"EL" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
So, what gives? Does any Relativist really understand the
Theory of Relativity?

EL wrote:
No.

ueb wrote in message
You are probably right.
Ulrich

[EL]
Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics.

Broser, EL,
your one liner appears to be a summation which has merit indeed.
Not to stray over the entire body of published authors on Relativity
let me confine my observations to these sci.groups on the Use-net.

Advocating as fact, that relativity is *essential for the existence* of
-- *GPS* is profusely and adamantly professed by Uncle Al.
-- *Accelerators* is undauntedly insisted upon by Sam Wormley.
giving and leaving the distinct impression that without Relativity there
would be no functioning atom smashers nor an accurate GPS.

However, when you hear professional experimental physicist talks
about it seem to be much more the case that Al & Sam have put the
cart before the horse. The professional hands-on experiences of the
people below highlights a much more believable picture of the
situation.

Case (a):
In news:mbIkb.826385$Ho3.229793@sccrnsc03 or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...93%40sccrnsc03
one reads about Prof. Franz Heymann, who AFTER a lifetime of work,
as a teamleader at CERN, went into retirement ......to study GR......
Franz apparently didn't need relativity during his 20 years of daily work
at/with an accelerator that was constructed without the need of SR/GR.

Case (b):
in or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...E4A%40fnal.gov
Physicist Eric Prebys working at Fermilab observes: ..." the military types
were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff", and required that there
be an option to turn off the relativistic corrections in the GPS system"
Obviously, the GPS system was built and operated without relativity being
considered for its construction........


Case (general):
= Anybody who works in mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does NOT need GR ****"
= Anybody who works in *.edu & for R-grants "does need GR, - No ****"
= Anybody who's in Promo, Sales & Movies "loves GR by the ****load"
= Jews protect GR as their cultural heritage whether "GR is **** or not".


Hence, EL's: "Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics."
appears to hit the button. Or expressed in my own, more colorful world:
"Relativity, like any other theory, is just a ****ing story that attempts to
describe what we see, perceive and measure......after the fact"
Now, since the theoretical physicists, the story tellers, have to make
a living too, I say .. let'em sing...all of them....it's a beautiful choir......
ahahahaha.........ahahahahanson

In message t, hanson
writes
"EL" wrote in message
. com...
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
So, what gives? Does any Relativist really understand the
Theory of Relativity?

EL wrote:
No.

ueb wrote in message
You are probably right.
Ulrich

[EL]
Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics.

Broser, EL,
your one liner appears to be a summation which has merit indeed.
Not to stray over the entire body of published authors on Relativity
let me confine my observations to these sci.groups on the Use-net.

Advocating as fact, that relativity is *essential for the existence* of
-- *GPS* is profusely and adamantly professed by Uncle Al.
-- *Accelerators* is undauntedly insisted upon by Sam Wormley.
giving and leaving the distinct impression that without Relativity there
would be no functioning atom smashers nor an accurate GPS.

However, when you hear professional experimental physicist talks
about it seem to be much more the case that Al & Sam have put the
cart before the horse. The professional hands-on experiences of the
people below highlights a much more believable picture of the
situation.

Case (a):
In news:mbIkb.826385$Ho3.229793@sccrnsc03 or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...93%40sccrnsc03
one reads about Prof. Franz Heymann, who AFTER a lifetime of work,
as a teamleader at CERN, went into retirement ......to study GR......
Franz apparently didn't need relativity during his 20 years of daily work
at/with an accelerator that was constructed without the need of SR/GR.

Case (b):
in or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...E4A%40fnal.gov
Physicist Eric Prebys working at Fermilab observes: ..." the military types
were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff", and required that there
be an option to turn off the relativistic corrections in the GPS system"
Obviously, the GPS system was built and operated without relativity being
considered for its construction........


Case (general):
= Anybody who works in mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does NOT need GR ****"
= Anybody who works in *.edu & for R-grants "does need GR, - No ****"
= Anybody who's in Promo, Sales & Movies "loves GR by the ****load"
= Jews protect GR as their cultural heritage whether "GR is **** or not".


Hence, EL's: "Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics."
appears to hit the button. Or expressed in my own, more colorful world:
"Relativity, like any other theory, is just a ****ing story that attempts to
describe what we see, perceive and measure......after the fact"
Now, since the theoretical physicists, the story tellers, have to make
a living too, I say .. let'em sing...all of them....it's a beautiful
choir......
ahahahaha.........ahahahahanson

With the littlest respect, "Dr." Hanson, there is no doubt that this
post can only be called a *disaster*.

Now, please, for the good of humanity, I urge you to reread what you
have written and interpret it correctly.
--
The Moon
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

"Nine Stones" was apparently stoned
when he wrote his message ...
and obviously didn't comprehend nor did he get what was written in message
t, in which
hanson writes
"EL" wrote in message
. com...
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
So, what gives? Does any Relativist really understand the
Theory of Relativity?

EL wrote:
No.

ueb wrote in message
You are probably right.
Ulrich

[EL]
Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics.

Broser, EL,
your one liner appears to be a summation which has merit indeed.
Not to stray over the entire body of published authors on Relativity
let me confine my observations to these sci.groups on the Use-net.

Advocating as fact, that relativity is *essential for the existence* of
-- *GPS* is profusely and adamantly professed by Uncle Al.
-- *Accelerators* is undauntedly insisted upon by Sam Wormley.
giving and leaving the distinct impression that without Relativity there
would be no functioning atom smashers nor an accurate GPS.

However, when you hear professional experimental physicist talks
about it seem to be much more the case that Al & Sam have put the
cart before the horse. The professional hands-on experiences of the
people below highlights a much more believable picture of the
situation.

Case (a):
In news:mbIkb.826385$Ho3.229793@sccrnsc03 or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...93%40sccrnsc03
one reads about Prof. Franz Heymann, who AFTER a lifetime of work,
as a teamleader at CERN, went into retirement ......to study GR......
Franz apparently didn't need relativity during his 20 years of daily work
at/with an accelerator that was constructed without the need of SR/GR.

Case (b):
in or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...E4A%40fnal.gov
Physicist Eric Prebys working at Fermilab observes: ..." the military types
were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff", and required that
there be an option to turn off the relativistic corrections in the GPS
system". Obviously, the GPS system was built and operated without
relativity being considered for its construction........


Case (general):
= Anybody who works in mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does NOT need GR ****"
= Anybody who works in *.edu & for R-grants "does need GR, - No ****"
= Anybody who's in Promo, Sales & Movies "loves GR by the ****load"
= Jews protect GR as their cultural heritage whether "GR is **** or not".


Hence, EL's: "Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics."
appears to hit the button. Or expressed in my own, more colorful world:
"Relativity, like any other theory, is just a ****ing story that attempts to
describe what we see, perceive and measure......after the fact"
Now, since the theoretical physicists, the story tellers, have to make
a living too, I say .. let'em sing...all of them....it's a beautiful
choir......
ahahahaha.........ahahahahanson

With the littlest respect, "Dr." Hanson, there is no doubt that this
post can only be called a *disaster*.
Now, please, for the good of humanity, I urge you to reread what you
have written and interpret it correctly.
The Moon
RC

AHAHAHHAahahaha........don't be so humble RC to refer to
your own post as a *disaster*. It could not be, because there
was nothing of note in your 5-liner, expect perhaps big jealousy.
Go, make some of your earth poetry instead and relax....
......ahahahahaha..........thanks for the laugh, dude........
ahahahahaha.......ahahahanson

In message . net,
hanson writes
"Nine Stones" was apparently stoned
when he wrote his message ...
and obviously didn't comprehend nor did he get what was written in message
et, in which

[...]

With the littlest respect, "Dr." Hanson, there is no doubt that this
post can only be called a *disaster*.
Now, please, for the good of humanity, I urge you to reread what you
have written and interpret it correctly.
The Moon
RC

AHAHAHHAahahaha........don't be so humble RC to refer to
your own post as a *disaster*.

Oh bollards! He got me on a technicality.

It could not be, because there
was nothing of note in your 5-liner, expect perhaps big jealousy.

Ahahahhahhahah. Now, that is funny.

Go, make some of your earth poetry instead and relax....
.....ahahahahaha..........thanks for the laugh, dude........

OK man. I think I will.
--
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

"hanson" wrote in message nk.net...

Case (a):
In news:mbIkb.826385$Ho3.229793@sccrnsc03 or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...93%40sccrnsc03
one reads about Prof. Franz Heymann, who AFTER a lifetime of work,
as a teamleader at CERN, went into retirement ......to study GR......
Franz apparently didn't need relativity during his 20 years of daily work
at/with an accelerator that was constructed without the need of SR/GR.

Case A means only that general relativity isn't a critical factor
in operating an accelerator. On the other hand special relativity is
an indispensible.

Case (b):
in or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...E4A%40fnal.gov
Physicist Eric Prebys working at Fermilab observes: ..." the military types
were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff", and required that there
be an option to turn off the relativistic corrections in the GPS system"
Obviously, the GPS system was built and operated without relativity being
considered for its construction........

Case B means only that "military types" know anywhere from little
to nothing about GR. It's also their job to look out for tactical
contingencies. They don't understand GR, so they want to keep open the
option of factoring it out. Nevertheless, GR must be worked into the
operation of the GPS.

Case (general):
= Anybody who works in mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does NOT need GR ****"
= Anybody who works in *.edu & for R-grants "does need GR, - No ****"
= Anybody who's in Promo, Sales & Movies "loves GR by the ****load"
= Jews protect GR as their cultural heritage whether "GR is **** or not".

Case general is just plain irrelevant on all four points:

-Typical mil/indust work in domains for which relativistic
transformations are negligible.
-Not everyone in education needs GR, and if there (hypothetically) are
those who find it necessary to "play the GR game" to get grants, well
that's not the same as the question of its reality. [See above]
-If "promo, sales, movies", that is to say, business, loves GR, then
what of it? [See above]
-If, hypothetically, Jews cling to GR for some reason other than
pursuit of truth, then what of it? [See above]

-Mark Martin

In article t,
hanson wrote:

Case (a):
In news:mbIkb.826385$Ho3.229793@sccrnsc03 or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...93%40sccrnsc03
one reads about Prof. Franz Heymann, who AFTER a lifetime of work,
as a teamleader at CERN, went into retirement ......to study GR......
Franz apparently didn't need relativity during his 20 years of daily work
at/with an accelerator that was constructed without the need of SR/GR.

Um, big guy, GR is indeed not needed in the design of an accelerator, but
that doesn't mean SR isn't used. The synchrocyclotron was an early
example. Non-relativistically the cyclotron period is independent of the
particle's momentum, which is convenient until a certain energy when the
period changes enough that no further acceleration is possible. The
synchrocyclotron changes the driving frequency accordingly.


Hence, EL's: "Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics."
appears to hit the button. Or expressed in my own, more colorful world:
"Relativity, like any other theory, is just a ****ing story that attempts to
describe what we see, perceive and measure......after the fact"

I'm not sure how EL's remark applies to relativity but not to other sorts
of physics since Galileo. What else could you say of Galileo timing the
period of a swinging chandelier in church with his pulse, except that he
was applying mathematics to physics? (And that he was bored.) But
relativity has one of the qualities of a good theory -- fecundity. That
is, it's suggested many new experiments to do. Energy versus speed,
momentum versus speed, E=mc^2, the positrons predicted by Dirac,
gravitational redshifting, bending of light around the Sun, time of
flight of radar signals bounced from planets and grazing the Sun, frame
dragging around the Earth... Almost all of that was post-relativity, and
a literature search will reveal a buttload of experiments done or
proposed specifically to test the theories.

--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

"hanson" wrote in message nk.net...
"EL" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
So, what gives? Does any Relativist really understand the
Theory of Relativity?

EL wrote:
No.

ueb wrote in message
You are probably right.
Ulrich

[EL]
Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics.

Broser, EL,
your one liner appears to be a summation which has merit indeed.
Not to stray over the entire body of published authors on Relativity
let me confine my observations to these sci.groups on the Use-net.

Advocating as fact, that relativity is *essential for the existence* of
-- *GPS* is profusely and adamantly professed by Uncle Al.
-- *Accelerators* is undauntedly insisted upon by Sam Wormley.
giving and leaving the distinct impression that without Relativity there
would be no functioning atom smashers nor an accurate GPS.

However, when you hear professional experimental physicist talks
about it seem to be much more the case that Al & Sam have put the
cart before the horse. The professional hands-on experiences of the
people below highlights a much more believable picture of the
situation.

Case (a):
In news:mbIkb.826385$Ho3.229793@sccrnsc03 or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...93%40sccrnsc03
one reads about Prof. Franz Heymann, who AFTER a lifetime of work,
as a teamleader at CERN, went into retirement ......to study GR......
Franz apparently didn't need relativity during his 20 years of daily work
at/with an accelerator that was constructed without the need of SR/GR.

Case (b):
in or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...E4A%40fnal.gov
Physicist Eric Prebys working at Fermilab observes: ..." the military types
were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff", and required that there
be an option to turn off the relativistic corrections in the GPS system"
Obviously, the GPS system was built and operated without relativity being
considered for its construction........


Case (general):
= Anybody who works in mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does NOT need GR ****"
= Anybody who works in *.edu & for R-grants "does need GR, - No ****"
= Anybody who's in Promo, Sales & Movies "loves GR by the ****load"
= Jews protect GR as their cultural heritage whether "GR is **** or not".


Hence, EL's: "Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics."
appears to hit the button. Or expressed in my own, more colorful world:
"Relativity, like any other theory, is just a ****ing story that attempts to
describe what we see, perceive and measure......after the fact"
Now, since the theoretical physicists, the story tellers, have to make
a living too, I say .. let'em sing...all of them....it's a beautiful choir......
ahahahaha.........ahahahahanson

xxein: You make a point that is off the mark; much like physical
theories (confused and abused).

"hanson" wrote in message
k.net...
"EL" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
So, what gives? Does any Relativist really understand the
Theory of Relativity?

EL wrote:
No.

ueb wrote in message
You are probably right.
Ulrich

[EL]
Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics.

Broser, EL,
your one liner appears to be a summation which has merit indeed.
Not to stray over the entire body of published authors on Relativity
let me confine my observations to these sci.groups on the Use-net.

Advocating as fact, that relativity is *essential for the existence* of
-- *GPS* is profusely and adamantly professed by Uncle Al.
-- *Accelerators* is undauntedly insisted upon by Sam Wormley.
giving and leaving the distinct impression that without Relativity there
would be no functioning atom smashers nor an accurate GPS.

However, when you hear professional experimental physicist talks
about it seem to be much more the case that Al & Sam have put the
cart before the horse. The professional hands-on experiences of the
people below highlights a much more believable picture of the
situation.

Case (a):
In news:mbIkb.826385$Ho3.229793@sccrnsc03 or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...93%40sccrnsc03
one reads about Prof. Franz Heymann, who AFTER a lifetime of work,
as a teamleader at CERN, went into retirement ......to study GR......
Franz apparently didn't need relativity during his 20 years of daily work
at/with an accelerator that was constructed without the need of SR/GR.

Case (b):
in or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...E4A%40fnal.gov
Physicist Eric Prebys working at Fermilab observes: ..." the military
types
were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff", and required that
there
be an option to turn off the relativistic corrections in the GPS system"
Obviously, the GPS system was built and operated without relativity being
considered for its construction........

The bending of light by gravity is considered to be "proof" that Einstein's
theory is correct in many text books. This is despite the fact that many
scientists speculated on this very possibility long before Einstein was even
born and they did it without having to invoke the General Theory of
Relativity.


Case (general):
= Anybody who works in mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does NOT need GR ****"
= Anybody who works in *.edu & for R-grants "does need GR, - No ****"
= Anybody who's in Promo, Sales & Movies "loves GR by the ****load"
= Jews protect GR as their cultural heritage whether "GR is **** or not".

Interesting point. Here's something else I dug up:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html

"......It is not surprising, therefore, that genuine physicists were not
impressed: they tended to agree with Rutherford. After Wilhelm Wien had
tried to impress him with the splendours of relativity, without success, and
exclaimed in despair "No Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!", Rutherford
guffawed and replied "No! they've got too much sense !"[fn. Quoted from the
Rutherford Memorial Lecture to the Physical Society 1954 by P.M.S. Blackett
( Yearbook of the Physical Society ( 1955))] Let us see how sensible they
were."

Does Einstein's theory remain unchallenged, for the most part, simply
because it would be politically incorrect to consider Jews wrong and Whites
right? This doesn't sound like science to me. In fact, it sounds highly
suspect in light of the fact that Einstein's theory (in it's present
incarnation) is a logical contradiction.

Robert


Hence, EL's: "Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics."
appears to hit the button. Or expressed in my own, more colorful world:
"Relativity, like any other theory, is just a ****ing story that attempts
to
describe what we see, perceive and measure......after the fact"
Now, since the theoretical physicists, the story tellers, have to make
a living too, I say .. let'em sing...all of them....it's a beautiful
choir......
ahahahaha.........ahahahahanson

In article ,
Robert Calvert wrote:

"hanson" wrote in message
nk.net...

The bending of light by gravity is considered to be "proof" that Einstein's
theory is correct in many text books. This is despite the fact that many
scientists speculated on this very possibility long before Einstein was even
born and they did it without having to invoke the General Theory of
Relativity.

The bending of light by gravity is considered support for Einstein's
theory becaue Einstein's theory predicts the correct amount of bending.
Newton's theory also predicts that light will bend around the Sun, but it
gets the number wrong by a factor of 2. And optics predicts light will
bend by refraction in the solar atmosphere, but with a much shorter range
than gravitational bending, and with dispersion, and in practice it limits
how closely light can graze the Sun before optical effects swamp out
gravitational effects and it becomes no longer a test of gravity.

And that's why physics is quantitative. Any schlub can produce a theory
where things fall down. It's harder to produce a theory that can get the
numbers right in each of a diverse set of measurements, but such a theory
can be tested.


Does Einstein's theory remain unchallenged, for the most part, simply
because it would be politically incorrect to consider Jews wrong and Whites
right? This doesn't sound like science to me. In fact, it sounds highly
suspect in light of the fact that Einstein's theory (in it's present
incarnation) is a logical contradiction.

You are right, supporting the theory for the political reasons you've
given would not be science.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé

"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...
"hanson" wrote in message
k.net...
"EL" wrote in message
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
So, what gives? Does any Relativist really understand the
Theory of Relativity?
EL wrote:
No.
ueb wrote in message
You are probably right.
Ulrich
[EL]
Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics.

Broser, EL,
your one liner appears to be a summation which has merit indeed.
Not to stray over the entire body of published authors on Relativity
let me confine my observations to these sci.groups on the Use-net.

Advocating as fact, that relativity is *essential for the existence* of
-- *GPS* is profusely and adamantly professed by Uncle Al.
-- *Accelerators* is undauntedly insisted upon by Sam Wormley.
giving and leaving the distinct impression that without Relativity there
would be no functioning atom smashers nor an accurate GPS.

However, when you hear professional experimental physicist talks
about it seem to be much more the case that Al & Sam have put the
cart before the horse. The professional hands-on experiences of the
people below highlights a much more believable picture of the
situation.

Case (a):
In news:mbIkb.826385$Ho3.229793@sccrnsc03 or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...93%40sccrnsc03
one reads about Prof. Franz Heymann, who AFTER a lifetime of work,
as a teamleader at CERN, went into retirement ......to study GR......
Franz apparently didn't need relativity during his 20 years of daily work
at/with an accelerator that was constructed without the need of SR/GR.

Case (b):
in or
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...E4A%40fnal.gov
Physicist Eric Prebys working at Fermilab observes: ..." the military
types were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff",
were a little skeptical about this "relativity stuff", and required that
there be an option to turn off the relativistic corrections
in the GPS system"
Obviously, the GPS system was built and operated without relativity
being considered for its construction........

[Bob]
The bending of light by gravity is considered to be "proof" that Einstein's
theory is correct in many text books. This is despite the fact that many
scientists speculated on this very possibility long before Einstein was even
born and they did it without having to invoke the General Theory of
Relativity.


Case (general):
= Anybody who works in mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does NOT need GR ****"
= Anybody who works in *.edu & for R-grants "does need GR, - No ****"
= Anybody who's in Promo, Sales & Movies "loves GR by the ****load"
= Jews protect GR as their cultural heritage whether "GR is **** or not".

[Bob]
Interesting point. Here's something else I dug up:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html

"......It is not surprising, therefore, that genuine physicists were not
impressed: they tended to agree with Rutherford. After Wilhelm Wien had
tried to impress him with the splendours of relativity, without success, and
exclaimed in despair "No Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!", Rutherford
guffawed and replied "No! they've got too much sense !"[fn. Quoted from the
Rutherford Memorial Lecture to the Physical Society 1954 by P.M.S. Blackett
( Yearbook of the Physical Society ( 1955))] Let us see how sensible they
were."

[Robert]
Does Einstein's theory remain unchallenged, for the most part, simply
because it would be politically incorrect to consider Jews wrong and Whites
right? This doesn't sound like science to me. In fact, it sounds highly
suspect in light of the fact that Einstein's theory (in it's present
incarnation) is a logical contradiction.
Robert


Hence, EL's: "Relativity is nothing but mathematics applied to physics."
appears to hit the button. Or expressed in my own, more colorful world:
"Relativity, like any other theory, is just a ****ing story that attempts
to describe what we see, perceive and measure......after the fact"
Now, since the theoretical physicists, the story tellers, have to make
a living too, I say .. let'em sing...all of them....it's a beautiful
choir......
ahahahaha.........ahahahahanson


[hanson to all respondents]
Thank you guys, for partaking in the choir.
But listen guys, I was NOT knocking relativity, neither SR nor GR.

I raised the issue because of the continuous insinuation & implication
by posters, the teaching industry and the media which promulgate
the impression that SR/GR makes or generates physical objects or
is responsible for their construction or functioning.


1) Neither SR/GR, nor any other theory does cause, generate nor
construct, nor is responsible for the functioning of material objects.
2) Stop telling/talking like SR/GR creates or generates physical
objects or is responsible for their construction or functioning.
3) Start religiously emphasizing that SR/GR are only human mental
concepts, non-material mathematical constructs, stories or tales that
are useful in describing physically material objects/processes/events.

But to many in the community the practice of elevating theory and
its inventors to the status of religious icons and gospel, this unholy
practice provides power and income. This is a natural human trait
and MO, so therefore, I say, let us go back to biz as usual and
...... let'em sing...all of them....it's a beautiful choir......
ahahahaha.........ahahahahanson