I haven't verified the algebra of Robert's piece but he eventually gets down
to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why most (if not all) physicists today believe in Special
Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an alternative description
without violating one of the postulates or disregarding a very large
body of experimental evidence. If you truly believe that Special
Relativity simply must be false (for whatever reason), go back and
review the four Postulates, and find a hole in them.

Einstein DID find a hole in the four Postulates, and brought us
General Relativity. He was, in a very real sense, the first fish to
see the water, and to describe it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That was incredibly poor logic on his part, to reach that finale. And to
have his piece referred to me was kind of funny because I have shown time
and again that the predicate to his above is in error:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Identifying the actual topology of space-time can only be done by resorting
to physical observations of phenomena in the real world (i.e. by doing
an experiment). There is a tremendous body of experimental evidence that
shows that the speed of light is independent of the velocities of either
the source or observer (there are also many other, equivalent observations).
This compels us to choose the Lorentz Transformation (Eqns 38-41), and
to identify the arbitrary constant "c" with the speed of light. No other
choice is possible, while satisfying the four Postulates and the
experimental evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Namely, that the belief that anything about light speed relative to anything
has been proved is nonsense. That delusion is based on strawmen, nonsensical
imposition of criteria/concepts on a structure that does not demand them and
functions quite well without them.

Explicit example: Michelson-Morley is demonstrably (and demonstrated most
recently in "B. SR-cult fraud and corruption") as being perfectly compatible
with simple c+v for light speed.

Kennedy-Thorndike suffers the same fate.

Only idiotic and corrupt rejection of simple c+v leads to Robert's illogical
conclusion that one of his four postulates must be rejected to reject SR.
(Yet, I do reject the isotropy of space as a postulate, certainly as a
necessary one; the MMX piece shows an absolute frame wouldn't be detectable
by MMX or KTX.)

I showed that in the recent piece. Show it wrong. NOT: say it is wrong
because you don't like the conclusions.

It is only SR's light speed idiocy that must be rejected.

eleaticus

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...
I haven't verified the algebra of Robert's piece but he eventually gets
down
to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why most (if not all) physicists today believe in Special
Relativity - it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct an alternative description
without violating one of the postulates or disregarding a very large
body of experimental evidence. If you truly believe that Special
Relativity simply must be false (for whatever reason), go back and
review the four Postulates, and find a hole in them.

Einstein DID find a hole in the four Postulates, and brought us
General Relativity. He was, in a very real sense, the first fish to
see the water, and to describe it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That was incredibly poor logic on his part, to reach that finale. And to
have his piece referred to me was kind of funny because I have shown time
and again that the predicate to his above is in error:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Identifying the actual topology of space-time can only be done by
resorting
to physical observations of phenomena in the real world (i.e. by doing
an experiment). There is a tremendous body of experimental evidence that
shows that the speed of light is independent of the velocities of either
the source or observer (there are also many other, equivalent
observations).
This compels us to choose the Lorentz Transformation (Eqns 38-41), and
to identify the arbitrary constant "c" with the speed of light. No other
choice is possible, while satisfying the four Postulates and the
experimental evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Namely, that the belief that anything about light speed relative to
anything
has been proved is nonsense. That delusion is based on strawmen,
nonsensical
imposition of criteria/concepts on a structure that does not demand them
and
functions quite well without them.

This is the typical rant of the crank. The MM experiment did not prove that
an aether did not exist. In fact no experiment we have proves that an
aether does not exist. Theories that specifically accept the existence of
an aether such as LET are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. What
the experiments showed is that since they were unable to detect an aether it
is scientifically permissible to accept the postulate an aether does not
exist, their is no preferred frame, and the postulates detailed by Tom
Roberts are valid as postulates.

Bill


Explicit example: Michelson-Morley is demonstrably (and demonstrated most
recently in "B. SR-cult fraud and corruption") as being perfectly
compatible
with simple c+v for light speed.

Kennedy-Thorndike suffers the same fate.

Only idiotic and corrupt rejection of simple c+v leads to Robert's
illogical
conclusion that one of his four postulates must be rejected to reject SR.
(Yet, I do reject the isotropy of space as a postulate, certainly as a
necessary one; the MMX piece shows an absolute frame wouldn't be
detectable
by MMX or KTX.)

I showed that in the recent piece. Show it wrong. NOT: say it is wrong
because you don't like the conclusions.

It is only SR's light speed idiocy that must be rejected.

eleaticus

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
news

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

Namely, that the belief that anything about light speed relative to
anything
has been proved is nonsense. That delusion is based on strawmen,
nonsensical
imposition of criteria/concepts on a structure that does not demand them
and
functions quite well without them.

This is the typical rant of the crank.

That comment is self-referential and true.

The MM experiment did not prove that
an aether did not exist.

And I said it did just how and where in the material you are ranting about?
You psycho.

In fact no experiment we have proves that an
aether does not exist. Theories that specifically accept the existence of
an aether such as LET are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. What
the experiments showed is that since they were unable to detect an aether
it
is scientifically permissible to accept the postulate an aether does not
exist, their

'there'. Boy, you really are cranked up!

It is the isotrophy postulate on which he bases his segue to LET, as I
recall.

It is not only an unnecessary postulate, but incompatible with the
demonstrated compatibility of c+v with the MMX, which shows that if there
were a preferred frame no MMX or KTX could show it.

And, btw, some presumed 'it is ok' does not mean it is right. If he can't
derive LET without it, the ability of the SR-cult to derive SR is ****
..
is no preferred frame, and the postulates detailed by Tom
Roberts are valid as postulates.

Why not postulate that there are little demons that run around directing
photon traffic? That theory has never been disproved.

Bill

eleaticus
\

"eleaticus" wrote in message . ..
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
news

"eleaticus" wrote in message
...

Namely, that the belief that anything about light speed relative to
anything
has been proved is nonsense. That delusion is based on strawmen,
nonsensical
imposition of criteria/concepts on a structure that does not demand them
and
functions quite well without them.

This is the typical rant of the crank.

That comment is self-referential and true.

The MM experiment did not prove that
an aether did not exist.

And I said it did just how and where in the material you are ranting about?
You psycho.

In fact no experiment we have proves that an
aether does not exist. Theories that specifically accept the existence of
an aether such as LET are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. What
the experiments showed is that since they were unable to detect an aether
it
is scientifically permissible to accept the postulate an aether does not
exist, their

'there'. Boy, you really are cranked up!

It is the isotrophy postulate on which he bases his segue to LET, as I
recall.

It is not only an unnecessary postulate, but incompatible with the
demonstrated compatibility of c+v with the MMX, which shows that if there
were a preferred frame no MMX or KTX could show it.

And, btw, some presumed 'it is ok' does not mean it is right. If he can't
derive LET without it, the ability of the SR-cult to derive SR is ****
.
is no preferred frame, and the postulates detailed by Tom
Roberts are valid as postulates.

Why not postulate that there are little demons that run around directing
photon traffic? That theory has never been disproved.

Bill

eleaticus
\

xxein: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink
it. It seems they prefer the Kool-Aide.

"xxein" wrote in message
om...

xxein: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink
it. It seems they prefer the Kool-Aide.

I'm not sure what your viewpoint was here but I am sure I am not sure about
what I said above. It is the idea of a preferred frame true zero absolute
velocity that the c+v model and MMX show not demonstrable should it exist.

eleaticus

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
news
This is the typical rant of the crank.

You, being the cretin you insist on being, can't do it but I'll give you a
chance:

Give one example to show how I am wrong when I say that every function in
x,y,z is invariant when put in difference form, such as with (x1-x0), under
the galilean transformations. x'=x-ut, y'=y-vt, z'=z-wt.

If you can't - and of course you can't even though you delight in pretending
it is I who am the cretin/moron, not you - then show us the moral courage to
just admit you can't and that all such equations are invariant under those
transformations.

eleaticus

"eleaticus" wrote in message . ..

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
news
This is the typical rant of the crank.

You, being the cretin you insist on being, can't do it but I'll give you a
chance:

Give one example to show how I am wrong

Here's two examples to show what a stupid **** you a
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Crimes.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...torFiasco.html

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

You, being the cretin you insist on being, can't do it but I'll give you a
chance:

Give one example to show how I am wrong when I say that every function in
x,y,z is invariant when put in difference form, such as with (x1-x0), under
the galilean transformations. x'=x-ut, y'=y-vt, z'=z-wt.

If you can't - and of course you can't even though you delight in pretending
it is I who am the cretin/moron, not you - then show us the moral courage to
just admit you can't and that all such equations are invariant under those
transformations.

eleaticus

"eleaticus" wrote in message ...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...

xxein: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink
it. It seems they prefer the Kool-Aide.

I'm not sure what your viewpoint was here but I am sure I am not sure about
what I said above. It is the idea of a preferred frame true zero absolute
velocity that the c+v model and MMX show not demonstrable should it exist.

eleaticus

xxein: That's ok with me. I have almost become resigned that the
universe has to be tricked into revealing what it does. The reasoning
is that the universe is not something that can be torn apart - it is
continuous with itself, no matter how we try to exploit it. Tit for
tat.

LET has more of a true-basic handle on things, but it does not
incorporate well with gravity. GR(-SR) does well with gravity, but in
a fashion that substitutes gross ideals for basic reality. Q's cannot
break from points to broader mixed fields (too cunbersome). These
three majors are simply spotty on the broad spectrum presented to us
by the universe.

As I have dabbled, I have increased my awareness of these issues to
the point of not being afraid to speculate with some confidence.

An ether frame, absolute frame or preferred frame can certainly exist.
It depends on the view-scale. If gravity did not exist, the universe
would not hesitate to expand because it has no apparent outer
boundary. But gravity does exist so that matter can not feel THAT
free to expand. Gravity aside, entropicism is the rule if there are
no bounds.

We only think that we circumscribe scale and do not know with any
certainty that other (separate) universes exist or whether they might
be interacting with us. We also don't know the super-fine structure
of this universe. We don't even know why gravity exists (let alone
how it does what it does).

As GR may suggest, a non-point frame is dynamic within itself and
depends on the distribution matter. But it is a miserable failure
beyond that (seemingly lofty) idea. We have to think beyond a
restricted scale at this point and try to gain a better perspective.

I certainly did not use GR as a model to my thinking, but both
exemplify the same basic structure of the dynamics involved.
Unfortunately, there are three separate mechanisms for gravity that we
should peruse --- not two. GR uses a bent spacetime, and there is the
classic attractiveness. But there is another. It is simply a
propinquity of scale interaction and phase transition.

Protons (or quarks) did not invent themselves out of nothingness - per
se. They are made of the same primordial energy, but it seems that
irregularities can allow pairings and such. So maybe some are brief
and others just happen to pair again with other brief pairings to form
a more stable, longer lasting, form that is more immune to the more
basic fluctuations that formed them in the first place.

Progression continues until these self-lumps of energy happen to form
an "iron" of stability which alows us to measure them as objects of
mass-energy. But this progression also must obey the entropy laws.
As it concentrates energy into its lumps, it not only requires more
energy to maintain, but makes its environment more rarified.

The gross energy field must continually adjust to try to achieve
equilibrium. That may be the genesis of "gravity" because it reforms
position within the fields according to the "drain" localities. It is
a dynamic energy-field that has its expansion abated by the voids
within.

The question of the origin of positive and negative charges is not
beyond my speculation with regard to the above either, but it is still
new for me, although promising. Another time perhaps.

So, in the near-run, LET has to get a a dynamic ether frame, GR(-SR)
has to get more real, and the Q's need to expand up the scale of the
spectrum (plus a little down).

It's sort of like describing a hog. LET doen not recognize the need
for blood flow, GR(-SR) expects the hog to live a math, and Q's cannot
identify that it is a hog.

Scale (properties associated) and spectrum need to be investigated to
more completeness. If all we can do is imagine, let's imagine
something that leads/ties to the broad spectrum of reality instead of
wishfulness.

It is not for the weak mind to contemplate and attempt to understand.
In its completeness, it would describe why she said that in relation
to the BB. I would be happy to settle why a ball falls from a
description of energy in space.

Still, I am open.

Have fun with it.

"xxein" wrote in message
om...
"eleaticus" wrote in message
...
"xxein" wrote in message
om...


xxein: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make
them drink it. It seems they prefer the Kool-Aide.


I'm not sure what your viewpoint was here but I am sure I am
not sure about what I said above. It is the idea of a preferred
frame true zero absolute velocity that the c+v model and MMX show
not demonstrable should it exist.


xxein: That's ok with me. I have almost become resigned that
the universe has to be tricked into revealing what it does. The
reasoning is that the universe is not something that can be torn
apart - it is continuous with itself, no matter how we try to
exploit it. Tit for tat.


Very true!


LET has more of a true-basic handle on things, but it does not
incorporate well with gravity. GR(-SR) does well with gravity,
but in a fashion that substitutes gross ideals for basic reality.
Q's cannot break from points to broader mixed fields (too
cumbersome). These three majors are simply spotty on the broad
spectrum presented to us by the universe.

As I have dabbled, I have increased my awareness of these
issues to the point of not being afraid to speculate with some
confidence.

An ether frame, absolute frame or preferred frame can certainly
exist. It depends on the view-scale. If gravity did not exist,
the universe would not hesitate to expand because it has no
apparent outer boundary. But gravity does exist so that matter
can not feel THAT free to expand. Gravity aside, entropicism is
the rule if there are no bounds.

We only think that we circumscribe scale and do not know with
any certainty that other (separate) universes exist or whether
they might be interacting with us. We also don't know the
super-fine structure of this universe. We don't even know why
gravity exists (let alone how it does what it does).

As GR may suggest, a non-point frame is dynamic within itself
and depends on the distribution matter. But it is a miserable
failure beyond that (seemingly lofty) idea. We have to think
beyond a restricted scale at this point and try to gain a better
perspective.

I certainly did not use GR as a model to my thinking, but both
exemplify the same basic structure of the dynamics involved.
Unfortunately, there are three separate mechanisms for gravity
that we should peruse --- not two. GR uses a bent spacetime, and
there is the classic attractiveness. But there is another. It
is simply a propinquity of scale interaction and phase
transition.

Protons (or quarks) did not invent themselves out of
nothingness - per se. They are made of the same primordial
energy, but it seems that irregularities can allow pairings and
such. So maybe some are brief and others just happen to pair
again with other brief pairings to form a more stable, longer
lasting, form that is more immune to the more basic fluctuations
that formed them in the first place.

Progression continues until these self-lumps of energy happen
to form an "iron" of stability which allows us to measure them as
objects of mass-energy. But this progression also must obey the
entropy laws. As it concentrates energy into its lumps, it not
only requires more energy to maintain, but makes its environment
more rarified.

The gross energy field must continually adjust to try to
achieve equilibrium. That may be the genesis of "gravity"
because it reforms position within the fields according to the
"drain" localities. It is a dynamic energy-field that has its
expansion abated by the voids within.


I love thought experiments!

Gravity. It seems everyone holds to a beginning for our Universe
that incorporated a period when everything was in a state similar
to that of a singularity. Why do the vast majority then ignore
that as if such a state were a one-time thing whose properties
said nothing about forces that must certainly have existed prior
to the creation of our Universe and, as a result, continuously
influence the structure of our Universe as long as it exists?

The BB was not a "normal" explosion. We can't divorce the
continuing entanglement of the elements that came after from the
forces that came first as we do where a normal explosion is
concerned. The very act of expansion is a fight between those
earliest forces, and those forces are at the "end" of expansion
as well as at its beginning, rather like an ouroboros, because
they are all there really is.

We try to place gravity in the same group as the effects it
causes, but I think it's part of the highest order of forces from
which all lower order effects, such as mass and space, arise. We
can't subject it to the same group of laws which govern the lower
order effects because it is, for want of a better way to phrase
it, "external" to them. In other words, gravity is one of the
"makers" of the laws which govern our Universe.

Gravity is part of the light outside the cave that shapes the
shadows on our walls, it is not one of the shadows; it is the
origin of part of the light reflected around the shadows,
therefore we place it in the same group as the shadows. A
mistake. Gravity is not a property of mass, mass is one of its
lower order manifestations. Gravity is a "supraforce".


The question of the origin of positive and negative charges is
not beyond my speculation with regard to the above either, but it
is still new for me, although promising. Another time perhaps.


If there had been only one supraforce, our Universe could never
have come into existence. Only through a "warring" of similar
supraforces could the disturbance that is our Universe be
created. More, those supraforces could not be stationary wrt each
other. Their motion manifests within our Universe as spatial
dimensions and time. Only a small step further is needed to
extrapolate charges. A flow of force in one direction is +, a
flow of force in the opposite direction is -.

As far as magnetism goes, if you picture in your mind's eye the
flow of charges, it's easy to see why likes repel and opposites
enmesh. That reasoning is not so readily visualized on a particle
level, however... unless you picture the flow of charge from the
center of the particle outward and then looping back toward the
center.


So, in the near-run, LET has to get a dynamic ether frame,
GR(-SR) has to get more real, and the Q's need to expand up the
scale of the spectrum (plus a little down).

It's sort of like describing a hog. LET does not recognize the
need for blood flow, GR(-SR) expects the hog to live a math, and
Q's cannot identify that it is a hog.

Scale (properties associated) and spectrum need to be
investigated to more completeness. If all we can do is imagine,
let's imagine something that leads/ties to the broad spectrum of
reality instead of wishfulness.


As for aether, it is my deduction that aether is photons, just as
the ocean is water. Waves are a disturbance of the medium and
made up of the medium, but their motion is through the medium,
which remains relatively stationary.


It is not for the weak mind to contemplate and attempt to
understand. In its completeness, it would describe why she said
that in relation to the BB. I would be happy to settle why a
ball falls from a description of energy in space.

Still, I am open.

Have fun with it.


That was fun. Wonderful collection of thought experiments.

Be well - Pax

..~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._. ~*~.

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my
imagination. Imagination is more important than
knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination
encircles the world. - Albert Einstein

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality - Albert Einstein

I don't believe in mathematics. - Albert Einstein