I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.

nade

On Mar 19, 6:08*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
| crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
| original paper,
| *http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together with
the
| unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the
| ``light medium,'' ..."

Did you check what the example actually is?
It is:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet", *so you are supposed to know what
relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and relativity"
and
pompously rants about it being "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics
hold good" as the cretin Roberts believes.

What the idiot Roberts completely misses is Einstein's third postulate: *the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires
to travel from B to A, which is FALSE.
* *http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Roberts has never read the original paper which is why the prat recommends
the kiddy book, "Spacetime physics". Knowledgable he is NOT.

| I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the
rotation
| of the earth".
| What *knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
| S*

All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
Roberts suggests.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/



"nade" wrote in message
...

I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.

nade

On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
| crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
| original paper,
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together with
the
| unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the
| ``light medium,'' ..."

Did you check what the example actually is?
It is:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet", so you are supposed to know what
relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and relativity"
and
pompously rants about it being "the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics
hold good" as the cretin Roberts believes.

What the idiot Roberts completely misses is Einstein's third postulate:
the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires
to travel from B to A, which is FALSE.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Roberts has never read the original paper which is why the prat recommends
the kiddy book, "Spacetime physics". Knowledgable he is NOT.

| I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the
rotation
| of the earth".
| What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
| S*

All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

On Mar 19, 6:55*am, "Androcles" wrote:
* Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
*Roberts suggests.

Well. The paper was written by the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein.
What concerns people is the interpretation. Can someone pls. write
a FAQ or something about how the points differ between these
two brilliant physicists (Roberts vs Androcles)? The public needs to
know
how each one thinks so we can gauge the true nature of it all.

nade

*http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"nade" wrote in message

...

I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.

nade

On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:



"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
| crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
| original paper,
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together with
the
| unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
the
| ``light medium,'' ..."

Did you check what the example actually is?
It is:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet", so you are supposed to know what
relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and relativity"
and
pompously rants about it being "the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics
hold good" as the cretin Roberts believes.

What the idiot Roberts completely misses is Einstein's third postulate:
the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires
to travel from B to A, which is FALSE.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Roberts has never read the original paper which is why the prat recommends
the kiddy book, "Spacetime physics". Knowledgable he is NOT.

| I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the
rotation
| of the earth".
| What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
| S*

All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ac/Sagnac.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 18, 4:56*pm, ulrich wrote:
On Mar 18, 3:30 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:





nade wrote:
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
What do you make of it?

The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.

Specifically:

if we allow the detector to have free
motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector's
motion.

Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
dotted into its 4-velocity.

This isn't anything new, but Phipps seems to think it is.

but now comes the crux: by this simple process, which
is driven by the idea that there is no reason on God's Earth
why an observer cannot use a freely moving detector,
the equations of electromagnetism become Galilean
invariant;

This is not true (but I believe Phipps uses a nonstandard meaning of
"Galilean invariant"; I use the usual meaning). Moreover, if the
observer uses arbitrarily-moving detectors, then the measurements are
not projected onto the observer's (local) inertial frame. This is not
wrong, but is different from the usual treatment of the theory, in which
the observer does use detectors at rest in her inertial frame, and thus
does project the field quantities onto that frame. This is a GREAT
simplification: physics becomes much simpler in a (local) inertial
frame. By abandoning that simplification, Phipps became confused....

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote (possibly quoting Phipps):

Clocks do not define time no matter how many times Einstein said the
contrary thing.

This merely depends on how one chooses to use words (specifically
"time"). But this DOES NOT MATTER, because clocks most definitely do
represent the time coordinate used by real experimenters.

nade wrote (to Juan R. González-Álvarez):

Say, are you a normal or a crackpot?

He often acts like a crackpot (name shifting, posting articles that are
pure insults, ignoring well-known mainstream results, using dense spews
of undefined jargon in an attempt to stifle criticism...).

About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from crackpots is
that the former often recommend textbooks,

in stead of posting brain, is proof on
stoopidity

but the latter never do. For
general knowledge of SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler,
_Spacetime_Physics_. For a discussion of the invariance of Maxwell's
equations: Jackson, _Classical_Electrodynamics_, and also the Feynman
_Lectures_ Vol 2.

Tom Roberts

you post so many book titles

what abot postin brain?

It makes no sense to try to post in a few short paragraphs what it
takes many pages to explain in one of the books. Moreover, it is no
one's obligation to replicate what is written in books by transcribing
it into Usenet, just to make it free and easy for some amateurs and
cranks. That would be spoonfeeding. If you want to hunt buffalo, be
prepared to spend some effort making the arrowheads first, and stop
asking people to escort you to a dead buffalo.

PD

On Mar 18, 4:03 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:30:38 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote:

nade wrote:
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
What do you make of it?

The excerpt you posted is mostly nonsense.

Specifically:
if we allow the detector to have free
motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector's
motion.

Sure. We know quite well how to do that -- the detector has a
4-velocity, and the quantities it measures are basically the field(s)
dotted into its 4-velocity.

Could you please provide a precise definition of the term '4-velocity'.


Ah, good approach.
Condemn relativity first. Ask what it means second.

PD

"nade" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 6:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:
Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
Roberts suggests.

| Well. The paper was written by the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein.
| What concerns people is the interpretation. Can someone pls. write
| a FAQ or something about how the points differ between these
| two brilliant physicists (Roberts vs Androcles)? The public needs to
| know
| how each one thinks so we can gauge the true nature of it all.

| nade

Roberts has made himself clear, he recommends you read "Spacetime Physics".
I recommend you read the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein. In particular,
I recommend you discover for yourself (and repeat) the experiment that
the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein, conducted that led to his great
discovery
that 4 = 12 because the "time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals
the "time'' it requires to travel from B to A, as shown here in pictures
that a
12-year-old Ultimate DumbCluck could understand:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif






http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"nade" wrote in message

...

I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.

nade

On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:



"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
| crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
| original paper,
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together
with
the
| unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to
the
| ``light medium,'' ..."

Did you check what the example actually is?
It is:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet", so you are supposed to know
what
relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and
relativity"
and
pompously rants about it being "the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics
hold good" as the cretin Roberts believes.

What the idiot Roberts completely misses is Einstein's third postulate:
the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires
to travel from B to A, which is FALSE.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Roberts has never read the original paper which is why the prat
recommends
the kiddy book, "Spacetime physics". Knowledgable he is NOT.

| I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the
rotation
| of the earth".
| What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
| S*

All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ac/Sagnac.htm- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 19, 7:48*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"nade" wrote in message

...
On Mar 19, 6:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:

Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
Roberts suggests.

| *Well. The paper was written by the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein.
| What concerns people is the interpretation. Can someone pls. write
| a FAQ or something about how the points differ between these
| two brilliant physicists (Roberts vs Androcles)? The public needs to
| know
| how each one thinks so we can gauge the true nature of it all.

| nade

Roberts has made himself clear, he recommends you read "Spacetime Physics"..
I recommend you read the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein. In particular,
I recommend you discover for yourself (and repeat) the experiment that
the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein, conducted that led to his great
discovery
that 4 = 12 because the "time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals
the "time'' it requires to travel from B to A, as shown here in pictures
that a
12-year-old Ultimate DumbCluck could understand:
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

You have thought about this for long and knew the inner meanings
of your rough analogy but this doesn't mean others understood
your context. What in blazes are you talking about? What 4=12?
what travel from A to B? Pls. explain in clearer words that those
who are not exposed to your mindset would easily grasp your
point.

nade




http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"nade" wrote in message

...

I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.

nade

On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
| crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
| original paper,
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together
with
the
| unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to
the
| ``light medium,'' ..."

Did you check what the example actually is?
It is:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet", so you are supposed to know
what
relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and
relativity"
and
pompously rants about it being "the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics
hold good" as the cretin Roberts believes.

What the idiot Roberts completely misses is Einstein's third postulate:
the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires
to travel from B to A, which is FALSE.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Roberts has never read the original paper which is why the prat
recommends
the kiddy book, "Spacetime physics". Knowledgable he is NOT.

| I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the
rotation
| of the earth".
| What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
| S*

All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnac.htm-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"nade" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 7:48 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"nade" wrote in message

...
On Mar 19, 6:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:

Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
Roberts suggests.

| Well. The paper was written by the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein.
| What concerns people is the interpretation. Can someone pls. write
| a FAQ or something about how the points differ between these
| two brilliant physicists (Roberts vs Androcles)? The public needs to
| know
| how each one thinks so we can gauge the true nature of it all.

| nade

Roberts has made himself clear, he recommends you read "Spacetime
Physics".
I recommend you read the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein. In particular,
I recommend you discover for yourself (and repeat) the experiment that
the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein, conducted that led to his great
discovery
that 4 = 12 because the "time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals
the "time'' it requires to travel from B to A, as shown here in pictures
that a
12-year-old Ultimate DumbCluck could understand:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

| You have thought about this for long and knew the inner meanings
| of your rough analogy but this doesn't mean others understood
| your context. What in blazes are you talking about? What 4=12?


There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
This 4=12: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif




| what travel from A to B?

Light's travel from A to B and back again. The tip of the ray's travel from
A to B
and back again. The photon's travel from A to B and back again.


| Pls. explain in clearer words that those
| who are not exposed to your mindset would easily grasp your
| point.

| nade


The light is called "Spot".
See Spot Run.
See B run.
B is running away from Spot.
Spot is running twice as fast as B.
Spot catches up with B.
It takes 12 units of time for Spot to travel from A to B, shown in the GIF.

See Spot Run Back Again.
See A run.
A is running toward Spot.
Spot meets A.
It takes 4 units of time for Spot to travel from B to A, shown in the GIF.

According to Einstein, the "time" (NOT the time; "time" is different to
time)
for Spot to get from A to B (12 units) is equal to the "time" (NOT the time;
"time" is different to time) for Spot to get from B to A (4 units).
So "12" (not 12, "12" is different to 12, it has quotation marks) is equal
to "4".

So Einstein says add the "time"s together and mix in spatial coordinates
to confuse you, then divide by 2, like this.

1/2 [ "time"(A,0) + "time"(A,16)] = "time"(B, 12)

"Einstein" (NOT Einstein) was the ultimate genius, but Einstein (NOT
"Einstein")
was a ranting lunatic.

Do you understand that "time" is not time and "Einstein" the ultimate genius
is not Einstein the ranting cretin?

I recommend you discover for yourself (and repeat) the experiment that
the Ultimate Genius Himself, "Einstein", conducted that led to his great
discovery that 4 = 12 because the "time'' required by light to travel from
A to B equals the "time'' it requires to travel from B to A, as shown here
in pictures that a 12-year-old Ultimate DumbCluck could understand:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein

H. G. Wells was the ultimate genius, he inspired the teenage sci-fi reader
Einstein to write Houdini science.

Next, some real science:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm







http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"nade" wrote in message

...

I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.

nade

On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
| crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
| original paper,
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together
with
the
| unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively
to
the
| ``light medium,'' ..."

Did you check what the example actually is?
It is:
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and
a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet", so you are supposed to know
what
relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and
relativity"
and
pompously rants about it being "the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics
hold good" as the cretin Roberts believes.

What the idiot Roberts completely misses is Einstein's third
postulate:
the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time''
it
requires
to travel from B to A, which is FALSE.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mart/Smart.htm

Roberts has never read the original paper which is why the prat
recommends
the kiddy book, "Spacetime physics". Knowledgable he is NOT.

| I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the
rotation
| of the earth".
| What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
| S*

All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnac.htm-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:36:10 -0700 (PDT), nade
wrote:


I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.

nade

Androcles an intellectual giant?
bruahahahaa....
That was a good one, you made my day.


w-

"Androcles"

All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

The Earth rotate. But the Earth orbit also rotate. The Earth is a point on
the big disc. The equations are the same. Only radii are different. The MG
apparatus was huge to have proper sensitivity for the velocity 0.46 km/s.
The MM was for 30 km/s (and for this reason was not able to detect 0.46
km/s). The both were built years ago. Now we have very small electronic
apparatus which do the same. What they detect if we put them on the Earth
surface close to equator and orientalise in orbital direction?
I bet that the reading will be 0.46 km/s.
S*