War - Page 3

**Androcles**

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:37:22 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
| | |
| | | Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it
and
| | | see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
| | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
| | |
| | | http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
| | |
| | | I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around
here
| | | in my computer system somewhere.
| |
| | How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
| | You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical computations
| done in
| | various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
| | "Genesis".
| |
| | You are correct in being skeptical.
|
|
| I know that. No physicist should be without skepticism.
|
|
| That is the problem of us SRians
| | here; we've had very little actual data.
|
| Yes you have, you don't know how to read it.
|
| Actually, we have very little data *proving* SR. (There's a fair
| amount substantiating it, of course. But that's not proof,
| any more than mud on the rug, a gray light, certain noises,
| and an order prove an elephant in the bedroom. All that
| can be done with a scoop, some poop, a wire loop in a bulb,
| and a speaker system. Of course if one bumps *into* the
| elephant, that's a different story.)
|
| You are only interested in something that will prove what you
| believe and ignore the wealth of data that disproves it.
| It is hardly surprising you cannot find what you seek, it desn't
exist.
|
| | Presumably, someone has
| | raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example -- but
| | I've yet to see it.
| |
| | This will have to do.
|
| Then you are stuck in a hole.
|
| As has been pointed out by others, clocks operating at different
rates
| to each other when driving the wheels of a car axle, will turn the
drive
| shaft to the engine through the differential. That's free energy,
you
| have violated a fundamental law.
|
| An interesting idea. Of course, anyone daft enough to try to take
| advantage of this "free energy" will discover that the amount thereof
| is ridiculously small.

Use clocks as big as wind-powered generators then.

http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_i...generation.pdf
(photo)

The difference in time at the top of the tower and the bottom can easily
be tapped
with a shaft and a differential you can pick up in a junk yard cheap.
Lets see just how daft GR really is.

|
| SR is riddled with such paradoxical results, all of which can be
traced
| to Einstein's definition
| [quote]
| 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.
|
| Except that it doesn't. This is why.

Of course it doesn't. It was Einstein that said it though, not me.

|
| Assume the planet surface is to your left.
|
| E | S
| a | p
| r A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B a
| t | c
| h | e
|
| Now remember that we're talking GR-curved spacetime here.
| A bounces to B to A. That takes a certain amount of
| A-seconds. B bounces to A to B. That takes a certain
| amount of *B*-seconds. These are not equal; these cannot
| be equal.

So take it up with a relativist, not me, they are the ones using gamma
and the cuckoo transforms. I'm just explaining how to derive them.

|
| One can, of course, attempt to compensate by some sort of
| transformation, but both A and B are forever locked within
| their own respective coordinate-spaces. B cannot measure
| A-seconds; it can only calculate them; similarly for vice
| versa.
|
See this:
| [end quote]

You stepped into the middle of Einstein's words.
Take it up with him.

| Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| which is not a postulate but an assertion, from which the ½ in
|
| ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
|
| is found and the cuckoo transforms are derived.
| There is the bug in SR, and you'll have paradox after paradox
forever
| until you stop believing in nonsense.
|
| Whatever odd results you find from physical experiments, investigate
| them; do not lay them at the door of special relativity, it is pure
| nonsense disguised as physics by a huckster.
|
| Androcles
|
|
| A hucksterism that is still with us after more than a century.
|
Yep. Ptolemy's geocentricism lasted for 14 centuries.
We've only got 13 more to go with SR, unless Copernicus is
reborn. That's me, I'm the reincarnation of Copernicus.
Androcles.

**The Ghost In The Machine**

In sci.physics, Androcles

wrote
on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:45:55 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:37:22 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| |
| | | http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
| | |
| | | Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at it
and
| | | see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done in
| | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
| | |
| | | http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
| | |
| | | I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around
here
| | | in my computer system somewhere.
| |
| | How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
| | You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical computations
| done in
| | various places -- the logical start point being someplace like
| | "Genesis".
| |
| | You are correct in being skeptical.
|
|
| I know that. No physicist should be without skepticism.
|
|
| That is the problem of us SRians
| | here; we've had very little actual data.
|
| Yes you have, you don't know how to read it.
|
| Actually, we have very little data *proving* SR. (There's a fair
| amount substantiating it, of course. But that's not proof,
| any more than mud on the rug, a gray light, certain noises,
| and an order prove an elephant in the bedroom. All that
| can be done with a scoop, some poop, a wire loop in a bulb,
| and a speaker system. Of course if one bumps *into* the
| elephant, that's a different story.)
|
| You are only interested in something that will prove what you
| believe and ignore the wealth of data that disproves it.
| It is hardly surprising you cannot find what you seek, it desn't
exist.
|
| | Presumably, someone has
| | raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example -- but
| | I've yet to see it.
| |
| | This will have to do.
|
| Then you are stuck in a hole.
|
| As has been pointed out by others, clocks operating at different
rates
| to each other when driving the wheels of a car axle, will turn the
drive
| shaft to the engine through the differential. That's free energy,
you
| have violated a fundamental law.
|
| An interesting idea. Of course, anyone daft enough to try to take
| advantage of this "free energy" will discover that the amount thereof
| is ridiculously small.

Use clocks as big as wind-powered generators then.

http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_i...generation.pdf
(photo)

The difference in time at the top of the tower and the bottom can easily
be tapped
with a shaft and a differential you can pick up in a junk yard cheap.
Lets see just how daft GR really is.

|
| SR is riddled with such paradoxical results, all of which can be
traced
| to Einstein's definition
| [quote]
| 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.
|
| Except that it doesn't. This is why.

Of course it doesn't. It was Einstein that said it though, not me.

It cannot, in GR.

|
| Assume the planet surface is to your left.
|
| E | S
| a | p
| r A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B a
| t | c
| h | e
|
| Now remember that we're talking GR-curved spacetime here.
| A bounces to B to A. That takes a certain amount of
| A-seconds. B bounces to A to B. That takes a certain
| amount of *B*-seconds. These are not equal; these cannot
| be equal.

So take it up with a relativist, not me, they are the ones using gamma
and the cuckoo transforms. I'm just explaining how to derive them.

I *am* an SRian, nitwit. I merely point out that the "c is constant"
issue must be carefully applied. One can illustrate it as stating
that delta x/ delta t != c, but dx/dt = c.

|
| One can, of course, attempt to compensate by some sort of
| transformation, but both A and B are forever locked within
| their own respective coordinate-spaces. B cannot measure
| A-seconds; it can only calculate them; similarly for vice
| versa.
|
See this:
| [end quote]

You stepped into the middle of Einstein's words.
Take it up with him.

I don't do seances. Did you have a competing theory handy?

| Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| which is not a postulate but an assertion, from which the ½ in
|
| ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
|
| is found and the cuckoo transforms are derived.
| There is the bug in SR, and you'll have paradox after paradox
forever
| until you stop believing in nonsense.
|
| Whatever odd results you find from physical experiments, investigate
| them; do not lay them at the door of special relativity, it is pure
| nonsense disguised as physics by a huckster.
|
| Androcles
|
|
| A hucksterism that is still with us after more than a century.
|
Yep. Ptolemy's geocentricism lasted for 14 centuries.
We've only got 13 more to go with SR, unless Copernicus is
reborn. That's me, I'm the reincarnation of Copernicus.
Androcles.

Ah, of course. This explains why SR is universally accepted, then.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

**Androcles**

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:45:55 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:37:22 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| | | In sci.physics, Androcles
| | |
| | | wrote
| | | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
| | | :
| | |
| | | "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
| in
| | | message ...
| | |
| | | | http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
| | | |
| | | | Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at
it
| and
| | | | see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done
in
| | | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace
like
| | | |
| | | | http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
| | | |
| | | | I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around
| here
| | | | in my computer system somewhere.
| | |
| | | How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
| | | You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical
computations
| | done in
| | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace
like
| | | "Genesis".
| | |
| | | You are correct in being skeptical.
| |
| |
| | I know that. No physicist should be without skepticism.
| |
| |
| | That is the problem of us SRians
| | | here; we've had very little actual data.
| |
| | Yes you have, you don't know how to read it.
| |
| | Actually, we have very little data *proving* SR. (There's a fair
| | amount substantiating it, of course. But that's not proof,
| | any more than mud on the rug, a gray light, certain noises,
| | and an order prove an elephant in the bedroom. All that
| | can be done with a scoop, some poop, a wire loop in a bulb,
| | and a speaker system. Of course if one bumps *into* the
| | elephant, that's a different story.)
| |
| | You are only interested in something that will prove what you
| | believe and ignore the wealth of data that disproves it.
| | It is hardly surprising you cannot find what you seek, it desn't
| exist.
| |
| | | Presumably, someone has
| | | raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example --
but
| | | I've yet to see it.
| | |
| | | This will have to do.
| |
| | Then you are stuck in a hole.
| |
| | As has been pointed out by others, clocks operating at different
| rates
| | to each other when driving the wheels of a car axle, will turn
the
| drive
| | shaft to the engine through the differential. That's free
energy,
| you
| | have violated a fundamental law.
| |
| | An interesting idea. Of course, anyone daft enough to try to take
| | advantage of this "free energy" will discover that the amount
thereof
| | is ridiculously small.
|
| Use clocks as big as wind-powered generators then.
|
|
http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_i...generation.pdf
| (photo)
|
| The difference in time at the top of the tower and the bottom can
easily
| be tapped
| with a shaft and a differential you can pick up in a junk yard
cheap.
| Lets see just how daft GR really is.
|
|
|
|
| |
| | SR is riddled with such paradoxical results, all of which can be
| traced
| | to Einstein's definition
| | [quote]
| | 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.
| |
| | Except that it doesn't. This is why.
|
| Of course it doesn't. It was Einstein that said it though, not me.
|
| It cannot, in GR.

I've seen that silly gamma in a GR tensor. Replace it with 1.

|
| |
| | Assume the planet surface is to your left.
| |
| | E |
S
| | a |
p
| | r A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B
a
| | t |
c
| | h |
e
| |
| | Now remember that we're talking GR-curved spacetime here.
| | A bounces to B to A. That takes a certain amount of
| | A-seconds. B bounces to A to B. That takes a certain
| | amount of *B*-seconds. These are not equal; these cannot
| | be equal.
|
| So take it up with a relativist, not me, they are the ones using
gamma
| and the cuckoo transforms. I'm just explaining how to derive them.
|
| I *am* an SRian, nitwit.

So what are disproving Einstein for then, dumbcluck? A fat lot you
know about your own religion. Like so many others, you think the
cuckoo transforms were a gift from your tin god and have no idea
how to derive them.

| I merely point out that the "c is constant"
| issue must be carefully applied. One can illustrate it as stating
| that delta x/ delta t != c, but dx/dt = c.

So you don't understand differentiation either. That doesn't
surprise me.

|
| |
| | One can, of course, attempt to compensate by some sort of
| | transformation, but both A and B are forever locked within
| | their own respective coordinate-spaces. B cannot measure
| | A-seconds; it can only calculate them; similarly for vice
| | versa.
| |
| See this:
| | [end quote]
|
| You stepped into the middle of Einstein's words.
| Take it up with him.
|
| I don't do seances.

Yes you do, you are a ghost and you pulled the cuckoo
transformations out of ectoplasm;
and you can't read a whole paragraph without butting in.

Did you have a competing theory handy?

LOL! Sure I do, but you won't accept it, Simplicio.
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html

|
| | Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| | which is not a postulate but an assertion, from which the ½ in
| |
| | ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| |
| | is found and the cuckoo transforms are derived.
| | There is the bug in SR, and you'll have paradox after paradox
| forever
| | until you stop believing in nonsense.
| |
| | Whatever odd results you find from physical experiments,
investigate
| | them; do not lay them at the door of special relativity, it is
pure
| | nonsense disguised as physics by a huckster.
| |
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | A hucksterism that is still with us after more than a century.
| |
| Yep. Ptolemy's geocentricism lasted for 14 centuries.
| We've only got 13 more to go with SR, unless Copernicus is
| reborn. That's me, I'm the reincarnation of Copernicus.
| Androcles.
|
| Ah, of course. This explains why SR is universally accepted, then.

It isn't accepted by me, therefore it isn't universally accepted.
We don't get to vote Nature out of office to let Einstein run things.
She's a dictator whether you like it or not.

Androcles

**The Ghost In The Machine**

In sci.physics, Androcles

wrote
on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:01:39 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:45:55 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:37:22 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| | | In sci.physics, Androcles
| | |
| | | wrote
| | | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
| | | :
| | |
| | | "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
| in
| | | message ...
| | |
| | | | http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
| | | |
| | | | Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at
it
| and
| | | | see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done
in
| | | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace
like
| | | |
| | | | http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
| | | |
| | | | I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around
| here
| | | | in my computer system somewhere.
| | |
| | | How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
| | | You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical
computations
| | done in
| | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace
like
| | | "Genesis".
| | |
| | | You are correct in being skeptical.
| |
| |
| | I know that. No physicist should be without skepticism.
| |
| |
| | That is the problem of us SRians
| | | here; we've had very little actual data.
| |
| | Yes you have, you don't know how to read it.
| |
| | Actually, we have very little data *proving* SR. (There's a fair
| | amount substantiating it, of course. But that's not proof,
| | any more than mud on the rug, a gray light, certain noises,
| | and an order prove an elephant in the bedroom. All that
| | can be done with a scoop, some poop, a wire loop in a bulb,
| | and a speaker system. Of course if one bumps *into* the
| | elephant, that's a different story.)
| |
| | You are only interested in something that will prove what you
| | believe and ignore the wealth of data that disproves it.
| | It is hardly surprising you cannot find what you seek, it desn't
| exist.
| |
| | | Presumably, someone has
| | | raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example --
but
| | | I've yet to see it.
| | |
| | | This will have to do.
| |
| | Then you are stuck in a hole.
| |
| | As has been pointed out by others, clocks operating at different
| rates
| | to each other when driving the wheels of a car axle, will turn
the
| drive
| | shaft to the engine through the differential. That's free
energy,
| you
| | have violated a fundamental law.
| |
| | An interesting idea. Of course, anyone daft enough to try to take
| | advantage of this "free energy" will discover that the amount
thereof
| | is ridiculously small.
|
| Use clocks as big as wind-powered generators then.
|
|
http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_i...generation.pdf
| (photo)
|
| The difference in time at the top of the tower and the bottom can
easily
| be tapped
| with a shaft and a differential you can pick up in a junk yard
cheap.
| Lets see just how daft GR really is.
|
|
|
|
| |
| | SR is riddled with such paradoxical results, all of which can be
| traced
| | to Einstein's definition
| | [quote]
| | 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.
| |
| | Except that it doesn't. This is why.
|
| Of course it doesn't. It was Einstein that said it though, not me.
|
| It cannot, in GR.

I've seen that silly gamma in a GR tensor. Replace it with 1.

|
| |
| | Assume the planet surface is to your left.
| |
| | E |
S
| | a |
p
| | r A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B
a
| | t |
c
| | h |
e
| |
| | Now remember that we're talking GR-curved spacetime here.
| | A bounces to B to A. That takes a certain amount of
| | A-seconds. B bounces to A to B. That takes a certain
| | amount of *B*-seconds. These are not equal; these cannot
| | be equal.
|
| So take it up with a relativist, not me, they are the ones using
gamma
| and the cuckoo transforms. I'm just explaining how to derive them.
|
| I *am* an SRian, nitwit.

So what are disproving Einstein for then, dumbcluck? A fat lot you
know about your own religion. Like so many others, you think the
cuckoo transforms were a gift from your tin god and have no idea
how to derive them.

Oh, I'm supposed to follow a religion here?

Are you the chief priest thereof?

| I merely point out that the "c is constant"
| issue must be carefully applied. One can illustrate it as stating
| that delta x/ delta t != c, but dx/dt = c.

So you don't understand differentiation either. That doesn't
surprise me.

And I suppose you do, eh? What does the word "Putnam" mean to you?

|
| |
| | One can, of course, attempt to compensate by some sort of
| | transformation, but both A and B are forever locked within
| | their own respective coordinate-spaces. B cannot measure
| | A-seconds; it can only calculate them; similarly for vice
| | versa.
| |
| See this:
| | [end quote]
|
| You stepped into the middle of Einstein's words.
| Take it up with him.
|
| I don't do seances.

Yes you do, you are a ghost and you pulled the cuckoo
transformations out of ectoplasm;
and you can't read a whole paragraph without butting in.

Ah, so you're the Keeper of the Sacred Grammar too, eh?

Did you have a competing theory handy?

LOL! Sure I do, but you won't accept it, Simplicio.
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html

OK.

Now here's some experiments for you. Some of these are of the gedanken
type; however, others are not.

[1] (a) A peace officer with a radar gun unit sits in his traditional
spot by a billboard. A car speeds by at 30 m/s (67 mph).
The officer "beams" the passing car. What is the ratio of
outgoing to incoming frequency? (Neglect atmospheric artifacts.)

(b) A satellite whizzes by at 6 km/s. Estimate the frequency
shift as it passes by an observation station.

(c) A particle beam experiment has protons moving at .99c
hitting a beam of light. Estimate the frequency shift
of the returning photons.

[2] Why does the LHC spec a beam frequency that is consistent with
lightspeed, but has an energy of far more than mc^2 per particle?
(m_p = 1.67262171 ± 0.00000029 * 10^-27 kg;
m_p * c^2 = .938272028 GeV, however, the specs suggest that
the LHC is capable of 14 TeV).

Note: circumference 26659 m,
beam frequency (revolution frequency) is 11.2455 kHz.
http://edms.cern.ch/cedar/plsql/navi...&expand_open=Y

[3] Why did Hafele and Keating show a result consistent with their
computations?

[4] Why did Michelson-Morley fail? (This one's easy. See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...d-trip%20tests
for some reasults.)

[5] Assume that a lightbeam travels at velocity c relative
to some rigid universe-wide absolute luminiferous
aether, and that this aether does not otherwise
interact with matter. If the Earth is moving
undetectably through the luminiferous aether, and
a TWLS runs continuously at 45 degrees latitude for
over a year, what absolute measurement variations would
a scientist expect to see, assuming c = 3 * 10^8 m/s?
(There are three sources of variation: Earth rotation,
Earth revolution, Sun revolution around galactic core.
Assume Earth is a perfect sphere of radius
6.378 * 10^6 m, Earthspeed around Sun is 10^-4 c, and
Sunspeed around the Galactic Core is 10^-3c. Assume
further that the Core component does not measurably
change over the course of a year; this is relatively
safe since the revolution period is estimated to be
millions of years.)

[6] A muon decays in about 2.2 microseconds. The atmosphere is
estimated to be 60-100 km in height. The primary source of
Earth-detected muons is assumed to be something hitting the
atmosphere; one sees an event roughly every 30 seconds,
in a 0.1 m^2 detector sitting at sea level or thereabouts.

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~physi....the.month/27/

Each event generates a total of 1 MeV of lightwaves
(this is probably measurable with more sophisticated
equipment; a single photon of 500nm light is
estimated to be 2.48 eV); that detector therefore
gets 10^-13 W/m^2. What is the estimated nighttime
brightness caused solely by muon decay high in the
Earth's atmosphere? Note that Venus "invenusation"
is about 10^-6 W/m^2.

One could probably do this event in one's back yard,
swimming pool, or hot water heater, if one can get the
photomultipliers. (The usual disclaimers about modifications
apply, of course. A pity I didn't think of this before
we moved out of my parent's place with swimming pool. :-)
But that was a long time back. However, an inflatable
child's pool will probably work just as well, if it's
deep enough; the main problem is the photodetectors
and keeping the electronics dry. One could probably even
use the bathtub, but only until someone wants to take
a bath...)

[7] Explain the supernova "neutrino leader pulse". This is a
pulse that hits us about 3 hours prior to the initial onset
of light, and is picked up by such detectors as Superkamiokande.
Note that this ties together several disciplines.

|
| | Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| | which is not a postulate but an assertion, from which the ½ in
| |
| | ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| |
| | is found and the cuckoo transforms are derived.
| | There is the bug in SR, and you'll have paradox after paradox
| forever
| | until you stop believing in nonsense.
| |
| | Whatever odd results you find from physical experiments,
investigate
| | them; do not lay them at the door of special relativity, it is
pure
| | nonsense disguised as physics by a huckster.
| |
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | A hucksterism that is still with us after more than a century.
| |
| Yep. Ptolemy's geocentricism lasted for 14 centuries.
| We've only got 13 more to go with SR, unless Copernicus is
| reborn. That's me, I'm the reincarnation of Copernicus.
| Androcles.
|
| Ah, of course. This explains why SR is universally accepted, then.

It isn't accepted by me, therefore it isn't universally accepted.
We don't get to vote Nature out of office to let Einstein run things.
She's a dictator whether you like it or not.

Your theory has the same problem, of course.

Androcles

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

**Arthur Dent**

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Androcles

wrote
on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:01:39 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:45:55 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:37:22 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| | | In sci.physics, Androcles
| | |
| | | wrote
| | | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
| | | :
| | |
| | | "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
| in
| | | message ...
| | |
| | | | http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
| | | |
| | | | Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at
it
| and
| | | | see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done
in
| | | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace
like
| | | |
| | | | http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
| | | |
| | | | I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around
| here
| | | | in my computer system somewhere.
| | |
| | | How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
| | | You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical
computations
| | done in
| | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace
like
| | | "Genesis".
| | |
| | | You are correct in being skeptical.
| |
| |
| | I know that. No physicist should be without skepticism.
| |
| |
| | That is the problem of us SRians
| | | here; we've had very little actual data.
| |
| | Yes you have, you don't know how to read it.
| |
| | Actually, we have very little data *proving* SR. (There's a fair
| | amount substantiating it, of course. But that's not proof,
| | any more than mud on the rug, a gray light, certain noises,
| | and an order prove an elephant in the bedroom. All that
| | can be done with a scoop, some poop, a wire loop in a bulb,
| | and a speaker system. Of course if one bumps *into* the
| | elephant, that's a different story.)
| |
| | You are only interested in something that will prove what you
| | believe and ignore the wealth of data that disproves it.
| | It is hardly surprising you cannot find what you seek, it desn't
| exist.
| |
| | | Presumably, someone has
| | | raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example --
but
| | | I've yet to see it.
| | |
| | | This will have to do.
| |
| | Then you are stuck in a hole.
| |
| | As has been pointed out by others, clocks operating at different
| rates
| | to each other when driving the wheels of a car axle, will turn
the
| drive
| | shaft to the engine through the differential. That's free
energy,
| you
| | have violated a fundamental law.
| |
| | An interesting idea. Of course, anyone daft enough to try to take
| | advantage of this "free energy" will discover that the amount
thereof
| | is ridiculously small.
|
| Use clocks as big as wind-powered generators then.
|
|
http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_i...generation.pdf
| (photo)
|
| The difference in time at the top of the tower and the bottom can
easily
| be tapped
| with a shaft and a differential you can pick up in a junk yard
cheap.
| Lets see just how daft GR really is.
|
|
|
|
| |
| | SR is riddled with such paradoxical results, all of which can be
| traced
| | to Einstein's definition
| | [quote]
| | 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.
| |
| | Except that it doesn't. This is why.
|
| Of course it doesn't. It was Einstein that said it though, not me.
|
| It cannot, in GR.

I've seen that silly gamma in a GR tensor. Replace it with 1.

|
| |
| | Assume the planet surface is to your left.
| |
| | E |
S
| | a |
p
| | r A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B
a
| | t |
c
| | h |
e
| |
| | Now remember that we're talking GR-curved spacetime here.
| | A bounces to B to A. That takes a certain amount of
| | A-seconds. B bounces to A to B. That takes a certain
| | amount of *B*-seconds. These are not equal; these cannot
| | be equal.
|
| So take it up with a relativist, not me, they are the ones using
gamma
| and the cuckoo transforms. I'm just explaining how to derive them.
|
| I *am* an SRian, nitwit.

So what are disproving Einstein for then, dumbcluck? A fat lot you
know about your own religion. Like so many others, you think the
cuckoo transforms were a gift from your tin god and have no idea
how to derive them.

Oh, I'm supposed to follow a religion here?

Excuse my butting in, but didn't you say above "I am an SRian nitwit"?
I would imagine Androcles thinks of your belief as a religion.

Are you the chief priest thereof?

| I merely point out that the "c is constant"
| issue must be carefully applied. One can illustrate it as stating
| that delta x/ delta t != c, but dx/dt = c.

So you don't understand differentiation either. That doesn't
surprise me.

And I suppose you do, eh? What does the word "Putnam" mean to you?

|
| |
| | One can, of course, attempt to compensate by some sort of
| | transformation, but both A and B are forever locked within
| | their own respective coordinate-spaces. B cannot measure
| | A-seconds; it can only calculate them; similarly for vice
| | versa.
| |
| See this:
| | [end quote]
|
| You stepped into the middle of Einstein's words.
| Take it up with him.
|
| I don't do seances.

Yes you do, you are a ghost and you pulled the cuckoo
transformations out of ectoplasm;
and you can't read a whole paragraph without butting in.

Ah, so you're the Keeper of the Sacred Grammar too, eh?

Did you have a competing theory handy?

LOL! Sure I do, but you won't accept it, Simplicio.
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html

OK.

Now here's some experiments for you. Some of these are of the gedanken
type; however, others are not.

[1] (a) A peace officer with a radar gun unit sits in his traditional
spot by a billboard. A car speeds by at 30 m/s (67 mph).
The officer "beams" the passing car. What is the ratio of
outgoing to incoming frequency? (Neglect atmospheric artifacts.)

(b) A satellite whizzes by at 6 km/s. Estimate the frequency
shift as it passes by an observation station.

(c) A particle beam experiment has protons moving at .99c
hitting a beam of light. Estimate the frequency shift
of the returning photons.

[2] Why does the LHC spec a beam frequency that is consistent with
lightspeed, but has an energy of far more than mc^2 per particle?
(m_p = 1.67262171 ± 0.00000029 * 10^-27 kg;
m_p * c^2 = .938272028 GeV, however, the specs suggest that
the LHC is capable of 14 TeV).

Note: circumference 26659 m,
beam frequency (revolution frequency) is 11.2455 kHz.
http://edms.cern.ch/cedar/plsql/navi...&expand_open=Y

[3] Why did Hafele and Keating show a result consistent with their
computations?

[4] Why did Michelson-Morley fail? (This one's easy. See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...d-trip%20tests
for some reasults.)

[5] Assume that a lightbeam travels at velocity c relative
to some rigid universe-wide absolute luminiferous
aether, and that this aether does not otherwise
interact with matter. If the Earth is moving
undetectably through the luminiferous aether, and
a TWLS runs continuously at 45 degrees latitude for
over a year, what absolute measurement variations would
a scientist expect to see, assuming c = 3 * 10^8 m/s?
(There are three sources of variation: Earth rotation,
Earth revolution, Sun revolution around galactic core.
Assume Earth is a perfect sphere of radius
6.378 * 10^6 m, Earthspeed around Sun is 10^-4 c, and
Sunspeed around the Galactic Core is 10^-3c. Assume
further that the Core component does not measurably
change over the course of a year; this is relatively
safe since the revolution period is estimated to be
millions of years.)

[6] A muon decays in about 2.2 microseconds. The atmosphere is
estimated to be 60-100 km in height. The primary source of
Earth-detected muons is assumed to be something hitting the
atmosphere; one sees an event roughly every 30 seconds,
in a 0.1 m^2 detector sitting at sea level or thereabouts.

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~physi....the.month/27/

Each event generates a total of 1 MeV of lightwaves
(this is probably measurable with more sophisticated
equipment; a single photon of 500nm light is
estimated to be 2.48 eV); that detector therefore
gets 10^-13 W/m^2. What is the estimated nighttime
brightness caused solely by muon decay high in the
Earth's atmosphere? Note that Venus "invenusation"
is about 10^-6 W/m^2.

One could probably do this event in one's back yard,
swimming pool, or hot water heater, if one can get the
photomultipliers. (The usual disclaimers about modifications
apply, of course. A pity I didn't think of this before
we moved out of my parent's place with swimming pool. :-)
But that was a long time back. However, an inflatable
child's pool will probably work just as well, if it's
deep enough; the main problem is the photodetectors
and keeping the electronics dry. One could probably even
use the bathtub, but only until someone wants to take
a bath...)

I think I can answer that one for you without my brother.
Here's a picture of it.
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap050807.html

[7] Explain the supernova "neutrino leader pulse". This is a
pulse that hits us about 3 hours prior to the initial onset
of light, and is picked up by such detectors as Superkamiokande.
Note that this ties together several disciplines.

Androcles was talking to me the other night, and he said something
I had to really think hard about. I'm not saying he is right, but he
could be.
He said look at all the craters on the moon, and in 1994 when a comet
hit Jupiter. Collissions are rare, but not all that rare. Think what
would
happen if two stars collided. With billions of stars up there, don't
you
think a supernova might be the result of a collission?
I first I thought no... we would see it before it happened. The stars
would be seen getting closer and closer. Then he showed me this.
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap040718.html
I cannot even see one star in that mess, it is all just a blur.
Arthur Dent

|
| | Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| | which is not a postulate but an assertion, from which the ½ in
| |
| | ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| |
| | is found and the cuckoo transforms are derived.
| | There is the bug in SR, and you'll have paradox after paradox
| forever
| | until you stop believing in nonsense.
| |
| | Whatever odd results you find from physical experiments,
investigate
| | them; do not lay them at the door of special relativity, it is
pure
| | nonsense disguised as physics by a huckster.
| |
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | A hucksterism that is still with us after more than a century.
| |
| Yep. Ptolemy's geocentricism lasted for 14 centuries.
| We've only got 13 more to go with SR, unless Copernicus is
| reborn. That's me, I'm the reincarnation of Copernicus.
| Androcles.
|
| Ah, of course. This explains why SR is universally accepted, then.

It isn't accepted by me, therefore it isn't universally accepted.
We don't get to vote Nature out of office to let Einstein run things.
She's a dictator whether you like it or not.

Your theory has the same problem, of course.

Androcles

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

**The Ghost In The Machine**

In sci.physics, Arthur Dent

wrote
on 9 Aug 2005 12:27:52 -0700
.com:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Androcles

wrote
on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:01:39 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:45:55 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:37:22 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| | | In sci.physics, Androcles
| | |
| | | wrote
| | | on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:59:30 GMT
| | | :
| | |
| | | "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
| in
| | | message ...
| | |
| | | | http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpsinfo.html#tt
| | | |
| | | | Yes, that'll do nicely, thank you. I'll have to look at
it
| and
| | | | see how close it gets to the theoretical computations done
in
| | | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace
like
| | | |
| | | | http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2003-1/ .
| | | |
| | | | I might also have a copy of Hafele-Keating floating around
| here
| | | | in my computer system somewhere.
| | |
| | | How about "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" as well?
| | | You can see how closely it gets to the theoretical
computations
| | done in
| | | various places -- the logical start point being someplace
like
| | | "Genesis".
| | |
| | | You are correct in being skeptical.
| |
| |
| | I know that. No physicist should be without skepticism.
| |
| |
| | That is the problem of us SRians
| | | here; we've had very little actual data.
| |
| | Yes you have, you don't know how to read it.
| |
| | Actually, we have very little data *proving* SR. (There's a fair
| | amount substantiating it, of course. But that's not proof,
| | any more than mud on the rug, a gray light, certain noises,
| | and an order prove an elephant in the bedroom. All that
| | can be done with a scoop, some poop, a wire loop in a bulb,
| | and a speaker system. Of course if one bumps *into* the
| | elephant, that's a different story.)
| |
| | You are only interested in something that will prove what you
| | believe and ignore the wealth of data that disproves it.
| | It is hardly surprising you cannot find what you seek, it desn't
| exist.
| |
| | | Presumably, someone has
| | | raw data from a Compton scattering experiment, for example --
but
| | | I've yet to see it.
| | |
| | | This will have to do.
| |
| | Then you are stuck in a hole.
| |
| | As has been pointed out by others, clocks operating at different
| rates
| | to each other when driving the wheels of a car axle, will turn
the
| drive
| | shaft to the engine through the differential. That's free
energy,
| you
| | have violated a fundamental law.
| |
| | An interesting idea. Of course, anyone daft enough to try to take
| | advantage of this "free energy" will discover that the amount
thereof
| | is ridiculously small.
|
| Use clocks as big as wind-powered generators then.
|
|
http://www.itdg.org/docs/technical_i...generation.pdf
| (photo)
|
| The difference in time at the top of the tower and the bottom can
easily
| be tapped
| with a shaft and a differential you can pick up in a junk yard
cheap.
| Lets see just how daft GR really is.
|
|
|
|
| |
| | SR is riddled with such paradoxical results, all of which can be
| traced
| | to Einstein's definition
| | [quote]
| | 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.
| |
| | Except that it doesn't. This is why.
|
| Of course it doesn't. It was Einstein that said it though, not me.
|
| It cannot, in GR.

I've seen that silly gamma in a GR tensor. Replace it with 1.

|
| |
| | Assume the planet surface is to your left.
| |
| | E |
S
| | a |
p
| | r A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B
a
| | t |
c
| | h |
e
| |
| | Now remember that we're talking GR-curved spacetime here.
| | A bounces to B to A. That takes a certain amount of
| | A-seconds. B bounces to A to B. That takes a certain
| | amount of *B*-seconds. These are not equal; these cannot
| | be equal.
|
| So take it up with a relativist, not me, they are the ones using
gamma
| and the cuckoo transforms. I'm just explaining how to derive them.
|
| I *am* an SRian, nitwit.

So what are disproving Einstein for then, dumbcluck? A fat lot you
know about your own religion. Like so many others, you think the
cuckoo transforms were a gift from your tin god and have no idea
how to derive them.

Oh, I'm supposed to follow a religion here?

Excuse my butting in, but didn't you say above "I am an SRian nitwit"?
I would imagine Androcles thinks of your belief as a religion.

Yes, I am an SRian nitwit. It's the absolute stupidest thing
to follow -- except for all of the other possibilities. After
all, experimentation is stupid; the Greeks did pretty well
without it.

(Is that pickles I smell?)

Are you the chief priest thereof?

| I merely point out that the "c is constant"
| issue must be carefully applied. One can illustrate it as stating
| that delta x/ delta t != c, but dx/dt = c.

So you don't understand differentiation either. That doesn't
surprise me.

And I suppose you do, eh? What does the word "Putnam" mean to you?

|
| |
| | One can, of course, attempt to compensate by some sort of
| | transformation, but both A and B are forever locked within
| | their own respective coordinate-spaces. B cannot measure
| | A-seconds; it can only calculate them; similarly for vice
| | versa.
| |
| See this:
| | [end quote]
|
| You stepped into the middle of Einstein's words.
| Take it up with him.
|
| I don't do seances.

Yes you do, you are a ghost and you pulled the cuckoo
transformations out of ectoplasm;
and you can't read a whole paragraph without butting in.

Ah, so you're the Keeper of the Sacred Grammar too, eh?

Did you have a competing theory handy?

LOL! Sure I do, but you won't accept it, Simplicio.
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html

OK.

Now here's some experiments for you. Some of these are of the gedanken
type; however, others are not.

[1] (a) A peace officer with a radar gun unit sits in his traditional
spot by a billboard. A car speeds by at 30 m/s (67 mph).
The officer "beams" the passing car. What is the ratio of
outgoing to incoming frequency? (Neglect atmospheric artifacts.)

(b) A satellite whizzes by at 6 km/s. Estimate the frequency
shift as it passes by an observation station.

(c) A particle beam experiment has protons moving at .99c
hitting a beam of light. Estimate the frequency shift
of the returning photons.

[2] Why does the LHC spec a beam frequency that is consistent with
lightspeed, but has an energy of far more than mc^2 per particle?
(m_p = 1.67262171 ± 0.00000029 * 10^-27 kg;
m_p * c^2 = .938272028 GeV, however, the specs suggest that
the LHC is capable of 14 TeV).

Note: circumference 26659 m,
beam frequency (revolution frequency) is 11.2455 kHz.
http://edms.cern.ch/cedar/plsql/navi...&expand_open=Y

[3] Why did Hafele and Keating show a result consistent with their
computations?

[4] Why did Michelson-Morley fail? (This one's easy. See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...d-trip%20tests
for some reasults.)

[5] Assume that a lightbeam travels at velocity c relative
to some rigid universe-wide absolute luminiferous
aether, and that this aether does not otherwise
interact with matter. If the Earth is moving
undetectably through the luminiferous aether, and
a TWLS runs continuously at 45 degrees latitude for
over a year, what absolute measurement variations would
a scientist expect to see, assuming c = 3 * 10^8 m/s?
(There are three sources of variation: Earth rotation,
Earth revolution, Sun revolution around galactic core.
Assume Earth is a perfect sphere of radius
6.378 * 10^6 m, Earthspeed around Sun is 10^-4 c, and
Sunspeed around the Galactic Core is 10^-3c. Assume
further that the Core component does not measurably
change over the course of a year; this is relatively
safe since the revolution period is estimated to be
millions of years.)

[6] A muon decays in about 2.2 microseconds. The atmosphere is
estimated to be 60-100 km in height. The primary source of
Earth-detected muons is assumed to be something hitting the
atmosphere; one sees an event roughly every 30 seconds,
in a 0.1 m^2 detector sitting at sea level or thereabouts.

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~physi....the.month/27/

Each event generates a total of 1 MeV of lightwaves
(this is probably measurable with more sophisticated
equipment; a single photon of 500nm light is
estimated to be 2.48 eV); that detector therefore
gets 10^-13 W/m^2. What is the estimated nighttime
brightness caused solely by muon decay high in the
Earth's atmosphere? Note that Venus "invenusation"
is about 10^-6 W/m^2.

One could probably do this event in one's back yard,
swimming pool, or hot water heater, if one can get the
photomultipliers. (The usual disclaimers about modifications
apply, of course. A pity I didn't think of this before
we moved out of my parent's place with swimming pool. :-)
But that was a long time back. However, an inflatable
child's pool will probably work just as well, if it's
deep enough; the main problem is the photodetectors
and keeping the electronics dry. One could probably even
use the bathtub, but only until someone wants to take
a bath...)

I think I can answer that one for you without my brother.
Here's a picture of it.
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap050807.html

OK, it's an aurora, and a rather pretty one, too. But why don't
we see them worldwide?

[7] Explain the supernova "neutrino leader pulse". This is a
pulse that hits us about 3 hours prior to the initial onset
of light, and is picked up by such detectors as Superkamiokande.
Note that this ties together several disciplines.

Androcles was talking to me the other night, and he said something
I had to really think hard about. I'm not saying he is right, but he
could be.
He said look at all the craters on the moon, and in 1994 when a comet
hit Jupiter. Collissions are rare, but not all that rare. Think what
would happen if two stars collided. With billions of stars up there,
don't you think a supernova might be the result of a collission?

No. Stars are mostly gas. Gas doesn't collide; it might merge but
that's about it.

I first I thought no... we would see it before it happened. The stars
would be seen getting closer and closer. Then he showed me this.
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap040718.html
I cannot even see one star in that mess, it is all just a blur.

You need a bigger telescope, perhaps. :-)

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

**Androcles**

**Androcles**

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| | I *am* an SRian, nitwit.
|
| So what are disproving Einstein for then, dumbcluck? A fat lot you
| know about your own religion. Like so many others, you think the
| cuckoo transforms were a gift from your tin god and have no idea
| how to derive them.
|
| Oh, I'm supposed to follow a religion here?

You've just said you were an SRian.
|
| Are you the chief priest thereof?

I'm not an SRian, I don't qualify.
I fart in the Holy Church of Relativity, kneel at the shrine of St.
William of Ockham.
Androcles.

**Androcles**

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...

| | I merely point out that the "c is constant"
| | issue must be carefully applied. One can illustrate it as stating
| | that delta x/ delta t != c, but dx/dt = c.
|
| So you don't understand differentiation either. That doesn't
| surprise me.
|
| And I suppose you do, eh?

Yes, I can handle

f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h in the limit as h tends to zero.

| What does the word "Putnam" mean to you?

Not a darned thing.
What do the words "Newton" and "Liebnitz" mean to you?

Androcles.

**Androcles**

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| Yes you do, you are a ghost and you pulled the cuckoo
| transformations out of ectoplasm;
| and you can't read a whole paragraph without butting in.
|
| Ah, so you're the Keeper of the Sacred Grammar too, eh?

Not often, but sometimes, yes. We all have a responsibility to maintain
clarity in communication, I do my share.

Androcles