"SDaryl" wrote in message
oups.com...
If the person keeps up with
contradictions (as you do), then that is prima facie evidence that he
*doesn't* understand it.

Your logic is ****ed and so are you.
Do you want to learn how the cuckoo transforms you rely upon
so heavily are derived or not?
Androcles.

"SDaryl" wrote in message
oups.com...

| It's as if you claimed that you know how to fly a helicopter, but
every
| time you try to fly it, it crashes immediately. That's evidence that
| you *don't* know how to fly a helicopter.

I know how to fly a Harrier. I worked on building a simulator for
the Royal Navy AND another for the Indian Navy for over two years,
debugging and testing.
I've ridden in a two seater Harrier trainer at Yeovilton, engine
running,
but was not allowed to fly it. I had to settle for taxiing. I've flow a
Lynx
helicopter simulator in Germany at the British Army base in Detmold
prior to the cold war. I didn't crash. I crashed a Boeing 747 flight
simulator
trying to fly *between* the twin towers of the World Trade Centre
with a 90 degree roll to avoid the wings hitting. That very simulator
was
later stolen from Kuwait by the Iraqis and later recovered after the
first Gulf war.
I've hang-glided.
Don't tell me I don't know how to fly, you only know how to talk
out of your arse.
Androcles.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:56:13 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:

| Kim
Pity that's all you can read to comment upon. Does mathematics and
physics get too hard for you? "**** off" is one step away from *plonk*.
If McCullough wanted to learn how his precious cuckoo transformations
were derived he'd shut up and listen, but he doesn't, he wants to snip
and
argue for argument's sake, so I told him to **** off.
Androcles.

You haven't written anything serious for me to comment on - besides I
do not want to argue with someone which enters "**** off" mode
whenever he hasn't got an answer (or just stopping responding like
Henri)

Kim

"Kim B" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:56:13 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
| wrote:
|
| | Kim
| Pity that's all you can read to comment upon. Does mathematics and
| physics get too hard for you? "**** off" is one step away from
*plonk*.
| If McCullough wanted to learn how his precious cuckoo transformations
| were derived he'd shut up and listen, but he doesn't, he wants to
snip
| and
| argue for argument's sake, so I told him to **** off.
| Androcles.
|
| You haven't written anything serious for me to comment on

**** off.
Androcles

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message oups.com...

sue jahn skrev:

"SDaryl" wrote in message oups.com...

sue jahn wrote:

"SDaryl" wrote

No, in the case of Special Relativity, science was dirt
cheap---Einstein did it in his spare time. It didn't cost
taxpayers one cent.

Pontificating on the backs of old envelopes is not science.

Sometimes it is. It depends on the quality of the pontificating. In
Einstein's case, yes, it was science.


It is plain stupid to discuss whether
Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Kõrper"
is a scientific paper or not.



Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of
relevant quantities. That is, a scientific quantity is described or
defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague,
inexact or "idealized" definition. For example, electrical current,
measured in Amperes, may be operationally defined in terms
of the mass of silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode
in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail.
The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons
with standards: the operational definition of "mass" ultimately relies
on the use of an artifact, such as a certain kilogram of platinum
kept in a laboratory in France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


You should read the URLs you are giving, Sue.
The scientific method is the basis of science.
You should learn it.

This is a better URL:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html
Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory
must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for
instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle
whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as
scientific theories.


I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or
group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal
mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


The Special Theory of Relativity is step 2. above.
Experimental physicists have for a century done
step 2. and 3. The result is that SR is unfalsified

A couple of other URLs:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node5.html
http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plan...n/scimeth.html



As a consequence of its motion the clock goes
more slowly than when at rest.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Judge for youself and ask your doctor to adhere
to the same standards you use.


Of course that's not science.
It is taken from a popular book about science,
namely Einstein's "Relativity".
It is written for the laypersons, not scientists.

Don't you know the difference between a popular
book and a scientific paper, Sue?

Here is the scientific paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
THAT's science.

sue jahn wrote:

§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
The following reflexions

I once reflected on being a pricncess.

are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:--

1 The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the
one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

[I can't play with my charged comb and pith balls while charged
spheres move through the room.]

2 Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence

Hence... one outta two ain't bad... but rules is rules.

Did you have a point?
No?
OK.

But I really think you should read about "the scientific method".
Dreaming about being a princess won't make you competent in physics.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message oups.com...

sue jahn skrev:

"SDaryl" wrote in message oups.com...

sue jahn wrote:

"SDaryl" wrote

No, in the case of Special Relativity, science was dirt
cheap---Einstein did it in his spare time. It didn't cost
taxpayers one cent.

Pontificating on the backs of old envelopes is not science.

Sometimes it is. It depends on the quality of the pontificating. In
Einstein's case, yes, it was science.


It is plain stupid to discuss whether
Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Kõrper"
is a scientific paper or not.



Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of
relevant quantities. That is, a scientific quantity is described or
defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague,
inexact or "idealized" definition. For example, electrical current,
measured in Amperes, may be operationally defined in terms
of the mass of silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode
in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail.
The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons
with standards: the operational definition of "mass" ultimately relies
on the use of an artifact, such as a certain kilogram of platinum
kept in a laboratory in France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


You should read the URLs you are giving, Sue.
The scientific method is the basis of science.
You should learn it.

This is a better URL:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html
Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory
must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for
instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle
whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as
scientific theories.


I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or
group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal
mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena,
or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several
independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


The Special Theory of Relativity is step 2. above.
Experimental physicists have for a century done
step 2. and 3. The result is that SR is unfalsified

A couple of other URLs:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node5.html
http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plan...n/scimeth.html



As a consequence of its motion the clock goes
more slowly than when at rest.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html

Judge for youself and ask your doctor to adhere
to the same standards you use.


Of course that's not science.
It is taken from a popular book about science,
namely Einstein's "Relativity".
It is written for the laypersons, not scientists.

Don't you know the difference between a popular
book and a scientific paper, Sue?

Here is the scientific paper:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
THAT's science.

sue jahn wrote:

§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
The following reflexions

I once reflected on being a pricncess.

are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:--

1 The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the
one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

[I can't play with my charged comb and pith balls while charged
spheres move through the room.]

2 Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence

Hence... one outta two ain't bad... but rules is rules.

Did you have a point?
No?
OK.

But I really think you should read about "the scientific method".
Dreaming about being a princess won't make you competent in physics.
Is that the way to adress a challenge to the PoR ?

Sue...

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Here is the scientific paper:
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| THAT's science.

Hahahaha!

[quote]
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
[end quote]

Since Einstein doesn't like that, it bothers his
[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]

and you call it "science".
Too funny!

| sue jahn wrote:
|
| § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
| The following reflexions
|
| I once reflected on being a pricncess.
|
| are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of
the
| constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
as follows:--
|
| 1 The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change
| are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the
| one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform
translatory motion.
|
| [I can't play with my charged comb and pith balls while charged
| spheres move through the room.]
|
| 2 Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of
co-ordinates
| with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
| stationary or by a moving body. Hence
|
| Hence... one outta two ain't bad... but rules is rules.
|
| Did you have a point?
| No?
| OK.


Do you have a science?
No?
OK.


|
| But I really think you should read about "the scientific method".
| Dreaming about being a princess won't make you competent in physics.

Dreaming that you can affect time with light won't make you competent
in physics OR mathematics, or anything else except stupidity. You ARE
competent in that.
But I really think you should read about "the scientific method".

Androcles

wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Perspicacious wrote:
Shubert's paper doesn't reproduce Einstein's
outdated and tortured way of reasoning.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf


I've asked Shubert to show us his derivation for time dilation for say
a GPS satellite with observed velocity of 3.9 km/s using both SR and
his theory, but he can't do it, because his "alternative" is just smoke
and dung. It has also been pointed out to Eugene that this theory is
contradicted by empirical results of observation and experiment, in that
No object can travel faster than the speed of light.

xxein: Let's see now. (accept the M and R as arbitrary). M =
4.43886008345489E-03 Meters. R = 6378170.00000000 Meters.

So you say that you measure the velocity of a circularly orbiting
satellite as 3.90000000000000 km/sec? According to GR, our timerate on
this surface is about .999999999304054:1. That makes its velocity (in
non-relative terms) as
3900.00000271419 m/s because our clocks are slow.

Its orbit radius is not 26229115.3174668 meters, but is
26229115.3052975 meters.

We can both calculate the timerate of the satellite with M and R and
compare that to our timerate. You can use GR with 3900 m/s and
26229115.3174668 meters of radius. I can use 3900.00000271419 m/s and
26229115.3052975 meters of radius. My method is (escape velocity^2 +
orbit velocity^2)^.5 gives a velocity (as in SR) to figure the time
dilation. Take my result and BIAS it with our surface timerate and you
get the exact same answer. (liberties to extend 3.9 km/sec et al to 15+
significant digits).

What we end up with is a physics entangled with (mathematical)
relationships instead of a straight-forward physics of objective logic.
It's not my fault - I'm not Einstein whom you chose to believe and
follow.

Do you ever think by yourself? Can you? Or do you have to be led by
other people's theories (opinions)?

xxein: OK. I guess that anyone capable of doing physics has found
that my calculations are correct (not extending beyond the immediate
issue of G, R, M and observed time dilation).

This is just a small and simple sample of how the objective universe
gets twisted and scrambled with any math of subjective observation (as
useful in purpose as it may be).

I pity those whose horizons are limited to the subjective. The gateway
to understanding the objective universe is all too plain to see. It is
only the simple matter of recognizing that DIFFERENT subjective
observations have a cause rooted in the objective orientation.

Time dilation, physical length contraction, addition of velocities,
Doppler effects and the myriad of 'other measurements' like
photo-electric effect, rotating disks, curvature of light (and delay)
and twins can all be logically explained with an objective universe
that we shall/can learn only if we give up a selfish subjective
orientation.

What could possibly be wrong with finding a reason that subjective
measurement is caused by objective and universal laws (not its/our own
subjective observation laws)? Am I supposed to BELIEVE that a
subjective logic is equal to an objective logic? Would anyone try to
tell me that no such distinction can exist? Does the universe act only
according to our subjective understanding of it OR does the universe
act mindless of what we think?

We invent quarks and strings. Why? Certainly not because we know it
all! We invent them mostly to comply to what we think we know
(subjective observation). We cannot even relate the so-called quantum
to a foursome that we concocted (gravity, in case it has to be spelled
out). We are still paddling at random in the rapids with no objective
orientation to guide us.

It is easy for someone to discredit my logic, but with what? I know
that I don't know it all, but I know more than anyone here. Everyone's
post of physics has a logical flaw. When you get down to the
nitty-gritty, no logic can hold true. But some are more extensively
logical. It is a matter of how deep we can go to connect the
empiricals, to be sure, but most are shallow and give up at the line of
accepted belief. I don't know of any other way of saying this except
to say that tomorrow will prove us all wrong as historical accounting
always does.

For once, I see that I am posting to multiple ng's. I usually don't
look and just reply (like my op). But this time I am deliberately
replying to all the groups listed in the "post to" line (not added to).
Please learn the differences amongst logic, belief and subjective
observations vs. the objective universe that is responsible for
providing that observation. You are LOST without this consideration.
Good luck to all.

Does Sam Wormley have a comment? Anybody? Let's hear it.

Hi Perspicacious,

You imagined that one must know math to understand the Twins_Paradox.
I beg to differ, check out this mathless explanation:

http://Faraday.Physics.UToronto.CA/P...winParadox.swf

Then check out all the other .SWF files there... cool stuff maynard !

http://Faraday.Physics.UToronto.CA/P...SpecRel/Flash/

"Jeff_Relf" wrote in message
...

Hi Perspicacious,

You imagined that one must know math to understand the Twins_Paradox.
I beg to differ, check out this mathless explanation:


http://Faraday.Physics.UToronto.CA/P...winParadox.swf

Then check out all the other .SWF files there... cool stuff maynard !

http://Faraday.Physics.UToronto.CA/P...SpecRel/Flash/


- An essential shortcoming: Although it first mentions the heart of the
paradox (bravo!), which is the problem to give a consistent alternative
description based the pov that Sue is stationary, next no solution to the
paradox is given; instead there is just a full illustration of the solution
based on the (continuously inertial) frame of Lou. That only illustrates
that Einstein's calculation of 1905 (and which subsequently resulted in the
paradox) is self consistent about what everyone observes *as based on Lou's
pov*...
- Very nice one nevertheless :-)

Harald