"eleaticus" wrote in message . ..

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

"eleaticus" wrote in message
. ..

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...


Just a tiny flicker of hope.

Not well fanned by avoiding the principled questions in the thread.

You never replied to
http://groups.google.com/groups?&thr...t01.boi.hp.com
So you are stupid or you are a coward.
Probably both.

I should follow slime to their slime pool? When we have both the newsgroup
and email before us?

You really aren't up to it :-)
So you are definitely a coward for starters.

Dirk Vdm

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:47:29 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:56:09 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:

[Snip...]

... The interpretation of the POR requires one to be careful
what one means by physical law. For example some have said it
has no content - it is in fact a definition of physical law.
Such is obviously false as it is required for the derivation
of the Lorentz transformations so must have content. Exactly
what counts as physical law must be examined on a case by case
basis. For example suppose an aether did exist and had detectable
consequences. Obviously the laws that govern how objects interact
with the aether would be the same in any frame so exactly why
would it violate the POR? The answer has to do with the symmetry
properties of an inertial frame - an inertial frame is isotropic.
The existence of a detectable aether wind breaks isotropy so we
are not really dealing with an inertial frame. ...

In what observable or measurable sense???

Please see my supposition - 'For example suppose an aether did
exist

OK

... and had detectable consequences.'.

Like the CMBR...

An example would be a positive result on the Trouton-Noble
experiment.

Nope, that's a 'consequence' of a specific non-Lorentz covariant form.
Like a Big Bang without inflation... But, I expect no better logic
from you.

Some people claim that the CBMR provides a way to tell one
inertial frame from another in violation of the POR

What 'measurable' violation???]

The frequency of the CBMR radiation would be different is the
direction of motion ...

and it isn't???

- thus isotropy would be broken.

What isotropy?

But because the CBMR can be removed (screened out) frames do not
have to contain it thus its existence doe not violate the POR

Your argument isn't unique to mediumless processes, thus cannot be used
to argue againt the aether.

- unlike an aether which could not be removed.

Let's see if a SAT-like question will get through to you.

Sound is to air as:

1) water is to steel
2) light is to heat
2) light is to aether
4) wood is to rock

Hint, waves, and the medium that carry them AREN'T synonymous
and the waves can be screen yet the medium remain.

- so what is going on with it? The answer is the CBMR can be
screened out - Yeah, and so can sound by use of a acoutically
damper screen. That doesn't make the air dissapear. What an
absolutely lousy illogicial argument! Just because Tom says it
doesn't improve it validity...

So you are claiming the existence of air is an intrinsic property
of frames attached to the earth? Yea right.

A 'Frame' is an arbitrary coordinate system attached to an
observational perspective. They have no direct connection to
any physicalobect(s).

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...

A 'Frame' is an arbitrary coordinate system attached to an
observational perspective. They have no direct connection to
any physicalobect(s).

Amen. But they are often connected to idiocy.

Paul Stowe

eleaticus

(Titan Point) wrote in message . com...
"eleaticus" wrote in message ...
In various ways matters of frames versus equations have arisen.

A. Consider the distance D=vt equation, about the movement of an automobile
on the street outside your home. What frames are involved? We can say
three: the frame of the observer (you), the street, and the frame of
whatever is moving. Yes, your frame and the auto's is the same. Say that the
D=0=x location is the nearest corner to you.

No they are not. The observer's frame and the auto's frame are
different frames.

There is no frame for "the street", only observational frames.

Should we wish to transform the equation to the viewpoint of the Goodyear
blimp overhead, moving at velocity u with respect to you and the street, are
we required to ignore the fact that the equation is about the auto versus
the street corner and pretend it is about the auto and you?

No. But we are required to establish that all velocities are relative
(thus, the "Principle of Relativity").

There's a big difference. The 'observer' - meaning the stationary frame -
is an imaginary construct in its general usage.

[snip]

...and it goes downhill from there.

No it doesn't, no matter how many times you flush,
occasionally some turds will remain.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
(Titan Point) wrote in message
. com...
...and it goes downhill from there.

No it doesn't, no matter how many times you flush,
occasionally some turds will remain.

To quote myself:

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here? It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

eleaticus

eleaticus:
In various ways matters of frames versus equations have arisen.

Except that none of them are relevant to anything but your need
for a remedial algebra course.

"Bilge" wrote in message
...

What a moron.

What a strangely honest signature block!

Congratulations!

eleaticus

eleaticus:
"Bilge" wrote in message
...

What a moron.

What a strangely honest signature block!

Then you should change it, since you've never been honest before,
and there's no point in starting now.

"eleaticus" wrote in message ...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
(Titan Point) wrote in message
. com...
...and it goes downhill from there.

No it doesn't, no matter how many times you flush,
occasionally some turds will remain.

To quote myself:

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive?

All of this from Elasticus, one of the most negative, ranting idiots
on this NG.

Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here?

Or more importantly "You are wrong"

It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

They are completely relevant to why Relativity is such an important
theory BECAUSE IT PREDICTS PHENOMENA THAT CAN BE TESTED BY EXPERIMENT.

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

The detection of muons
The relativistic stretching of time in particle accelerators.
The behaviour of electrons in synchotrons
The detection of neutrons from distant supernovae

All of the above involve the contraction of space and time dilation
and prove that you are a doofus.

(Titan Point) wrote in message . com...
[snip]

The detection of neutrons from distant supernovae

COOL.

Cite? I have never heard of that!

[snip]