On Apr 26, 10:15Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:
On Apr 26, 10:40�pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Apr 26, 3:54 pm, Mike wrote:

On Apr 26, 7:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
� �http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

� �"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
� � relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
� � outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
� � a fake?"

Einstein was extremely good in understanding the foundational problems
of physics and that enabled him to unite already developed scattered
concepts into a theory by adding a couple postulates of his own.

Both his theories are brilliant but the failure of the academic
establishemnt has been to show how these theories connect to physical
reality. There are reasons this is not done, at the expense of the
theories getting attacked constantly. The reasons fall in the general
area of scientific obscurantism for purposes one can guess.

Most students I remmebr had poroblems vusualizing 3-D geometrical
objects and Einstein asks people to accept 4-D manifolds. Unless the
theories are popularized in a braod sense, they will die in the future
in lieu of some theistic creationist, teleological physics, like a new
scholastic philosophy, which has a lot of support in US by religious
groups.

Relativity has survived four generations of physicists. Try another
asinine argument.

Four generations of physicists have used Einstein's theory as a cash
cow to get money from public revenues. Â*I do not think we are going to
see any change in that practice any time soon.
Robert B. Winn

Robert, I know nothing of welding.

Am I qualified to tell other people how to weld and explain how the
technology has developed, along with all the errors they made along
the way that only I can see?

On Apr 26, 10:12Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:
On Apr 26, 10:39Â*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Apr 26, 9:28 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On Apr 26, 3:19�pm, "Pmb" wrote:

"rbwinn" wrote in message

...
On Apr 26, 4:48?am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
? ?http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

? ?"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
? ? relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
? ? outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
? ? a fake?"

The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,, I love s
Dirk Vdm
Einstein was just a typical scientist, not very good at mathematics..

Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a great
mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's the
very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
since Isaac Newton.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

No, Einstein made all kinds of mathematical errors [...]

Hum - the welder who doesn't understand any mathematics past simple
algebra thinks Einstein made a bunch of errors. Always a good for a
laugh.- Hide quoted text -

It is easier to work simple algebra without making errors than the
kind of things Einstein was trying to do. Â*If simple algebra describes
the same thing, then mathematics shows that the simple algebra is more
likely to be correct.
Robert B. Winn

You can't even grasp why your additions to the Galilean
transformations contradict t' = t, or even what t' = t means. You have
no standing to claims about errors in algebra.

On Apr 26, 1:48*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
* *http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

* *"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
* * relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
* * outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
* * a fake?"

Moortel Moortel are you getting masochistic? Of course Divine Albert
was a fake - the following text clearly shows that - just analyze it
carefully:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Divine Albert: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 28, 4:15*pm, Bryan Olson wrote:
Alen wrote:
[...]
I dispute Minkowski spacetime. Therefore I have a
self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc. *

Actually, Alen, you thought that the theory predicts, in one
case you described, two observers *in the same place* will each
see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
otherwise; 'twas your own error. No big deal getting something
wrong, but to this day there has been no correction on your part.

Thus we see that in your case, Alen, "won't learn" is not
something "orthodox supporters" merely assume. It is what you
yourself demonstrate.

Not at all! In your view, yes, that may well be what I
demonstrate. But, in my view, I demonstrate no such
thing. Minkowski spacetime (not SR) may well say
otherwise than what I say, but that is no imperative to
me that I should 'correct' myself. My alternative to
Minkowski spacetime works perfectly well with the
SR equations, and that is all that is required, as far
as I am concerned. I am under no obligation to satisfy
the requirements of a theory I dispute, and to which
I suggest an alternative. But this stance of mine
appears to be impossible for the orthodox supporters
to grasp. They appear to be incapable of saying 'we
don't agree with your version of SR', but only things
like 'your error', 'your failure to learn', etc., etc.

Alen

On Apr 28, 7:15*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:48*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
* *http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

* *"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
* * relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
* * outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
* * a fake?"

Moortel Moortel are you getting masochistic? Of course Divine Albert
was a fake - the following text clearly shows that - just analyze it
carefully:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Divine Albert: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case."

Pentcho Valev


So why do you think the above statement by Dr. Al shows he was a
fake?

Be explicit.

Also, be aware that the constancu of the speed of light applies in all
globally inertial reference frames.

In the presence of mass-energy, spacetime curves, according to Dr. AL,
of course, and locally, that portion fo spacetime is not a inertial
frame. So the constancy of the speed of light does nto apply in that
case.

" Now [we] YOU might HAVE THOUGHT [think] that as a consequence of
this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of
relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the
case ALTHOUGH MANY CRANKS WILL BELIVE SO"

Mike

On Apr 28, 5:35*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:10*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:





On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Dono wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:06 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
This is a gross abuse of Google rating system. *Has anyone complained
to Google about this stupid-cat-in-chicken-costume joker?

That's you! Hahahahahaha

Well, after I have pointed that out. *My one-star ratings for the
following post drastically reduced from 38 to 2.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/10f71d409fd...

However, the next post picked up 18 one-stars. *Does this stupid-cat-
in-chicken-costume aka Dono work for Google or something? *If not, has
he hacked the Google system?

If you actually cared what people thought of you, you would have
changed your behavior years ago.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a good way to start for you too, I agree.

Mike

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" wrote in message
...
On Apr 28, 4:15 pm, Bryan Olson wrote:
Alen wrote:
[...]
I dispute Minkowski spacetime. Therefore I have a
self-inflicted blindness, won't learn, am unteachable,
a kook, a crackpot, etc., etc.

Actually, Alen, you thought that the theory predicts, in one
case you described, two observers *in the same place* will each
see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
otherwise; 'twas your own error. No big deal getting something
wrong, but to this day there has been no correction on your part.

Thus we see that in your case, Alen, "won't learn" is not
something "orthodox supporters" merely assume. It is what you
yourself demonstrate.

| Not at all! In your view, yes, that may well be what I
| demonstrate. But, in my view, I demonstrate no such
| thing. Minkowski spacetime (not SR) may well say
| otherwise than what I say, but that is no imperative to
| me that I should 'correct' myself. My alternative to
| Minkowski spacetime works perfectly well with the
| SR equations, and that is all that is required, as far
| as I am concerned. I am under no obligation to satisfy
| the requirements of a theory I dispute, and to which
| I suggest an alternative. But this stance of mine
| appears to be impossible for the orthodox supporters
| to grasp. They appear to be incapable of saying 'we
| don't agree with your version of SR', but only things
| like 'your error', 'your failure to learn', etc., etc.

| Alen

Take the stupid kook up on it.
The theory predicts two observers *in the same place* will each
see the other to be younger. Minkowski spacetime and SR say
exactly that.

On Apr 28, 12:10Â*am, Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:14 pm, Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.
And they describe the universe well in contexts where the motion
is uniform and the velocity is small.
All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. �Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.
If clocks at rest in a coordinate system do not measure the time
in that coordinate system, what does?
Time is relative, Bryan. Â*A cesium clock in S' defines one measurement
of time. Â*t'=t defines another measurement of time. Â*The coordinates
of the Galilean transformation equation will not work unless t'=t. Â*n'
is the rate of a clock running slower than t'=t. Â*A clock can be made
to run at any speed. Â*Two clocks running at any speed can be used to
represent t'=t as long as they are running at the same rate.
So no clue then?

The definition of t' is the time dimension in coordinate system S'.
t' = t is an assertion of the theory, not a definition. The Winn
transform simply contradicts the Galilean transform, and unlike both
the Galilean transform and Lorentz transform, the Winn transform
contradicts the principle of relativity.

Well, it is easy to make a statement, more difficult to prove one.

Good that you understand that much. You've posted a lot of novel
science, while any proof or evidence remains to be seen.

Here are the Galilean transformation equations:

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* x'=x-vt
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* y'=y
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* z'=z
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* t'=t

Agreed.

What the equations say is that if S is the frame of reference at rest,
then time on a cesium clock in S has to be used as t'=t.

What a mess.

The equations pertain to events identifiable in space and time, and
to two coordinate systems in which me can specify positions in space
and time. Call the coordinate systems S and S'; for any event, if
(x, y, z, t) are the coordinate of that event in S, then
(x', y', z', t') are, by definition, the coordinates of that same
event in S'.

The equations further assume that the origins of the coordinate
systems coincide. An event at (x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0) in S has
coordinates (x'=0, y'=0, z'=0, t'=0) in S'. Furthermore, the axis
of the two systems must be parallel; and any movement of one
coordinate system with respect to the other must be entirely in
the x direction (same as the x' direction); and such movement must
be uniform, meaning constant velocity.

There is no particular reference to the element cesium in the
Galilean transformation. The element was discovered in 1860, some
218 yeas after Galileo's death. The coordinate system has a time
dimension; a cesium clock is relevant insofar as it measures that
dimension, and no farther.

So there is another cesium clock in S' running at a slower rate, say
scientists.

No, scientists insist on saying things unambiguously, accurately,
and precisely as possible.

They want to call that cesium clock t'.

Mr. Winn has that wrong. Scientists understand t' is, by definition,
the time axis in S'.

No, sorry, if
scientists want to use these correct equations, they will have to call
time on the cesium clock in S' by something other than t'. Â*t' is
already defined to be t'=t. Â*We refuse to do this, say scientists..

The world in Winn's head has diverged so far from the real one -- and
his idea of scientific understanding has gone so wrong, that we can do
nothing better than put a big red X through Winn's ramblings. To learn
what scientists say, listen to scientists.

Â* Â* Well, then, play with your imaginary equations. Â*They actually do
give you a fairly accurate answer. Â*However, to find out what time on
the cesium clock in S' actually says, we can use the Galilean
transformation equations and call the time on the clock in S' by the
variable n'.

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*n'=t(1-v/c)

The Galilean transformation has no "n'", and such is greatly to the
credit of the Galilean transformation.

-Bryan

Look, after ten or twelve times of trying to get a scientist to admit
that two clocks running at different rates cannot be represented by
the equation t'=t, I think that this basic principle has been
emphasized enough. I understand what you are saying. You are a
respected scientist and Party member, and you are not going to say
anything that all other scientists do not say because you might be
criticized if you did. So, why don't you run along and talk to the
other scientists now?
Here is something that you might want to consider. At v=.9c, if t=
1 sec., then the Lorentz equations show that t'=.23 sec, and the
Galilean transformation equations show that time on a cesium clock in
S' would be .1 sec. Notice that I did not say n'. If a cesium clock
in S' shows light to be traveling at 186,000 miles per second, then we
can say that

x=ct
x' = c(time measured by a cesium clock in S')

Consequently, the faster clock shown by the Lorentz equations will
give a larger value for x' at v=.9c than is shown by time measured by
a cesium clock in S'. What do you think that scientists might do if
they have a larger value for x' than mathematics actually shows?
Why, of course, they will use a distance contraction to put x'
where it should be relative to S.
So the distance contraction is not really as mysterious as
scientists have tried to pretend it is. It is just a mistake in
mathematics.
Robert B. Winn

On Apr 28, 2:43Â*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 26, 10:15Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:





On Apr 26, 10:40�pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Apr 26, 3:54 pm, Mike wrote:

On Apr 26, 7:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
� �http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

� �"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
� � relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
� � outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
� � a fake?"

Einstein was extremely good in understanding the foundational problems
of physics and that enabled him to unite already developed scattered
concepts into a theory by adding a couple postulates of his own.

Both his theories are brilliant but the failure of the academic
establishemnt has been to show how these theories connect to physical
reality. There are reasons this is not done, at the expense of the
theories getting attacked constantly. The reasons fall in the general
area of scientific obscurantism for purposes one can guess.

Most students I remmebr had poroblems vusualizing 3-D geometrical
objects and Einstein asks people to accept 4-D manifolds. Unless the
theories are popularized in a braod sense, they will die in the future
in lieu of some theistic creationist, teleological physics, like a new
scholastic philosophy, which has a lot of support in US by religious
groups.

Relativity has survived four generations of physicists. Try another
asinine argument.

Four generations of physicists have used Einstein's theory as a cash
cow to get money from public revenues. Â*I do not think we are going to
see any change in that practice any time soon.
Robert B. Winn

Robert, I know nothing of welding.

Am I qualified to tell other people how to weld and explain how the
technology has developed, along with all the errors they made along
the way that only I can see?- Hide quoted text -

Well, I guess there is only one way to find out. Go apply for a job
as an inspector. They would probably hire you since you have all of
that education.
Robert B. Winn

On Apr 28, 2:44Â*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 26, 10:12Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:





On Apr 26, 10:39Â*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Apr 26, 9:28 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On Apr 26, 3:19�pm, "Pmb" wrote:

"rbwinn" wrote in message

...
On Apr 26, 4:48?am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
? ?http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

? ?"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of
? ? relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the
? ? outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein
? ? a fake?"

The article mentions this newsgroup and a few well
known names.

Anyone any idea about the name of that "giant hulk of
a guy who really put the fear of physical harm into some
of the folks over there"? I'm sure he's present in this
newsgroup...

Enjoy reading,, I love s
Dirk Vdm
Einstein was just a typical scientist, not very good at mathematics.

Nonsense. Einstein was a very good mathematician. He simply wasn't a great
mathematician. However he was certainly a superb physicist. In fact he's the
very model of a first rate physicist. He may even be the best physicist
since Isaac Newton.

Pete- Hide quoted text -

No, Einstein made all kinds of mathematical errors [...]

Hum - the welder who doesn't understand any mathematics past simple
algebra thinks Einstein made a bunch of errors. Always a good for a
laugh.- Hide quoted text -

It is easier to work simple algebra without making errors than the
kind of things Einstein was trying to do. Â*If simple algebra describes
the same thing, then mathematics shows that the simple algebra is more
likely to be correct.
Robert B. Winn

You can't even grasp why your additions to the Galilean
transformations contradict t' = t, or even what t' = t means. You have
no standing to claims about errors in algebra.- Hide quoted text -

t'=t means you cannot call time on a cesium clock in S' by the
variable t' if scientists are right about a cesium clock in S' running
slower than an identical clock in S. You believe that calling time on
a cesium clock in S' by n' is disrespectful to scientists because they
were calling time on a cesium clock in S' "scientific time" and were
using the variable t'.
Robert B. Winn