Still of interest after so many years!

Johnnie In The Billows wrote:

Still of interest after so many years!

How many weeks did you require to sweat out that phrase while
assiduously avoiding knowledge of its foundations?

Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)
Annalen der Physik 4 XLIX 769-822 (1916)

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html
Relativistic effects on orbital clocks

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Feb 9, 4:32*pm, Johnnie In The Billows
wrote:
Still of interest after so many years!

Nor really !,it is now mostly a minor middle class indulgence,an
outrigger of the central empirical doctrine that you can reason
yourself through uncertainties to certainties.In some ways,via
statisics otherwise known as qm,they even promote uncertainties as an
end in itself.

Emprical relativity exists by virtue of social circumstances rather
than anything natural,astronomical,geometrical ect,a condtion
humanity has found itself in rather than a pinnacle of achievement ,a
sort of engineer's tar baby where the more you try to reason it out
the more you become stuck in its principles.Many would not have it any
other way but that line of reasoning shades off into intellectual
perversion and things like that

The faculty which affirms and rejects ideas based on physical
considerations is intutive intelligence,not guesswork as is the habit
of empiricists to think of it that way ,but rather like appreciating
music where it is difficult to hide lack of talent from genuine
talent.As an astronomer who does not rely on the power of
magnification but rather on the power of reasoning,I watched the
descent of structural and timekeeping astronomy as an incredible
experience based on enjoying how men put motions and cycles into
correct perspective descend into the empirical junk which tries to
force the reasoning of men into the celestial arena in the most
indisciplined way.

The guy or indeed the rest of humanity does not need another
relativity tutorial,they may need to discover that behind the vacuous
concerns of contemporary living there are no easy answers,at least for
those who make an effort to explore the natural/celestial
frontiers.Most here have been groomed from an early age to believe
they inherit the realms of structural astronomy via a false
trajectory of Copernicus- Kepler- Newton,the insertion of the last
name and his attachment to the methods and insights of astronomy is
appaling,technically,conceptually and bottom line.

The great insights,not just in natural phenomena , hit you like a ton
of bricks if a person in honest ,courageous and determined enough to
go it alone for a while,there are no tutorials,there are no estabished
facts, connect the dots or convenient step by step axioms/
defintions,there is just the whirwind of intersecting threads which
light up the path of where men have been before.Like the author of Job
declares - Veriter Agite !

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job38.htm#v1

On Feb 9, 10:32*am, Johnnie In The Billows
wrote:
Still of interest after so many years!

But the Relativistic paradigm has not been around nearly as long as
that of Newton or (gasp) Aristotle.

On Feb 10, 1:04*am, "jeckyl" wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...On Feb 9, 4:32 pm, Johnnie In The Billows
wrote:
Still of interest after so many years!
Nor really

[snip]

What a load of philosphical clap-trap

I have watched this forum evolve,or rather disintegrate,from a
colorful spectacle where many people were worth listening to in
contrast to the dull ,one line responses like yours,even though I am
no longer an active participant in this forum it is a little bit
poignant to see the rare response filled with intelligence as the
current agenda is tiptoeing back to Newton's agenda of ad hoc
solutions via dark this and dark that.

The dilemma of the 19th century guys is far more interesting that the
fiction of the early 20th century insofar as the emergence of
relativity is a capitulation to Newton rather than dealing with
matter.The agenda of Newton in applying terrestrial ballistics to
planetary motion is more or less a byword for trying to fit a linear
system into a cyclical system.When the guys in the 19th century tried
to disengage the cyclical part,they found that they could not,trying
to work with radiation on one hand while sticking by Newton's
astronomical conceptions on the other produced a type of conceptual
stalemate.Relativity is merely the act of concealing a can of worms by
manufacturing a bigger can but men are no longer in the habit of going
back to the original works and dealing with the matter there rather
than through relativity.

Btw, a question for others, what happened to Patrick Reany and Old
Man ?

On Feb 9, 5:38*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Johnnie In The Billows wrote:



Still of interest after so many years!

How many weeks did you require to sweat out that phrase while
assiduously avoiding knowledge of its foundations?

How many years did it take you to insert the yucca fully in your anal
orifice?