"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
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'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-velocity

Harald

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

"Androcles, the intellectual giant":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...tualGiant.html

Dirk Vdm

"nade"

Einstein should be cannonized as saint. There is no way a mere
mortal can figure out photoelectric effect (photon exists), brownian
motion (atom exists), special relativity in the miracle year of 1905.

All are now a math toys. Einstain and his girl friend were in 1905 very
young and full of fantasy.
Photon do not exist. In optics is the lenght of light wave packet.. If the
way difference is bigger than the lengh of the packet no interference.
Browian motions are caused by electric charges. The all dispersed media
exist thanks reppeling of electrical charges. But the charges are live and
make the mess (Browian.motions).
Special relativity is a history after 1925 (Michelson-Gale experiment).
But all which do the math physics without any errors and in agreements with
assumptions are undoubtedly genius. Einstain was such.
S*

...... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....
"Androcles" wrote in message
...
great stuff,... profound and incisive, as usual, but beyond the
comprehension of any of parroting Einstein Dingleberries
who tried to make their case for Einstein's crock... ahahahaha...

Hey Andro, you sure do know how to flush out those virulent
Einstein Dingleberries... like fade "nade" promonade, Proletarian
Dunce PD-Draper, Hairy "harry" harald.vanlintel, Karandarse
Dunno Dono, Toilet Dweller Wabnig, Saucepan Szczepan Bia³ek"
, Variouos Kike Varneys and a host of others...
But sadly, all your heroic efforts only make those poor *******s
move closer to the warmth of Einstein's sphincter..... ahahaha...

Actually, do have some pity for them. Those brainwashed poor
dumb****s, all being damaged goods now, do not realize that
they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:

::AE:: .... "NOT search at the same, now well lit places, where he,
Einstein, had been working".

--- More here about Einstein's Anus Mirabilis
(= Albert's sphincter where his EDs do worship):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...824b27dab62a0d
The nature and character traits of EDs:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8298f4a2794397

Einstein's conscience finally caught up with him, when he was
fessing up about the con of REL, ... one year before he folded
his tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket, bit the grass
and puffed, ... when/where he said to Besso in 1954:
::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . [ &
::AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"

Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:

::: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
::: who said
::: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th century
::: will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."

::: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
::: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
::: associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"

::: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
::: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
::: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."

So, like in any movement and/or religion there are fanatic disciples
of which you have garnered a set he.. the financially and mentally
poverty stricken Einstein Dingleberries... for whose, "here-and-now
earthly Seelen-heil" it should be pointed out that in the real world,
today,

== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL ****"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No ****"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the ****load"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is **** or not".

But thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson

"Androcles"

| I bet that the reading will be 0.46 km/s.

How much money you want to bet? I'll match your bet, my money against
yours. I'll even bet you don't have the balls to bet against me.

Early we must know Your figure. Null, 0.42 or 30 km/s.
S*

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:07:01 +0100, "harry"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
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'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-velocity

....laughable.....the kind of SciFi that impresses little boys like Eric geese.

Isn't it amazing what mathematics can do with a false physical postulate....

Harald




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...
| Early we must know

Did you snip something? Now I can't tell who said what.. I wonder what it
was...

Let's start again, shall we?

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
|
| The Earth rotate.


Really? Sheesh, fancy that! You mean the Sun doesn't go around it?


| But the Earth orbit also rotate.

No, the orbit stays where it is, it's a path the Earth follows.




| The Earth is a point on
| the big disc.

No, the Earth is a big ball, not a point, and the big disc is not a disc at
all,
it's an ellipse.


| The equations are the same.

x = [-b +- sqrt(b^2 -4ac)] / 2a is the same as tan = sin/cos?

| Only radii are different.

Oh really? What radii are those, then?

| The MG
| apparatus was huge to have proper sensitivity for the velocity 0.46 km/s.

Here's some MGs, they even has a badge on the from that says "MG".
That stands for "Morris Garages", but it can't do 0.46 km/s.
http://www.simon-j-robinson.co.uk/mg.htm




| 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.

How much money you want to bet? I'll match your bet, my money against
yours. I'll even bet you don't have the balls to bet against me.

"hanson" wrote in message
news:1kbEj.16619$Id3.2721@trnddc07...
| ..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
| great stuff,... profound and incisive, as usual, but beyond the
| comprehension of any of parroting Einstein Dingleberries
| who tried to make their case for Einstein's crock... ahahahaha...
|
| Hey Andro, you sure do know how to flush out those virulent
| Einstein Dingleberries... like fade "nade" promonade, Proletarian
| Dunce PD-Draper, Hairy "harry" harald.vanlintel, Karandarse
| Dunno Dono, Toilet Dweller Wabnig, Saucepan Szczepan Bia³ek"
| , Variouos Kike Varneys and a host of others...
| But sadly, all your heroic efforts only make those poor *******s
| move closer to the warmth of Einstein's sphincter..... ahahaha...
|
| Actually, do have some pity for them. Those brainwashed poor
| dumb****s, all being damaged goods now, do not realize that
| they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
| century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
| with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:


Me? Have pity? You misunderstand me, sir, pity would be an emotion.
I reserve emotion for those that matter, not for dingbats.
In matters of science I appear as this, blindfold:
http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif

Why should anyone be interested in a clown that says:
"After analyzing it. Well. This is what I can comment. Imagine yourself
being in the moving orange horizontal, you can see the light moving
at c.
While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
looking at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer."

"In out seats"? "it (c) may seem longer"?

And that is after anal-yzing it well.
I can't have pity for a lunatic, it wouldn't do any good anyway.



|
| ::AE:: .... "NOT search at the same, now well lit places, where he,
| Einstein, had been working".
|
| --- More here about Einstein's Anus Mirabilis
| (= Albert's sphincter where his EDs do worship):
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...824b27dab62a0d
| The nature and character traits of EDs:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8298f4a2794397
|
| Einstein's conscience finally caught up with him, when he was
| fessing up about the con of REL, ... one year before he folded
| his tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket, bit the grass
| and puffed, ... when/where he said to Besso in 1954:
| ::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
| ::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
| ::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
| ::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . [ &
| ::AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
| ::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|
| Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
| final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:
|
| ::: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
| ::: who said
| ::: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th century
| ::: will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
|
| ::: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
| ::: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
| ::: associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein"
|
| ::: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
| ::: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of reality?
| ::: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
|
| So, like in any movement and/or religion there are fanatic disciples
| of which you have garnered a set he.. the financially and mentally
| poverty stricken Einstein Dingleberries... for whose, "here-and-now
| earthly Seelen-heil" it should be pointed out that in the real world,
| today,
|
| == mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL ****"
| == *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No ****"
| == Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the ****load"
| == Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is **** or not".
|
| But thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson
|
|
|
|
|
|

On Mar 19, 12:35 am, PD wrote:
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.

sure it does, thats tha whole poing,

few lines in stead of reading and replication

Moreover, it is no
one's obligation to replicate what is written in books by transcribing
it into Usenet,

not replicate fool, thats tha whole poing

yo are contradicting your foken self

just to make it free and easy for some amateurs and
cranks.

you?

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.

its a dead buffalo in that book or
what you would have tp say about
that book is a dead buffalo


PD

you violate tha unwritten rules of usenet
promoting books you wan ta sell

if that books have pictures then is okay

but if it has math, then you read one
page a day,

for instance 5 books times 200 pages
takes 1000 days,

three years, fool, in order for a moron
ta unswer a simple question

On Mar 20, 4:54*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"hanson" wrote in message

news:1kbEj.16619$Id3.2721@trnddc07...
| ..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....| "Androcles" wrote in message

k...
| great stuff,... profound and incisive, as usual, but beyond the
| comprehension of any of parroting Einstein Dingleberries
| who tried to make their case for Einstein's crock... ahahahaha...
|
| Hey Andro, you sure do know how to flush out those virulent
| Einstein Dingleberries... like fade "nade" promonade, Proletarian
| Dunce PD-Draper, Hairy "harry" harald.vanlintel, Karandarse
| Dunno Dono, Toilet Dweller Wabnig, Saucepan Szczepan Bia³ek"
| , Variouos Kike Varneys and a host of others...
| But sadly, all your heroic efforts only make those poor *******s
| move closer to the warmth of Einstein's sphincter..... ahahaha...
|
| Actually, do have some pity for them. Those brainwashed poor
| dumb****s, all being damaged goods now, do not realize that
| they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
| century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
| with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:

Me? Have pity? You misunderstand me, sir, pity would be an emotion.
I reserve emotion for those that matter, not for dingbats.
In matters of science I appear as this, blindfold:
*http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif

Why should anyone be interested in a clown that says:
"After analyzing it. Well. This is what I can comment. Imagine yourself
being in the moving orange horizontal, you can see the light moving
at c.
While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
looking at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer."

"In out seats"? "it (c) may seem longer"?

What I simply meant is that in our seats looking at a moving
frame of reference (represented by the monitor image). It takes
longer time for c to go from A to B. This translate to time slowing
down. For example, we see the c of the moving block travels
for 12 seconds in our frame while in its frame the time is 4
seconds. This means for every 4 seconds in its frame, it
takes 12 seconds in our frame. But since the speed of light
is constant and both the frames must see the same speed
of light. Time dilation occurs in moving frame with respect
to ours. Note that c = distance travel/time. Let the horizonal
numbers in your demo animation signify the distance.
Since the distance for the point to move from A to B is
12 and the time is also 12 in the clock. C=1 which is
unity. In the return from B to A which signifies closer
to light speed in its frame.. 4/4=1. Again, since c is
always c and we see longer path of c in the moving
frame which takes shorter for the observer in that frame.
Everything else in the moving ship slows down with
respect to us, and you can see slow motion in other image.
This is why moving frame of reference such as atomic clock
in fast orbit around the planet has slower time.

This all occurs because c is the common timing reference
used by reality computer program as bookkeeping to make
sure the equations have symmetric state in all locations
in the virtual state called spacetime. Get the hang of it
dude. Relativity will fail in a pure physical world.. but it
so happens we don't actually live in one.



nade




And that is after anal-yzing it well.
I can't have pity for a lunatic, it wouldn't do any good anyway.

|
| ::AE:: .... "NOT search at the same, now well lit places, where he,
| Einstein, had been working".
|
| --- *More here about Einstein's Anus Mirabilis
| * * * (= Albert's sphincter where his EDs do worship):
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9e824b27dab62a0d
| The nature and character traits of EDs:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/498298f4a2794397
|
| Einstein's conscience finally caught up with him, when he was
| fessing up about the con of REL, ... one year before he folded
| his tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket, bit the grass
| and puffed, ... when/where he said to Besso in 1954:
| ::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
| ::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
| ::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
| ::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . *[ &
| ::AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
| ::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|
| Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
| final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:
|
| ::: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
| ::: who said
| ::: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th century
| ::: will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
|
| ::: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
| ::: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition, essentially
| ::: associated with the names of Marx, *Freud and Einstein"
|
| ::: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
| ::: "The theory of relativity lives on. * Is it a true picture of reality?
| ::: That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
|
| So, like in any movement and/or religion there are fanatic disciples
| of which you have garnered a set he.. the financially and mentally
| poverty stricken Einstein Dingleberries... for whose, "here-and-now
| earthly Seelen-heil" it should be pointed out that in the real world,
| today,
|
| == mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL ****"
| == *.edu *and grantology ..................."does need REL - No ****"
| == Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the ****load"
| == Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is **** or not"..
|
| But thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson
|
|
|
|
|
|