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 aInstead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
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?
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 4:47:32 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Talk is cheap but evidence rules. Got any?
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!
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.
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.
Unless you believe what you are told, you will rethink your errors in
places where it is cold and you are hungry.
On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 04:11:41 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:so! Talk is cheap but evidence rules. Got any?
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: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
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:I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.
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.
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.
Come on, trash, EVIDENCE can only make you spitting
with Polish jokes.
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.....
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?
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:
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.The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in the US.The idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > onEven 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,>
superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
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 thebiochemistry> department had as many foreign post-docs as their grants >> could pay for?> He had no coherent answer.
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?
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:
0gegen%20Einstein%20%281931%29_djvu.txt>Don't so lazy. The full original text is on-line at
<https://archive.org/stream/HundertAutorenGegenEinstein/Hundert%20Autoren%2
ory/Download/8680>English translation already mentioned at
<https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20The
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.
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: >>>>foreign post-docs, not why foreign post-docs wanted to go there.
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 haveThe idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > onEven 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
superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
biochemistry> department had as many foreign post-docs as their grants >>>>> could pay for?> He had no coherent answer.
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 youI thought we were talking about high schools.
that this is why they flock to Berkley, Stanford, MIT, etc?
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.
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.
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:
You haven't even contended with Rutherford's and Tesla's criticisms you vacuous moron.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...
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:Typical antisemite, Jan
[-]
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. ThatYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto
and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
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
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: >>>>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
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.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.
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.Yes. At least you don't need a remedial course in reading comprehension.
Athel replied to remarks by me about American decline in science and technology in general.
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
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:
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.The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in the US.The idea that the erstwhile greatness of the USA was based> > onEven half a century ago that was a myth. When I was doing my post-doc>
superior science and technology seems to have escaped him,
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.
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
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:> [-]Typical antisemite, Jan
Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wingthat good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent> (and many
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
others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism> in the
establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,>> Jan
You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even writeNor can you, apparently. Her name was Hannah Arendt.
Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 3:56:04 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:> [-]Typical antisemite, Jan
Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wingYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.> When you say
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.
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
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.
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. ThatYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto
and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
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,
JanTypical 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.
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 racistYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
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.
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,
JanTypical 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).Jan is Jewish,
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.
fucking retarded!
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.
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. ThatYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
was wrong of me. Now I see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto
and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
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,
JanTypical 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.
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.I asked Jane, repeatedly, "where's the beef?" That meaning anything
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... >>
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)
CONSTANTS IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE? GTFO!
Try to measure them in the center of Andromeda.
What? You can't?. Then shut the fuck up.
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 >>>>>>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.
The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining inThe 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 US.
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
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 racistYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
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.
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,
Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.JanTypical antisemite, Jan
I shouldn't have mentioned him?
But what isSigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.
interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment.
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
Wrong on both counts. First, I was asking why professors wanted to haveThe simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining in the US.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.
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).
Yet, stubborn dumbfuck, the US teams win. While your country dwells at the bottom. Keep it up.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 youI thought we were talking about high schools.
that this is why they flock to Berkley, Stanford, MIT, etc?
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
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,
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:> [-]Typical antisemite, Jan
Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wingthat good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent> (and many
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
others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism> in the
establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,>> 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.
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:> [-]Typical antisemite, Jan
Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wingYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.> When you say
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.
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
You (twice) wrote "Isreal" instead of Israel. You can't even writeNor can you, apparently. Her name was Hannah Arendt.
Hannah Arent name correctly (though she was a piece of work herself).
She, a nazi cocksucker (Heidegger). You and Jan, pali cocksuckers. And US detractors. Keep it up, dumbestfucks.
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:> [-]Typical antisemite, Jan
Anyway, I'm interested to see that patdolan has a new right-wingYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.> When you say >> that good people like Albert Einstein and Hannah Ahrent> (and many
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.
others) vehemently protested against the role Jewish terrorism> in the
establishment of the state of Isreal he jumps through the roof,>> 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?
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 ofYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
liars.
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,
Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.JanTypical antisemite, Jan
I shouldn't have mentioned him?
Nothing to do with Einstein,. everything to do with your sucking up to fakestinians.
But what isSigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.
interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment.
So, do you still maintain that Alveger measured OWLS?
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 >>>>>>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.
The simple reason is that that is their ticket for remaining inThe 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 US.
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.
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,
Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.JanTypical antisemite, Jan
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 isSigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.
interesting is that you are still butthurt for being exposed to have not
grasped the Alveger experiment.
So, do you still maintain that Alveger measured OWLS?Yes of course, what else could they possibly have done?
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,
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 PentchoYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
Valev, Ken Seto and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
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,
Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.JanTypical antisemite, Jan
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.
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.
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 aYes, I know, it is junk. They badly need a Deletian there, [1]
very good chapter on this subject in his excellent book.
Jan
[1] For Prokary: sorry, if it was you who wrote it,In the "Speed of light" article, I had a major dispute with two other editors,
but there is no point in mincing words.
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
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)
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-wingYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie.
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.
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,
Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.JanTypical antisemite, Jan
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.
Here is where you agreed with Einstein calling all his opponents anti-Semitic.[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.
Congratulations for standing with Einstein's tarring of all his opponents as anti-Semitic.OK, so you -have- a reading disability,
Jan
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
Le 20/08/2023 à 01:47, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :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
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:Seriously, you cannot be THAT delusional, Laurence. You are a fake,
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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.
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:I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.
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.
Neither Rutherford nor Tesla overturned Einstein, no matter how much you would like that to be the case.
just trolling, aren't you?
Le 20/08/2023 à 01:47, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :Far more than 1,500 accomplished scientists already know relativity is pseudoscience.
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 12:28:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:Seriously, you cannot be THAT delusional, Laurence. You are a fake,
On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 11:30:31 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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.
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:I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.
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.
Neither Rutherford nor Tesla overturned Einstein, no matter how much you would like that to be the case.
just trolling, aren't you?
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 dareThis 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.
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:I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.
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.
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.
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:I'm pretty confident that I am not the vacuous moron here.
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.
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
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 aInstead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
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 ofBecause the bases of the triangles are pulled together by inter-atomic bonds, while the gaps are not.
the triangles 'length contract' but not the gaps between the bases of adjacent triangles?
Tom Roberts
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
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.
No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimental
evidence to disprove a theory.
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.
The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolvedJanMartin 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.
(don't do wikip)
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.
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.
JanMartin 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.
(don't do wikip)
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.
JanMartin 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.
(don't do wikip)
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.
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...
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.
JanMartin 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.
(don't do wikip)
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.Now that is strange indeed. Clifford Will ... and Ohanian
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.
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.
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.
The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolvedJanMartin 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.
(don't do wikip)
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.
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 11:15:43 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:positions but I am very familiar with the Mansouri-Sexl papers and with Zhang book.
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.
The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolvedJanMartin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and completely
(don't do wikip)
denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
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
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...".
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 7:11:18 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: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,
Will agreed that it is impossible to measure theBut 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
| 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...".
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.
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.
The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolvedJanMartin considered himself to be a strict "conventionalist" and
(don't do wikip)
completely denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
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.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote: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,
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 7:11:18 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Will agreed that it is impossible to measure theBut 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
| 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...".
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.
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.
The basic disagreement between Martin, D.H and myself revolvedJanMartin 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.
(don't do wikip)
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,
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:13:32 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: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,
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 theBut 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
| 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...".
synchronization conventions. "Subtle is the Lord"On the contrary, one can test OWLS isotropy with clocks that haveYou 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
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.
On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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.
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.
On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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.
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.
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:32:03 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Every rational person will forever continue to take Dingle seriously since he definitively refuted special relativity forever.
Most of the other people on your list are nonentities, rightly
forgotten. Does anyone still take Herbert Dingle seriously, for example?
On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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.
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.
On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:If it were only one twin that would not be relative motion.
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.
On 8/19/2023 2:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:If only one is moving it must necessarily be absolute motion. Then the cause would have to be absolute and not relative motion.
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.
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.
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 IYes, he seems to be some kind of Jewish/Isreal fundie. When
see that he must join Pentcho Valev, Ken Seto and Lawrence Clark Crossen in my collection of liars.
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,
Yes, really bad guy, that Albert. Nasty.JanTypical antisemite, Jan
I shouldn't have mentioned him?
Nothing to do with Einstein,. everything to do with your suckingYou deny that Einstein distanced himself,
up to fakestinians.
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 forSigh. The problem is you not understanding that you don't understand it.
being exposed to have not grasped the Alveger experiment.
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,Yes, I remember. You completely misunderstood what it is all about.
it was quite detailed.
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.
No, it is not. Science demands scientific observations/experimentalIf it were only one twin that would not be relative motion.
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.
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.
On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Nitpicking is a fools' excuse.
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?
On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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.
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?
On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:So you fail to refute my argument by default.
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?
On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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.
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?
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?
On 8/19/2023 7:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Would you show me where I said 2+2 does not equal 4?
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?
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.
On 8/21/2023 5:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
Dingle was wrong because he got the problem wrong.
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?
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".
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.
On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:I am very impressed by your ignorance of the criticisms of this interpretation of experiments in particle accelerators.
Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused byNo. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
inertial motion.
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
On 8/21/2023 4:30 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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
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.
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 byNo. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
inertial motion.
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.
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 byNo. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
inertial motion.
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?
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:50:05 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: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?
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
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:07:42 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Poor Tom can't distinguish between a result and an irrational interpretation.
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?
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.
It depends on the angular velocity and the speed of processing of
your visual system.
[... further nonsense omitted]
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.
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.
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!
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...
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, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Demented cretin.
On 8/21/2023 8:09 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
Demented cretin.
Nice signature, Dick.
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.
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.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.
You disagreed, you said it means it doesn't have a case.
I said there is nothing to argue against 2+2=4.
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.
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>
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 completelyPS For your amusement, my take on it.
denied any ability to measure the one way speed of light because of the clock synchronization issue.
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 aYes, of course, but that is not what I am saying.
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?
(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.
It is no more that a conversion factor between units,
of no greater physical relevance than the foot/mile.
[...] (which insists that all this spacetime stuff is kinematics, not physics)
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: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...
On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused byNo. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
inertial motion.
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.
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!
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
On 8/21/2023 7:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:According to Einstein, relative motion and not inertial motion causes time dilation. That is why Dingle correctly criticized it that way.
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, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
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.
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!
On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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
Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused byNo. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
inertial motion.
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
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".
On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused byNo. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
inertial motion.
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
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:It is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused byNo. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
inertial motion.
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
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
The meaning of clock synchronization did not change in 1983.Whether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies.
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.
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.
Here are “plus-sign” Lorentz Transforms, axis X′ ( primed ) being the pavement and axis X ( unprimed ) being the moving axis, moving with negative speed-v. The transforms reverse the sign of speed-v to +v.
x = gamma × ( x′ + vt′ )
t = gamma × ( t′ + vx′ / c² )
Here is the Galilean form shown in textbooks.
x = x′ + vt′
t = t′
Example numbers: the origin x = 0 of axis X moves negatively at speed v = – 3
miles per hour. This motion continues for time t′ = 1 hour. Point-x′ is fixed value x′ = 0. It is always at the origin of axis X′. Speed-v reversed
to positive speed-v.
x = 0 miles + 3 mph × 1 hour = 3 miles
t = 1 hour
Speed of point-x on axis X is x / t:
x / t = 3 miles / 1 hour = 3 miles per hour
The origin of axis X moves negatively at 3 mph away from the origin [ x′ = 0 ]
of axis X′. Point-x′ is at origin point [ x′ = 0 ] appears on retreating
axis X to move positively for 1 hour, beginning at [ x = 0 ] and ending up at x =
3 miles, hence 3 mph.
One new number: the origin x = 0 of axis X moves negatively at speed v = – 3
miles per hour. This motion continues for time t′ = 1 hour. Point-x′ is fixed value x′ = 1 on axis X′.
x = 1 mile + 3 mph × 1 hour = 4 miles
t = 1 hour
Speed of point-x on axis X is x / t:
x / t = 4 miles / 1 hour = 4 miles per hour
Wolfgang Pauli: “It’s not even wrong.”
Stationary point x′ = 1 appears on negatively moving axis X to move from x = 1
to x = 4 over the course of an hour. Distance equals 3 miles.
3 miles / 1 hour = 3 miles per hour
Necromancers believe algebra can turn base metal into gold. Not always.
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 becomeWhether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies.
empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means
such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods.
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.
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.
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.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.
What time does time dilate? October, 1971????
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,
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
What time does time dilate? October, 1971????
Well, I don't think all processes of change synchronize with Lithium.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.
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.
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.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.
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...Yes, and there are other processes of change besides oscillations of clocks like aging (except Paul hasn't aged since 3 years old).
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.
On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from n process of change to all.
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.
It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. TheNonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so veryIt is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one process of change to all.
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.
It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. TheNonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so veryIt is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
On 8/22/2023 1:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:As long it is relative motion Dingle's criticism applies full force.
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, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as
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.
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.
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:You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom RobertsIt's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators
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 ofIt is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted
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.
conclusions.
take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their
design. The fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
process of change to all.
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.
It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators takeNonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at many >> particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so veryIt is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
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:But as I said, there are billions of measurements of "time dilation", by thousands of experimenters in hundreds of accelerators
On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom RobertsIt's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators
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 ofIt is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted
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.
conclusions.
take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their
design. The fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
process of change to all.
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, you don't understand the twin paradox. Time dilation as >>>>>> described in the 1905 paper only applies to inertial motion. And you can
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.
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?
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, 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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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)
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)
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.
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*You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.
to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
And FYI, I am not talking on those terms with you.
This is not the way to conduct a usenet discussion.
Je ne comprends pas ce que tu essayes de faire.
R.H.
R.H.
The LT’s transform point-x′ into point-x. Point-x′ must start out as x′
= 0. It can remain there or move on to x′ = wt′ ( velocity addition ) or x′
= – vt′ ( time dilation ). A stationary point such as x′ = 1 or x′ = 2 is
a falsehood.
C’est seulement merde.
Le 23/08/2023 à 15:01, xip14 a écrit :
R.H.
The LT’s transform point-x′ into point-x. Point-x′ must start out as x′
= 0. It can remain there or move on to x′ = wt′ ( velocity addition ) or x′
= – vt′ ( time dilation ). A stationary point such as x′ = 1 or x′ = 2 is
a falsehood.
C’est seulement merde.Mais non, c'est pas merde.
C'est toi qui ne comprends pas de quoi on parle et qui croit que c'est merde.
Poincaré transformations are used for this:
We have an event that occurs in an R repository,
in a given position and in a given time.
At the MOMENT, when the event is perceived, and not when it occurs, the observer O starts his watch.
Observer O then says, there is an event E that happened in
x,y,z), there is now a time To.
Attention, To is ALWAYS negative in principle. We never perceive an event that will occur in the future.
He sets for example E=(12,9,0,-15)
To=-sqrt(x²+y²+z²)/c
Another observer O' who crosses O at this precise moment, and at speed Vo=0.8c, also recovers the photons on his retina.
But he will not see the event in the same place (as in the aberration of
the aposition of the stars at the zenith).
Nor will he design the event that took place at the same time.
It is necessary to use the transformers of Poincaré to know all that, and all becomes very simple.
E=(40,9,0,-41).
Here is a perfect example illustrating the transformations of Poincaré
and their utility.
I will never understand how on the physics forums, loads of individuals
find it beautiful and fulfilling to spit on me while I explain things to them with an unprecedented clarity.
This is part of human bullshit, which is unfathomable.
R.H.
On 8/22/23 10:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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,
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 7:18:03 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: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.
On 8/22/2023 2:28 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:You did not understand. It is an unwarranted inference from one
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 5:11:20 PM UTC-7, Tom RobertsIt's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators
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 ofIt is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted
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.
conclusions.
take into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their
design. The fact they work at all shows the design is correct.
process of change to all.
What is truly unwarranted is your attempt to criticize physics without
any knowledge or understanding of it.
Tom Roberts
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.
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.
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.
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.
As pointed out, the US high school students place in the top 3 at
math/physics/chemistry Olympiads.
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
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*You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.
to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
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,
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:It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take
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.
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.
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 becomeWhether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies.
empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means
such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods.
It is not a matter of philosophy.You are pulling one line out of context.
Two-way methods are more accurate than one-wayYes of course.
methods for the high precision dissemination of time
between standards organizations.
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.
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 becomeWhether it did, or not, again depends on silly philosophies.
empowered to exchange time via convenient one-way means
such as GPS, but continue to use cumbersome two-way methods.
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?
On August 20, J. J. Lodder wrote:i3dxcg==
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
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 -
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*You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.
to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
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 [-]
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*You got all of the answer that your quote mine deserves.
to my basic question, which you have avoided answering.
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,
On 8/21/23 6:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Then I take your argument to be that time dilation is caused byNo. "Cause" is the wrong word. See my next paragraph.
inertial motion.
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 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
But Special Relativity won’t let the moving guy be the observer.You should stop lying
On 8/22/2023 11:09 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: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
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:It's hardly an "unwarranted conclusion" since particle accelerators take >> into account SR, including time dilation, as part of their design. The
Time dilation is pure ad hoc fiction.
Nonsense! It is observed every day, literally billions of times, at manyIt is extremely ignorant of you to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
particle accelerators around the world. It's just that you are so very >>>> ignorant of basic physics that you don't know this.
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 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.
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:44:44 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:higher speeds to claim the rate of organisms aging does the same.
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: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.
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.
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
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.
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==
Broken link or server.
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.
[...] But Special Relativity won’t let the moving guy be the
observer.
[... further mistakes omitted]
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 aInstead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
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.
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 4:17:31 AM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:will experience less of an average acceleration compared to the trailing edge; and will approach one another or 'length contract' in the lab frame.
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 aInstead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
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
Ignoring the physics and focusing only on the maths of SR has lead me astray many times in the past.
Larry Harson
On August 24, J. J. Lodder wrote:Qi1n
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
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.
ng_right.jpgA 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
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)
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 3:15:23 PM UTC-7, larry harson wrote:will experience less of an average acceleration compared to the trailing edge; and will approach one another or 'length contract' in the lab frame.
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 aInstead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
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
Ignoring the physics and focusing only on the maths of SR has lead me astray many times in the past.
Larry HarsonHow could rotation contract a disk?
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 7:39:00 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: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.
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 aInstead of a solid disc, consider a set of many long and thin
substance that resists the strains due to the Lorentz
contraction (and it resists the sentrifugal forces).
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
Ignoring the physics and focusing only on the maths of SR has lead me astray many times in the past.
The "cause" is unknown (practically all "causes" in physics are unknown). The only reason this seems odd compared to other theories is thatLarry HarsonHow could rotation contract a disk?
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.
BTW, I am not seeing any theory on the I-S experiment, I am still waiting....
Time dilation has been around for 120 years and nobody has been able
to ask a question: What is time dilation?
On 8/26/23 10:09 AM, xip14 wrote:Why does force and motion slow time. How do they project?
Time dilation has been around for 120 years and nobody has been ableNonsense. That question has been asked and answered for those 120 years: "time dilation" is simply a geometric projection. Ditto for
to ask a question: What is time dilation?
"length contraction".You can only add to your own velocity.
Tom Roberts
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
T
Bruno Thüring
V
Tom Van Flandern
W
Max Bernhard Weinstein
Paul Weyland
XYZ
Hans J. Zweig
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 8:38:41 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
List of Critics of Relativity:
Ken H. Seto is #1434 in Hertz's list.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
My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"
in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
incomplete theory.
Ken Seto wrote:
My book Model Mechanics: The Final Theory"Can you post an incomplete link again?
in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
incomplete theory.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
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"Can you post an incomplete link again?
in the Amazon Library. It shows that SR is an
incomplete theory.
I tried but failed. I can email a copy to you.
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.
tiistai 15. elokuuta 2023 klo 8.49.39 UTC+3 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:with electron like particles (not electrons) which results photons and also invisible photon like photons (not photons) ?
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
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
perjantai 18. elokuuta 2023 klo 11.24.08 UTC+3 Hannu Poropudas kirjoitti:with electron like particles (not electrons) which results photons and also invisible photon like photons (not photons) ?
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
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 ?
HannuThis 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
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 lengthA proper time time interval can be measured by a single inertial
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.
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.
--Two valuable additions to the list that are very up-to-date are Mei Xiaochun and Radwan Kassir.
Rich
在 2023年5月19日星期五 UTC+8 20:20:47，<ct...@hotmail.com> 写道：promoting the improvement and expansion of discipline theories.
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
them through mathematical logical deduction, conclusion, and extension.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
discovery.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
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.
decades.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
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 willThere 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
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 moreOur 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
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 manyThe 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
https://www.tastphysics.com/
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:38:41?PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen:[snip excessively long list, mostly nonsense]
List of Critics of Relativity:
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
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 339 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:47:46 |
| Calls: | 7,467 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,691 |
| Messages: | 5,628,079 |
