On Mar 6, 7:18*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:53 pm, wrote:





On Mar 6, 9:19 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"PD" wrote in message

....
On Mar 6, 9:38 am, The Ghost In The Machine

wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

wrote
on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 06:50:41 -0800 (PST)
:

On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:03 pm, wrote:

I suggest that you try for a graceful retreat.

Well, I found a mistake in the boundary condition. As you have
suggested, I will execute a graceful retreat this time. In doing so,
my instinct might still be correct about any high-speed particle
having a discontinuity as its speed goes to the speed of light.

My god your arrogance is astounding. DO THE COMPUTATION.

What math would you have him do? ;-) There is indeed a
discontinuity in the SR energy equation

E = m c^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Going through infinity to become imaginary energy sounds like
a pretty big discontinuity to me....

| There's no going *through* infinity. There is an *approach* to
| infinity. A function that has an infinite asymptote is not
| discontinuous.

y = tan(x) for x = 0 to pi has no discontinuity at pi/2?
Why yes, yes it does.

*Graph it nitwit.

tan pi = .054886...
tan pi/2 = .027422...
tan pi/100 = .0005483...
tan pi/1000 = .00005483...

Dude.

tan(x) = sin(x) / cos(x)

sin(pi/2) = 1
cos(pi/2) = 0

Plot it on a calculator.

How depressing being dumber than Androcles. Luckily I have a very
short memory.

Bruce






****ing idiot!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 3-Mar-2008,
wrote in message :

[...]

It's great to see you back on Usenet, Dr. Carlip! I was afraid
you'd left for good. You're one of the very few posters to the
physics groups all of whose posts I always read thoroughly, top to
bottom.

--
Jim Heckman

wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 7:18 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:53 pm, wrote:





On Mar 6, 9:19 am, "Androcles" wrote:

"PD" wrote in message

...
On Mar 6, 9:38 am, The Ghost In The Machine

wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

wrote
on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 06:50:41 -0800 (PST)
:

On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:03 pm, wrote:

I suggest that you try for a graceful retreat.

Well, I found a mistake in the boundary condition. As you have
suggested, I will execute a graceful retreat this time. In doing
so,
my instinct might still be correct about any high-speed particle
having a discontinuity as its speed goes to the speed of light.

My god your arrogance is astounding. DO THE COMPUTATION.

What math would you have him do? ;-) There is indeed a
discontinuity in the SR energy equation

E = m c^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Going through infinity to become imaginary energy sounds like
a pretty big discontinuity to me....

| There's no going *through* infinity. There is an *approach* to
| infinity. A function that has an infinite asymptote is not
| discontinuous.

y = tan(x) for x = 0 to pi has no discontinuity at pi/2?
Why yes, yes it does.

Graph it nitwit.

tan pi = .054886...
tan pi/2 = .027422...
tan pi/100 = .0005483...
tan pi/1000 = .00005483...

Dude.

tan(x) = sin(x) / cos(x)

sin(pi/2) = 1
cos(pi/2) = 0

Plot it on a calculator.

| How depressing being dumber than Androcles. Luckily I have a very
| short memory.

Vanity-peacocks doesn't know how to press the "radians" button
to plot anything on a calculator.

"Jim Heckman" wrote in message
...
|
| On 3-Mar-2008,
| wrote in message :
|
| [...]
|
| It's great to see you back on Usenet, Dr. Carlip! I was afraid
| you'd left for good. You're one of the very few posters to the
| physics groups all of whose posts I always read thoroughly, top to
| bottom.
|
| --
| Jim Heckman

Does the idiot tell you want you want to hear, heckle-man?
The ugly ******* won't answer MY questions.
See if you can answer, rot:

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
****** Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton


["tj Frazir"]
If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 year.

["CWatters"]
Suppose you apply a small displacement by compressing one end with a
hammer.
Does the shock wave still travel at the speed of light?

[Androcles]
Clearly the extrapolation (increasing rigidity yields increasing speed
of sound) indicates either there is limit to rigidity or there is a limit to
the speed of sound in a material body.
Given that a material body is made of atoms then atoms are
not rigid... but we do not expect them to be anyway, the model of
an atom is that of a nucleus surrounded by a mantle of empty
space and a shell (or shells) of electrons. By compressing the
atom we force the electrons into the nucleus, the charges cancel
and we are left with a nucleus of incompressible neutrons where
the limit to rigidity has been reached; for either the neutron is totally
rigid or the speed of sound in neutrons exceeds the speed of light.

"Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we
have settled what is to be understood by"[1] neutron stars and proven
black holes do not exist, the extrapolation has gone too far.

[1] Einstein's verbal diaorreah to impress neanderthals and gorillas.

On Feb 26, 2:18*am, wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:03*pm, pmb wrote:





On Feb 25, 2:24*pm, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez skrev:

Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:47:04 +0000:

The best model we have for the propagation of light near a massive

no.

object like the sun is GR, in which the curvature of spacetime is the
important aspect in determining the path light follows. And it agrees
with measurements to part-per-million accuracy over an enormous range.

Theories without spacetime curvature also agree with that.

Could you name one of those theories, please?

Personally I know of no such theories. However spacetime curvature is
not neccesary for light deflection in a gravitational field. So long
is there is a gravitational field present, i.e. non-vanishing
connection coefficients, then a particle can be deflected. A uniform g-
field is a perfect example. The spacetime curvature associated with a
uniform gravitational field is zero and yet a beam of light will be
deflected. Geometrically speaking the deflection is described as the
observer corresponding to a frame of reference for which a geodesic
represents a non-straight line in space, i.e. one changes from
Minkowski coordinates to "curvilinear" coordinates. Spacetime
curvature is only neccesary when geodesic deviation is expected.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HiPete

I remember Kip Thorne commenting, in his non-mathematical book on the
history of gravitational physics, that he occasionally liked to use
teleparallel gravity to evaluate gravitational wave phenomena.
Teleparallelism is a GR equivalent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Bruce

Thanks. I've heard of that but have not had the time to learn about
it. Other subjects have taken a higher priority lately. Thanks for
reminding me of it. Do you know much about this subject? How is
Schitz's "Gravity from the ground up?" going? Have you finished
reading it? If so how did you like it?

Best wishes

Pete

In sci.physics.relativity,

wrote
on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:53:22 -0800 (PST)
:
On Mar 6, 9:19*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message

...
On Mar 6, 9:38 am, The Ghost In The Machine





wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

wrote
on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 06:50:41 -0800 (PST)
:

On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:03 pm, wrote:

I suggest that you try for a graceful retreat.

Well, I found a mistake in the boundary condition. As you have
suggested, I will execute a graceful retreat this time. In doing so,
my instinct might still be correct about any high-speed particle
having a discontinuity as its speed goes to the speed of light.

My god your arrogance is astounding. DO THE COMPUTATION.

What math would you have him do? ;-) There is indeed a
discontinuity in the SR energy equation

E = m c^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Going through infinity to become imaginary energy sounds like
a pretty big discontinuity to me....

| There's no going *through* infinity. There is an *approach* to
| infinity. A function that has an infinite asymptote is not
| discontinuous.

y = tan(x) for x = 0 to pi has no discontinuity at pi/2?
Why yes, yes it does.

Graph it nitwit.

tan pi = .054886...
tan pi/2 = .027422...
tan pi/100 = .0005483...
tan pi/1000 = .00005483...

The mathematical convention is to use radians, not degrees,
as Androcles has already pointed out. Pi/2 = 90 degrees.
Pi = 180 degrees.

Most calculators more sophisticated than a "four-banger"
have a radian mode. Also, one can approximate tan pi to
arbitrary precision by using the formulae:

sin(x) = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - x^7/7! ...
cos(x) = 1 - x^2/2! + x^4/4! - x^6/6! ...

(where n! = n.(n-1).(n-2)...(3).(2).(1))

and then dividing tan(x) = sin(x)/cos(x).

In these formulae x is expressed in radians.

The function tan(x) has a singularity at pi/2 + n*pi for any integer n.



****ing idiot!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



--
#191,
fortune: not found

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Feb 26, 9:18*am, wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:03*pm, pmb wrote:





On Feb 25, 2:24*pm, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez skrev:

Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:47:04 +0000:

The best model we have for the propagation of light near a massive

no.

object like the sun is GR, in which the curvature of spacetime is the
important aspect in determining the path light follows. And it agrees
with measurements to part-per-million accuracy over an enormous range.

Theories without spacetime curvature also agree with that.

Could you name one of those theories, please?

Personally I know of no such theories. However spacetime curvature is
not neccesary for light deflection in a gravitational field. So long
is there is a gravitational field present, i.e. non-vanishing
connection coefficients, then a particle can be deflected. A uniform g-
field is a perfect example. The spacetime curvature associated with a
uniform gravitational field is zero and yet a beam of light will be
deflected. Geometrically speaking the deflection is described as the
observer corresponding to a frame of reference for which a geodesic
represents a non-straight line in space, i.e. one changes from
Minkowski coordinates to "curvilinear" coordinates. Spacetime
curvature is only neccesary when geodesic deviation is expected.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Pete

I remember Kip Thorne commenting, in his non-mathematical book on the
history of gravitational physics, that he occasionally liked to use
teleparallel gravity to evaluate gravitational wave phenomena.
Teleparallelism is a GR equivalent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

------------------------
No tensor and no schmensor willhelp you make real advance
as long as your
BASIC PHYSICS ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG!!

*space has no curvature and no schmervature**
space is by definition nothing
and has no properties whatsoever
except hosting matter !!

the curved movement is not a property of space
it is a property ascociated with mass!!??
now the stupidity is rising tothe sky by not noticing that
if there is no mass there is no curvature
si idiots
just get tothe real thing:
becuse as you can see (if there is soemthing behind your eyes)
that is is mass the main hero!
mass is the cause of curved movement
the fact that is confusiong aprrots is
Newtons first law of movement
but Newton lived hundreds of year ago
and he could not immagine that ther are some exceptions
to his law in the macrocosm world
(just relember what old cattotold you
EACH PHYSICS FORMULASHAS ITS LIMITSOF VALIDATION
somethmes even physics principles has their limits of
exixtance !!)
now
in microcosm there is natural curved movement
NATURAL MEANS IT DOES IT NOT BECAUSE SOMETHING IS COMPELLING IT TO DO
IT
BUT BECAUSE
THAT IS HOW 'GOD CREATED IT ' )

a second stupidity came up because
of trhe sweeping 'law'
that
'no mass can reach c ' end of stupid quote ')

**the photon mass can reach c **!!
it is an exception cace
and has the fools of those times recognized it
the whole stiry of curved space time whould not had born at all
and every thing could be ways simpler !!

light cuves nest tothe sun becuase
*light has mass*
if it is two times more curved than EXPECTED'
THAN JUST CHANGE YOU '**EXPECTED*
AND QUITE AND PEICE and some salvation
to physics
you see guys
we have no time to waist on nonsense physics
there is alot ahaed of us
like solving the energy crisis
global worming etc etc etc
and last but not least:
NO MASS -- NO REAL PHYSICS !.(said old Catto....... )

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------------

On Mar 6, 6:42*pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 6, 9:38*am, The Ghost In The Machine





wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

*wrote
on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 06:50:41 -0800 (PST)
:

On Mar 5, 9:55 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:03 pm, wrote:

I suggest that you try for a graceful retreat.

Well, I found a mistake in the boundary condition. *As you have
suggested, I will execute a graceful retreat this time. *In doing so,
my instinct might still be correct about any high-speed particle
having a discontinuity as its speed goes to the speed of light.

My god your arrogance is astounding. DO THE COMPUTATION.

What math would you have him do? *;-) *There is indeed a
discontinuity in the SR energy equation

E = m c^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Going through infinity to become imaginary energy sounds like
a pretty big discontinuity to me....

There's no going *through* infinity. There is an *approach* to
infinity. A function that has an infinite asymptote is not
discontinuous.





--
#191,
/dev/signatu Not a text file

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-------------
the parrot is doing some advance .....
(very slowly may be too slowly but surely
just keep going dont saty frozen still...)
Y.Porat
----------------------

Y.P
------------

On Mar 6, 9:02*pm, pmb wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:18*am, wrote:





On Feb 25, 10:03*pm, pmb wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:24*pm, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez skrev:

Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:47:04 +0000:

The best model we have for the propagation of light near a massive

no.

object like the sun is GR, in which the curvature of spacetime is the
important aspect in determining the path light follows. And it agrees
with measurements to part-per-million accuracy over an enormous range.

Theories without spacetime curvature also agree with that.

Could you name one of those theories, please?

Personally I know of no such theories. However spacetime curvature is
not neccesary for light deflection in a gravitational field. So long
is there is a gravitational field present, i.e. non-vanishing
connection coefficients, then a particle can be deflected. A uniform g-
field is a perfect example. The spacetime curvature associated with a
uniform gravitational field is zero and yet a beam of light will be
deflected. Geometrically speaking the deflection is described as the
observer corresponding to a frame of reference for which a geodesic
represents a non-straight line in space, i.e. one changes from
Minkowski coordinates to "curvilinear" coordinates. Spacetime
curvature is only neccesary when geodesic deviation is expected.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HiPete

I remember Kip Thorne commenting, in his non-mathematical book on the
history of gravitational physics, that he occasionally liked to use
teleparallel gravity to evaluate gravitational wave phenomena.
Teleparallelism is a GR equivalent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Bruce

Thanks. I've heard of that but have not had the time to learn about
it. Other subjects have taken a higher priority lately. Thanks for
reminding me of it. Do you know much about this subject? How is
Schitz's "Gravity from the ground up?" going? Have you finished
reading it? If so how did you like it?

Best wishes

Hi Pete

The limit of my GR knowledge is founded in the metric equations which
I learned to use when I worked through Edwin's book. I havn't finished
'Gravity from the ground up' because I've temporarily lost the drive
to further my knowledge of gravitational physics. Hopefully I'll get
it back. This thread begins with the pronouncement to 'forget about
curved spacetime' because the path of light, in a gravitational field,
is a function of 'light has mass'. Apparently the originator of the
thread has a problem understanding the purpose of scientific
theoretical models. Which is to accurately make predictios wrt natural
phenomena that can be empirically confirmed. What's important is
accuracy within a domain of applicability and usefulness for doing
scientific analysis. I think that jives with what Thorne was saying
when he sometimes prefers to use the teleparalel equivalent to GR for
analyzing gravitational wave phenomena. That's how I see it.

Best wishes

Bruce



Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 9:02 pm, pmb wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:18 am, wrote:





On Feb 25, 10:03 pm, pmb wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:24 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"

wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez skrev:

Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:47:04 +0000:

The best model we have for the propagation of light near a
massive

no.

object like the sun is GR, in which the curvature of spacetime is
the
important aspect in determining the path light follows. And it
agrees
with measurements to part-per-million accuracy over an enormous
range.

Theories without spacetime curvature also agree with that.

Could you name one of those theories, please?

Personally I know of no such theories. However spacetime curvature is
not neccesary for light deflection in a gravitational field. So long
is there is a gravitational field present, i.e. non-vanishing
connection coefficients, then a particle can be deflected. A uniform
g-
field is a perfect example. The spacetime curvature associated with a
uniform gravitational field is zero and yet a beam of light will be
deflected. Geometrically speaking the deflection is described as the
observer corresponding to a frame of reference for which a geodesic
represents a non-straight line in space, i.e. one changes from
Minkowski coordinates to "curvilinear" coordinates. Spacetime
curvature is only neccesary when geodesic deviation is expected.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HiPete

I remember Kip Thorne commenting, in his non-mathematical book on the
history of gravitational physics, that he occasionally liked to use
teleparallel gravity to evaluate gravitational wave phenomena.
Teleparallelism is a GR equivalent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Bruce

Thanks. I've heard of that but have not had the time to learn about
it. Other subjects have taken a higher priority lately. Thanks for
reminding me of it. Do you know much about this subject? How is
Schitz's "Gravity from the ground up?" going? Have you finished
reading it? If so how did you like it?

Best wishes

| Hi Pete

| The limit of my GR knowledge is founded in the metric equations which
| I learned to use when I worked through Edwin's book.

The limit of your knowledge is learning how to push the "radians" button
on your hand "help" calculator, ****head.