"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote
| 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.

Answered as a new thread.

| 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.

I don't have a theory, my theory is the work of others.

Galileo, Newton and Kepler do not change Nature, they observe it.
Einstein's
[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.
[end quote]
is an attempt to change Nature, and Nature isn't listening. Nor am I.
You, being a dumb SRian, are gullible enough to accept such a stupid
definition and kneel in homage at Einstein's feet.
I stand on the shoulders of giants and spit on his head.
Androcles

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Arthur Dent
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.


I did not know Albert Einstein was Greek.
What experiment was SR based on, if you don't mind me asking?


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?

I think it has something to do with the Earth's magnetic field.
Fields mean quite a lot. Why don't we find oceans worldwide?
There should be one in my backyard, there is enough rain.






[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'll remember to tell the shuttle crew that, there is gas coming
from the rocket. Gas doesn't collide.
Would you mind very much if I agreed that you are an SRian nitwit?



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. :-)

SRian nitwit.
Arthur Dent.

[rest snipped]

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

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:33:57 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
|
| wrote

| | | 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.

No response, Ghost?
I thought you wanted to talk about GR as if you were an expert.

GR, no. SR, maybe.

As it is, one can replace the Gamma in the Lorentz with 1,
getting:

x' = x-vt
t' = t-vx/c^2

The results would not be ocnsistent with constant lightspeed.


Androcles.


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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:33:57 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
|
| | | | 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.
|
| No response, Ghost?
| I thought you wanted to talk about GR as if you were an expert.
|
| GR, no. SR, maybe.
|
| As it is, one can replace the Gamma in the Lorentz with 1,
| getting:
|
| x' = x-vt

Yep. That's the Galilean transform. Einstein uses it correctly.
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
He is saying that the length of a train, x',doesn't change as a function
of time. Nor should it. It can move along the tracks with a changing
x, though.
It only changes its length when it hits aether and the molecules get
squished, according to Lorentz, another nut case.
Einstein squishes it up by magic. He multiplies by gamma.


| t' = t-vx/c^2


This one we have to be more careful with, Einstein's skulduggery
is present. He was a con artist.
First we put back the divisor...
t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Then we replace x with vt...
t' = (t-vvt/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and rearrange...
t' = (t - tv^2/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
take the t outside the parentheses...
t' = t (1 - v^2/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and divide top and bottom by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)....
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) / 1
or
t' = t * sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)

Now you can safely replace sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2) with 1...
t' = t.

| The results would not be ocnsistent with constant lightspeed.

It won't be consistent with reality, old son.
Einstein was a highly successful stage magician with a sleight
of pen so subtle it fooled the world for 100 years. Right under
your nose and you missed it. A true genius that got away
with murdering the reputation of Newton.
Confidence tricksters always have a pleasant smile on their
face, but they are still criminals.
Did Einstein miss saying the perspicuous [*footnote] form of
t' = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
was
t' = t * sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2) ?
No way...
"This is Doppler's principle for any velocities whatever.
When phi = 0 the equation assumes the perspicuous form
nu' = nu * sqrt([1-v/c]/[1+v/c]) "

It was deliberately left in the form you found it. That's a con artist
trick.

What of the psychology?
Do you want to admit to the world you've been conned?
Of course not!
Is Einstein going to admit his earlier work was a con?
Of course not, he took it to the grave.
Does Dinky Van der moortel want to admit to the world
he's been conned?
Nope, that's why he hates me, I've shown him for a fool.
It is why he runs a smear campaign. He can't abide being wrong
or being shown for the idiot he is. Nor can Uncle Al, so
he writes [snip crap] and joins with moortel in a smear campaign.

Yet it is all just simple algebra, hyped up to look smart.


| Androcles.

* footnote

perspicuous:
plain to the understanding especially because of clarity
and precision of presentation. - Merriam Webster.

In sci.physics, Arthur Dent

wrote
on 10 Aug 2005 06:18:01 -0700
. com:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Arthur Dent
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.


I did not know Albert Einstein was Greek.
What experiment was SR based on, if you don't mind me asking?

None. SR is pure hokum. That's why we're still using it 100
years past.

Everyone knows c' = c+v. Everyone, that is, except those pesky
electrons in Compton's experiment, the protons in the LHC ring,
and a supernova or two.




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?

I think it has something to do with the Earth's magnetic field.
Fields mean quite a lot. Why don't we find oceans worldwide?
There should be one in my backyard, there is enough rain.

An interesting point. OK: how many watts per m^2 does
one get from an aurora?







[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'll remember to tell the shuttle crew that, there is gas coming
from the rocket. Gas doesn't collide.
Would you mind very much if I agreed that you are an SRian nitwit?

Not at all. Just so long as I'm allowed to call you a Mathian
fumblefart. :-P




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. :-)

SRian nitwit.
Arthur Dent.

Mathian fumblefart.

[rest snipped]

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

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Arthur Dent

wrote
on 10 Aug 2005 06:18:01 -0700
. com:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Arthur Dent
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.


I did not know Albert Einstein was Greek.
What experiment was SR based on, if you don't mind me asking?

None.

That's what I thought.
Do you approve the elements be earth, air, fire and water the greeks
managed with?



SR is pure hokum.
That's what I thought.


That's why we're still using it 100
years past.

Who is "we"? I'm not using it, and nobody used it before a hundred
years ago.
How do you use a theory?


Everyone knows c' = c+v.

Not really. Some people don't know how to get out of bed.


Everyone, that is, except those pesky
electrons in Compton's experiment, the protons in the LHC ring,
and a supernova or two.

You've measure the speed of light from an electron in Copmpton's
experiment? and from a supermova.
All right. what was it?

Arhure Dent.





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?

I think it has something to do with the Earth's magnetic field.
Fields mean quite a lot. Why don't we find oceans worldwide?
There should be one in my backyard, there is enough rain.

An interesting point. OK: how many watts per m^2 does
one get from an aurora?







[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'll remember to tell the shuttle crew that, there is gas coming
from the rocket. Gas doesn't collide.
Would you mind very much if I agreed that you are an SRian nitwit?

Not at all. Just so long as I'm allowed to call you a Mathian
fumblefart. :-P




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. :-)

SRian nitwit.
Arthur Dent.

Mathian fumblefart.

[rest snipped]

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

In sci.physics, Arthur Dent

wrote
on 11 Aug 2005 00:41:07 -0700
.com:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Arthur Dent

wrote
on 10 Aug 2005 06:18:01 -0700
. com:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Arthur Dent
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.


I did not know Albert Einstein was Greek.
What experiment was SR based on, if you don't mind me asking?

None.

That's what I thought.
Do you approve the elements be earth, air, fire and water the greeks
managed with?

You forgot the void. There's also the little issue that one cannot
explain modern microelectronics therewith.




SR is pure hokum.
That's what I thought.


That's why we're still using it 100
years past.

Who is "we"? I'm not using it, and nobody used it before a hundred
years ago.
How do you use a theory?

In design, among other places.



Everyone knows c' = c+v.

Not really. Some people don't know how to get out of bed.

Neither do some photons, apparently.



Everyone, that is, except those pesky
electrons in Compton's experiment, the protons in the LHC ring,
and a supernova or two.

You've measure the speed of light from an electron in Copmpton's
experiment? and from a supermova.
All right. what was it?

I tried a lightspeed measurement. My equipment doesn't
have proper precision to measure signalspeed through a
cable using ping. It's a pity, though I suppose with some
work I could turn the computer into a microsecond timer.
I don't have an oscilloscope. :-)

As for the LHC protons, that's hearsay, but the specifications
are on their Website.

http://edms.cern.ch/cedar/plsql/navi...&expand_open=Y

which among other things specifies the ring circumference, 26658.883 m,
and the revolution frequency, 11.2455 kHz. It is interesting
to contemplate whether the machine can determine the difference
between a 7 TeV / 7 TeV proton collision and a
466.136014 MeV / 466.136014 MeV experiment. If your theory is
correct the distinction will be impossible and the scientists won't
be able to make the math work using the assumed 7 TeV value,
and would be forced to use the 466.136014 MeV value.

I'm still looking for experimental data from a Compton-type experiment,
preferably from a graduate-level physics department.

[rest snipped]

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