment really have happned ???

    Hannu

    ****COPY of an old article of mine BELOW*****
    Hannu Poropudas

    16.1.2018 klo 12.18.07 (sci.physics.relativity, Jan 16, 2018, 12:18:07 PM)

    vastaanottaja
    On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 10:23:37 AM UTC+2, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
    On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 11:39:48 AM UTC+2, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
    On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 2:44:40 PM UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 02:42:21 -0800 (PST), Hannu Poropudas <hanp...@luukku.com> wrote:

    Please take a look photographs in the following publication:

    http://www.brianjford.com/CF10_SHC.pdf

    (Brian J. Ford, 2012.

    http://www.brianjford.com/CF10_SHC.pdf

    Microscope, vol. 60.2 pp. 63-72 (2012))

    This phenomena was in TV few days ago in Finland in
    the National Geography TV-channel.

    I think that this strange phenomena is still in unexplained state >and this is why it perhaps contains some new physics
    if it is real pehenomena?

    Best Regards,

    Hannu Poropudas

    I think....

    Never say "I think" because it`s an oxymoron.

    w.

    Well maybe I'am so stupid that I don't understand your fine words, and if I'am
    allowed to use my amateur physicist freedom to speak freely:

    If question is confirmed real physical phenomena (if not then nothing below written), then first questions:

    Inputs of spontaneous human combustion reaction:

    Underclothes materials ?
    Body materials ?
    Unexplained new physics involved ?

    Outputs of spontaneous human combustion reaction:

    Remnants materials ?

    Some preliminary guesses of mine with new physics:

    If the Universe contains something like “dark matter” (not same), maybe different mass type (not antimatter) than presently known mass ?

    Maybe this different mass type consist something like presently known quarks, but not same ?

    Maybe this different mass type consist something like presently known leptons (for example something like electrons, but not same), but not same ?

    Maybe this different mass type forms hidden invisible 3+1 dimensions with its own photon like photon (not our photon) in the Universe something like our visible 3+1 dimensions of the Universe with our photon ?

    Now underclothes materials contains ordinary electrons and if these contain also some special material that has property reacting like “short circuit” with some parts of body’s surface material or other body’s materials (electrons react
    with electron like particles (not electrons) which results photons and also invisible photon like photons (not photons) ?

    If so then one should ask money from NASA to investigate this spontaneous human combustion more closely, if those bodies really originated somehow from this hidden part of the Universe, if it exists ?

    Best Regards,

    Hannu Poropudas

    I found also one other stange interview from youtube which contains strange burning effect (if this was real physical phenomena, if not real physical phenomena then nothing below written):

    About youtube video AL BIELEK THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT.mp4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVE94Zvy17c

    AL BIELEK seems to me to have some mental illness ?

    Impossible points in his interview in my opinion:

    1. Time travel to future from 1943 to 1983 ?
    2. Time travel Back with alien help from 1983 to 1943 ?
    3. Antgravity technology in future 1983 which he mentioned.
    4. 500 million inhabitants in the Earth in 1983, this remembers fremasons future plans written in some statue in North America ?
    5. False that the ship has moved to other distant place due this experiment ?
    6. Possible false that Albert Einstein was involved in planning Philadelphia Experiment ?

    Possible true point could be in the Philadelphia Experiment in my opinion (if this phenomea was real physical phenomena):

    Badly burned sailors on the deck of the ship due this experiment.
    This would be interesting (if this phenomena was real) that was in this case
    question some kind of short circuit reaction caused by time varying strong magnetic field ?

    Best Regards,

    Hannu Poropudas

    I remember that this Philadelphia Experiment question was in one my old article 1994 in sci.physics (COPY BELOW).

    I remember now that H-M said then that this experiment could have something
    to do with radiation periphery which lies few kilometers height above Earth's surface.

    In my opininion this kind experiment shoud be done again with
    high speed airplane (with robot crew first) in
    height few kilometers above Earth's surface ???

    Hannu


    -----COPY BELOW-------

    "From: hapo...@freenet.hut.fi (Hannu Poropudas)

    Newsgroups: sci.physics

    Subject: Re: philadelphia experiment

    Date: 30 Mar 1994 13:03:29 GMT

    Organization: Freenet finland

    Lines: 11

    Message-ID: <2nbtb1$e...@freenet.hut.fi>

    NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet.hut.fi




    This movie 'Philadelphia Experiment' was also here in Finland
    few months ago in TV. It was quite strange, but strange enough
    there could be still some sense in that TV-movie, if that all
    was really happened. If that was reality, I would put this
    'Philadelphia Experiment'to the list of 'unanswered questions
    of physics'.

    Best Regards,
    Hannu.
    --

    "
    I found an interesting example article how to calculate DEGAUSSING system:

    Sardono Sarwito, Juniarko Prananda, Eddy Setyo Koenhardono, Anggela Wahyu Kurniawan, 2017.
    Study of Calculation of Degaussing System for
    Reducing Magnetic Field from Submersible Vehicle.
    International Journal of Marine Engineering Innovation and Research, Vol. 1(2), Mar. 2017. 68-75.

    What you think does these calculations really work for preventing magnetic mines explosions for submersible vehicles ?

    Hannu

    This Sardono S et al 2017 degaussing system DOES NOT WORK due they used static magnetic field ?

    I found WORKIG METHODS from the company (pdf) Vallon GmbH / Germany.

    Vallon Degaussing systems pages (28 pages) Theory on page 27:

    Reference: https://kmk-instrument.se/20.0.0.0/8002/68ffaffe78e33b156ed99f2d4d6e5773.pdf

    COPY of the page 27 -----COPY BELOW -----

    "Theory

    Degaussing

    Principle

    Inside a ferromagnetic crystal, a larger amount of atoms always has the same orientation. This
    area can be considered from the outside as a domain (Weiß domain); its volume ranges from 0.001
    to 0.1 mm³. If several areas have the same orientation, a work piece is magnetic.

    N---S N---S N---S
    N---S N---S N---S

    Degaussing is achieved by reversing the homogenous orientation of the Weiß domains and thus
    creating an extreme disorder with the effect that the magnetic impact of the different areas is
    neutralized.

    N N--S N
    S S S--N

    In practice, mainly the following methods are used:

    • The work piece is exposed to a strong alternating magnetic field, which is constantly
    reduced to zero.
    • The work piece is lead through a strong alternating magnetic field, at a slow and constant
    speed.
    • The work piece is heated to >800°C (exceeding Curie-point), and slowly cooled down in a
    neutral spot (which is exposed to the magnetic field of the earth only).
    Since the degaussing effect of the alternating field is at its optimum only if it has the same orien-
    tation as the magnetic field of the work piece, divers methods of creating the degaussing field
    will be necessary (degaussing coils, degaussing yokes)."

    I'am sorry about two poor (N---S) figures above, please look them from the reference pdf paper.

    Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hannu Poropudas@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 13 23:25:55 2023
    tiistai 12. syyskuuta 2023 klo 11.32.29 UTC+3 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
    perjantai 18. elokuuta 2023 klo 11.24.08 UTC+3 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
    tiistai 15. elokuuta 2023 klo 8.49.39 UTC+3 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:
    I put this copy below due I think that there exist possible MAGNETIC interaction with "radiation periphery" few kilometers high from the Earth's surface, which could have been revealed in the Philadelphia Experiment,
    if that experiment really have happned ???

    Hannu

    ****COPY of an old article of mine BELOW*****
    Hannu Poropudas

    16.1.2018 klo 12.18.07 (sci.physics.relativity, Jan 16, 2018, 12:18:07 PM)

    vastaanottaja
    On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 10:23:37 AM UTC+2, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
    On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 11:39:48 AM UTC+2, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
    On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 2:44:40 PM UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 02:42:21 -0800 (PST), Hannu Poropudas <hanp...@luukku.com> wrote:

    Please take a look photographs in the following publication:

    http://www.brianjford.com/CF10_SHC.pdf

    (Brian J. Ford, 2012.

    http://www.brianjford.com/CF10_SHC.pdf

    Microscope, vol. 60.2 pp. 63-72 (2012))

    This phenomena was in TV few days ago in Finland in
    the National Geography TV-channel.

    I think that this strange phenomena is still in unexplained state >and this is why it perhaps contains some new physics
    if it is real pehenomena?

    Best Regards,

    Hannu Poropudas

    I think....

    Never say "I think" because it`s an oxymoron.

    w.

    Well maybe I'am so stupid that I don't understand your fine words, and if I'am
    allowed to use my amateur physicist freedom to speak freely:

    If question is confirmed real physical phenomena (if not then nothing below written), then first questions:

    Inputs of spontaneous human combustion reaction:

    Underclothes materials ?
    Body materials ?
    Unexplained new physics involved ?

    Outputs of spontaneous human combustion reaction:

    Remnants materials ?

    Some preliminary guesses of mine with new physics:

    If the Universe contains something like “dark matter” (not same), maybe different mass type (not antimatter) than presently known mass ?

    Maybe this different mass type consist something like presently known quarks, but not same ?

    Maybe this different mass type consist something like presently known leptons (for example something like electrons, but not same), but not same ?

    Maybe this different mass type forms hidden invisible 3+1 dimensions with its own photon like photon (not our photon) in the Universe something like our visible 3+1 dimensions of the Universe with our photon ?

    Now underclothes materials contains ordinary electrons and if these contain also some special material that has property reacting like “short circuit” with some parts of body’s surface material or other body’s materials (electrons react
    with electron like particles (not electrons) which results photons and also invisible photon like photons (not photons) ?

    If so then one should ask money from NASA to investigate this spontaneous human combustion more closely, if those bodies really originated somehow from this hidden part of the Universe, if it exists ?

    Best Regards,

    Hannu Poropudas

    I found also one other stange interview from youtube which contains strange burning effect (if this was real physical phenomena, if not real physical phenomena then nothing below written):

    About youtube video AL BIELEK THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT.mp4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVE94Zvy17c

    AL BIELEK seems to me to have some mental illness ?

    Impossible points in his interview in my opinion:

    1. Time travel to future from 1943 to 1983 ?
    2. Time travel Back with alien help from 1983 to 1943 ?
    3. Antgravity technology in future 1983 which he mentioned.
    4. 500 million inhabitants in the Earth in 1983, this remembers fremasons future plans written in some statue in North America ?
    5. False that the ship has moved to other distant place due this experiment ?
    6. Possible false that Albert Einstein was involved in planning Philadelphia Experiment ?

    Possible true point could be in the Philadelphia Experiment in my opinion (if this phenomea was real physical phenomena):

    Badly burned sailors on the deck of the ship due this experiment.
    This would be interesting (if this phenomena was real) that was in this case
    question some kind of short circuit reaction caused by time varying strong magnetic field ?

    Best Regards,

    Hannu Poropudas

    I remember that this Philadelphia Experiment question was in one my old article 1994 in sci.physics (COPY BELOW).

    I remember now that H-M said then that this experiment could have something
    to do with radiation periphery which lies few kilometers height above Earth's surface.

    In my opininion this kind experiment shoud be done again with
    high speed airplane (with robot crew first) in
    height few kilometers above Earth's surface ???

    Hannu


    -----COPY BELOW-------

    "From: hapo...@freenet.hut.fi (Hannu Poropudas)

    Newsgroups: sci.physics

    Subject: Re: philadelphia experiment

    Date: 30 Mar 1994 13:03:29 GMT

    Organization: Freenet finland

    Lines: 11

    Message-ID: <2nbtb1$e...@freenet.hut.fi>

    NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet.hut.fi




    This movie 'Philadelphia Experiment' was also here in Finland
    few months ago in TV. It was quite strange, but strange enough
    there could be still some sense in that TV-movie, if that all
    was really happened. If that was reality, I would put this
    'Philadelphia Experiment'to the list of 'unanswered questions
    of physics'.

    Best Regards,
    Hannu.
    --

    "
    I found an interesting example article how to calculate DEGAUSSING system:

    Sardono Sarwito, Juniarko Prananda, Eddy Setyo Koenhardono, Anggela Wahyu Kurniawan, 2017.
    Study of Calculation of Degaussing System for
    Reducing Magnetic Field from Submersible Vehicle.
    International Journal of Marine Engineering Innovation and Research, Vol. 1(2), Mar. 2017. 68-75.

    What you think does these calculations really work for preventing magnetic mines explosions for submersible vehicles ?

    Hannu
    This Sardono S et al 2017 degaussing system DOES NOT WORK due they used static magnetic field ?

    I found WORKIG METHODS from the company (pdf) Vallon GmbH / Germany.

    Vallon Degaussing systems pages (28 pages) Theory on page 27:

    Reference: https://kmk-instrument.se/20.0.0.0/8002/68ffaffe78e33b156ed99f2d4d6e5773.pdf

    COPY of the page 27 -----COPY BELOW -----

    "Theory

    Degaussing

    Principle

    Inside a ferromagnetic crystal, a larger amount of atoms always has the same orientation. This
    area can be considered from the outside as a domain (Weiß domain); its volume ranges from 0.001
    to 0.1 mm³. If several areas have the same orientation, a work piece is magnetic.

    N---S N---S N---S
    N---S N---S N---S

    Degaussing is achieved by reversing the homogenous orientation of the Weiß domains and thus
    creating an extreme disorder with the effect that the magnetic impact of the different areas is
    neutralized.

    N N--S N
    S S S--N

    In practice, mainly the following methods are used:

    • The work piece is exposed to a strong alternating magnetic field, which is constantly
    reduced to zero.
    • The work piece is lead through a strong alternating magnetic field, at a slow and constant
    speed.
    • The work piece is heated to >800°C (exceeding Curie-point), and slowly cooled down in a
    neutral spot (which is exposed to the magnetic field of the earth only). Since the degaussing effect of the alternating field is at its optimum only if it has the same orien-
    tation as the magnetic field of the work piece, divers methods of creating the degaussing field
    will be necessary (degaussing coils, degaussing yokes)."

    I'am sorry about two poor (N---S) figures above, please look them from the reference pdf paper.

    Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas

    I found one very SPECULATIVE paper (97 pages pdf) of Anonymous, Ph.d's * from the net,
    but I think it could contain some practical numbers (worth of future trials?) of the Eldriges's generators,
    if I ignore paper's all SPECULATIVE pages ?
    (* = Ph.d's who wish to remain anonymous)

    https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d5900781e117f930fbb24c6a76000da6fc820918

    I COPY below those practical numbers (worth of future trials?):

    In the Absract of the paper (page 4):
    "By calculation, the required magnetic
    field to reduce a ship's radar reflection to less dm 1%, at L-Band (1.5) GHz, is in excess of 15 000 A/m."

    (page 10):
    "By the way, the Eldridge's generator was rated at 4 600 kVA and could deliver 6 000 HP.
    Two generators, as described in the book, could deliver more than 12 000 HP (almost 9 MW)."

    (Equation (2) on page 12):
    "In order to “camouflage” an object against radar waves, one must cover it with a layer for
    which this ratio of wave resistances has the value I in the region of centimeter waves. According
    to [the law of refraction and the boundary conditions] this means that if we call the constants of
    the desired material epsilon and mu and those of air epsilon_0 and mu_0 , then

    epsilon / epsilon_0 = mu / mu_0 (2)

    Hence, the problem concerns not only the dielectric constant but also the relationship between the
    dielectric constant and the permeability. A substance must be formed whose relative permeability

    mu_r = mu / mu_0

    , is of the same magnitude as its relative dielectric constant epsilon / epsilon_0 .”

    (page 23):
    "Equation (2) above can be satisfied at L-Band if H 0 is "tuned" to 15 000 A/m. That is to say, if there is
    1 turn/m around the ship carrying a current of 15 000 amperes, the ship's radar reflection will drop to a fraction of
    its zero current value at 1.5 GHz."

    Best Regards, Hannu Poropudas

    P.S. Be CAREFUL in possible future trials!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to RichD on Mon Sep 25 21:23:14 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 5:48:59 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    On August 23, Tom Roberts wrote:
    once you understand that it all hangs
    on the existence of an underlying Lorentz invariant space-time,
    with space and time treated on an equal footing.

    Except they aren't.

    Yes, they are.

    Length contraction acts only in the direction of the object's
    motion. Time dilation, of the object's clock, is independent of the
    object's direction.

    Yes. This is GEOMETRY -- geometrical projections of an invariant length
    or time interval onto a measuring apparatus. You merely point out differences due to the fact that there are three spatial axes but only
    one time axis.
    A proper time time interval can be measured by a single inertial
    observer, ignoring the whole universe. By definition, he is
    stationary; space interval = 0

    A proper distance interval, where time interval = 0, cannot be
    measured by a single observer, alone. He must communicate
    with another observer on his grid, using synchronized clocks.

    So there's another time-space asymmetry.


    --
    Rich
    Two valuable additions to the list that are very up-to-date are Mei Xiaochun and Radwan Kassir.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dai Chuanjiang@21:1/5 to ct...@hotmail.com on Sat Oct 7 18:23:47 2023
    On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:04:49 PM UTC+8, ct...@hotmail.com wrote:
    在 2023年5月19日星期五 UTC+8 20:20:47,<ct...@hotmail.com> 写道:
    在 2023年5月14日星期日 UTC+8 19:36:53,<ct...@hotmail.com> 写道:
    There are many discoveries in the history of science. What do we know about scientific discovery? What is the purpose of scientific discovery?

    1. The discovery must come from an objective or physical phenomenon of fact and cannot be an illusory phenomenon. This phenomenon must be sharable, that is, it must be scientifically repeatable.

    A discovery that satisfies this point can be called a discovery of a discipline or a disciplinary experiment. This kind of discovery can be generalized to help us discover more unknown phenomena and promote scientific research.

    2. The findings to reveal the unknown laws behind phenomena, and can summarize general rules, laws or principles, with not only physical meaning, but also mathematical expressions.

    In accordance with the above findings, it can be called a major or important scientific discovery. This discovery is beneficial evidence and strengthening support for existing theories, establishing branches of theories and disciplines, and
    promoting the improvement and expansion of discipline theories.

    3. By establishing the principles of universality and a general system theory, the discovery is widely used to explain, predict, or reconstruct the physical properties of things, the changes of states, and the connections and interactions between
    them through mathematical logical deduction, conclusion, and extension.

    Discoveries that fit this point are scientific milestones that we call great or the greatest discoveries.

    The greatest discoveries in the history of science are all similar. It's a fact that the apple fell, but that's not a scientific discovery. Only when you find the law of gravity and turn it into Newton's law can you say it is a great scientific
    discovery.

    The Michelson-Morley experiment is a fact through which only Einstein first proposed the invariant speed of light as the postulate of special relativity, thus creating the theory of relativity. This is what we call the greatest scientific discovery.


    The Earth's aberration has been known for nearly 300 years, but it was Dr. Cui Silong who saw the essence of space-time deflection through this phenomenon and established unified physics. This became the greatest discovery in physics in recent
    decades.

    There is a simple expression for the Earth's aberration, which Dr. Cui used as a postulate of the unified theory of physics, deriving the basic expression of relativity and quantum mechanics, not only explaining what behind Schrödinger's equation
    and strange quantum phenomena, but also reconciling gravitation with three other forces. For the first time in physics, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were conceptually and mathematically unified. That's why I believe that history will
    prove that the significance of Dr Cui Silong's discovery will be comparable to the greatest discoveries of Newton and Einstein.

    Our conversation about Dr. Cui Silong's theory has been updated on the website: https://www.tastphysics.com/ Stay tuned.

    On January 24, 2022, Chinese scientists published a paper that experimentally Ruling Out Real-Valued Standard Formalism of Quantum Theory (paper link: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.040403). This achievement further
    proves that Dr. Cui Silong stated that the imaginary part of the complex function was part of the source of quantum theory when he derived the Schrödinger equation using Analytical Space-Time Theory more than 20 years ago. This makes us even more
    convinced of the correctness of Analytical Space-Time Theory.
    The great physics discoveries are those that identify the universal laws behind objective phenomena.
    For the unification of the fundamental forces, a program of conversations among three experts has been launched on this website https://www.tastphysics.com/ on the following tentative topics:

    1. Space frames, symmetry and correlation

    2. Space of deflection & space of rotation

    3. Concurrence & causality

    4. Strange quantum phenomena

    5. Hidden variable

    6. Inertial and non-inertial frames

    7. Gravitation and interactions

    8. Relationship of concepts and logic chain

    9. Simplicity & paradigm

    10. Underlying logics of physics & philosophy

    11. Verification of fundamental principles

    12. Boundary between metaphysics and physics

    Dr. Cui Silong’s discovery of the phenomenon of space-time deflection is one of the greatest physical discoveries of recent decades. It all started with the discovery of the angular variable hidden behind the Lorentz factor. Both the real and
    imaginary parts of the complex function in the article originate from the postulates as principles (I) and (II). It may be incomplete to derive the Schrödinger equation without discussing the role of the imaginary part in quantum theory. For many
    decades, we have wondered what lies behind the Schrödinger equation. By taking into account the imaginary part of the complex function, we can make new discoveries and interpretations of phenomena such as consciousness & existence, life, dark matter &
    energy, elementary particles, subjective & objective, and the origin & evolution of the universe. The advancement of physics is a collective effort of the entire scientific community.

    https://www.tastphysics.com/

    We can reject, oppose, question or ignore a physical doctrine or theory, but we can never scorn or reject a physical discovery, because physical discoveries come from physical phenomena and existence and cannot be denied, and what we can do can be a
    different interpretation of it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Feb 11 11:57:09 2024
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:38:41?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:
    List of Critics of Relativity:
    [snip excessively long list, mostly nonsense]

    Addition to the list of critics:
    Robert H. Dicke

    "Gravitation without a Principle of Equivalence" Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 363, 1957

    I learned of him recently from Unzicker:
    "The Greatest Problem of Cosmology is Solved" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpjGVNVYEg

    That is -not- criticism, in the way reasonable people use the word.
    It is the beginning of a proposal for an alternative theory of gravity. (exploring the possibility that the energies
    of the recently discovered weak interactions
    might behave differently under gravity)
    This developed into what is now called
    the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity.

    This theory is fine, as a physical theory,
    but it strongly disagrees with experiment.
    If not completely false, it could at best provide
    a very small correction to general relativity,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)