Pencho I have news for you. Your computer might have been made with a
disk with pegs on it! I have expanded my earlier piece on relativity by
an expanded account involving the theory of the synchrotron.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmar...relativity.htm

VUV and X-Ray production using a synchrotron depends critically on the
theory of relativity.

Incidentally I do not agree with Einstein about everything. I simply
believe that Relativity is true and alternative theories cannot be
defended.

Einstein also wrote a lot about Quantum Theory which is quite simply
wrong. He said "Gott wuefelt nichts". In fact the orthadox theory of
chaos states that a butterfly in Japan can cause a hurricane in the
Gulf. This is without even the Q word. In fact to make a prediction
(classically) we need higher and higer precision. We need 100 decimal
paces to predict hurricanes and with time the number of decimal places
expands. It it as if a timeline had its own information content.

Quantum theory of course completes the playing with dice. Indeed
quantum theory allows us to treat information theory and entropy as
complementary concepts.

WEinstein found it difficult to accept these concepts philosophically.

wrote in message
oups.com...

| http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmar...relativity.htm

"Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must have
mischievous intent. Let us look at them."

This is so silly.

Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so much
so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.

Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.

Join the Flat Earth Society, Ian. They welcome those with arguments like
yours.
They open their arms to people as stupid as they are, you dingbat.


| VUV and X-Ray production using a synchrotron depends critically on the
| theory of relativity.
|
| Incidentally I do not agree with Einstein about everything. I simply
| believe that Relativity is true and alternative theories cannot be
| defended.

Wanna try me? I can defend Ritz, Newton and Galileo over Einstein
with 10 million neurons tied behind my back, and I accept your
challenge.

Einstein violated existing mathematical rules that still exist today.
I do not agree the findings must be simple to understand, since you do
not understand Einstein's mischievous intent and skulduggery in deriving
his cuckoo transforms.
The perspicuousness of the proof must be commensurate with Einstein's
own idle musings. If you'll agree to that, I'll blow a hole in your
belief
big enough to drive a bus through.
[snip Quantum - irrelevant]
Androcles.

Androcles wrote:

Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so much
so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.


Actually Ptolemy's epicycles have considerable predictive error--maybe
"impeccable" before Brahe's time in the 1500s... but unacceptably wrong
even for todays amateur astronomers.

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
| MyPlace.org wrote:
|
|
| wrote in message
| roups.com...
|
| | http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmar...relativity.htm
|
| "Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
| credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must
have
| mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
|
| This is so silly.
|
| Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so
much
| so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.
|
| Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
|
| The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
| descriptive and could not make a prediction.

Silliness again.
Prediction of planetary positions are the heart of astrology, wrapped
in mumbo-jumbo.
"When Mars is in the fifth house..."
That garbage has been with us for 2000 years, but it could accurately
predict when two planets would be in conjunction.
Lunar and solar eclipses we always predicted.
Comets were not predicted until Halley came along.

http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/As...retrograd.html

Go outside and watch for the next couple of months.
I predict you'll see Mars go retrograde. You dont need
to stay outside for long, just find Mars and note where it is
relative to the fixed stars each night before you go to bed.


| Discovery of a new
| orbiting body would require the creation of new epicycles,
| whereas the Newtonian theory of gravitation will explain newly
| discovered orbits without kludges like epicycles. Copernican and
| Keplerian mechanics are easily seen as subcases of the
| application of the inverse square gravity law. In fact,
| derivation of Kepler's laws is one of the little exercises for
| students in a classical mechanics course.

Nothing wrong with teaching kids real mechanics.
E = M-e.sin(E) is too much for most though.
http://www.akiti.ca/KeplerEquation.html

Androcles

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
MyPlace.org wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

| http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmar...relativity.htm

"Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must have
mischievous intent. Let us look at them."

This is so silly.

Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so much
so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.

Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.

The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
descriptive and could not make a prediction. Discovery of a new
orbiting body would require the creation of new epicycles,
whereas the Newtonian theory of gravitation will explain newly
discovered orbits without kludges like epicycles. Copernican and
Keplerian mechanics are easily seen as subcases of the
application of the inverse square gravity law. In fact,
derivation of Kepler's laws is one of the little exercises for
students in a classical mechanics course.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:29:54 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Androcles wrote:

Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so much
so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.


Actually Ptolemy's epicycles have considerable predictive error--maybe
"impeccable" before Brahe's time in the 1500s... but unacceptably wrong
even for todays amateur astronomers.

Ptolemy was "predictive" only for an orbit for which epicycles
had already been calculated.

Any error could be resolved by the addition of new epicycles, the
whole thing being not unlike a fourier analysis.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:55:46 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
MyPlace.org wrote:


"Hatunen" wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
| MyPlace.org wrote:
|
|
| wrote in message
| roups.com...
|
| | http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmar...relativity.htm
|
| "Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
| credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must
have
| mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
|
| This is so silly.
|
| Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so
much
| so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous intent.
|
| Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
|
| The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
| descriptive and could not make a prediction.

Silliness again.
Prediction of planetary positions are the heart of astrology, wrapped
in mumbo-jumbo.
"When Mars is in the fifth house..."
That garbage has been with us for 2000 years, but it could accurately
predict when two planets would be in conjunction.
Lunar and solar eclipses we always predicted.
Comets were not predicted until Halley came along.

Those predictions weren't based on Ptolemaic epicycles. Fr the
most part they were done by historical observation of previous
appearances of the phenomenon.


http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/As...retrograd.html

Go outside and watch for the next couple of months.
I predict you'll see Mars go retrograde. You dont need
to stay outside for long, just find Mars and note where it is
relative to the fixed stars each night before you go to bed.


I haven't the foggiest what you're trying to tell me here, since
none of it seems relevant to what I posted.

| Discovery of a new
| orbiting body would require the creation of new epicycles,
| whereas the Newtonian theory of gravitation will explain newly
| discovered orbits without kludges like epicycles. Copernican and
| Keplerian mechanics are easily seen as subcases of the
| application of the inverse square gravity law. In fact,
| derivation of Kepler's laws is one of the little exercises for
| students in a classical mechanics course.

Nothing wrong with teaching kids real mechanics.
E = M-e.sin(E) is too much for most though.
http://www.akiti.ca/KeplerEquation.html

Differential equations are too much for most.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:55:46 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
| MyPlace.org wrote:
|
|
| "Hatunen" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:21:15 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
| | MyPlace.org wrote:
| |
| |
| | wrote in message
| | roups.com...
| |
| | | http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ianandmar...relativity.htm
| |
| | "Relativity (both Special and General) has impeccable experimental
| | credentials, so much so that anyone who questions the theory must
| have
| | mischievous intent. Let us look at them."
| |
| | This is so silly.
| |
| | Ptolemy's epicycles have impeccable observational credentials, so
| much
| | so that anyone who questions the theory must have mischievous
intent.
| |
| | Conclusion: Copernicus had mischievous intent.
| |
| | The difference is, of course, that the Ptolemaic system was
| | descriptive and could not make a prediction.
|
| Silliness again.
| Prediction of planetary positions are the heart of astrology, wrapped
| in mumbo-jumbo.
| "When Mars is in the fifth house..."
| That garbage has been with us for 2000 years, but it could accurately
| predict when two planets would be in conjunction.
| Lunar and solar eclipses we always predicted.
| Comets were not predicted until Halley came along.
|
| Those predictions weren't based on Ptolemaic epicycles. Fr the
| most part they were done by historical observation of previous
| appearances of the phenomenon.

I'm not upholding Ptolemy, but he prediced accurately and you are
guessing.
|
|
| http://alpha.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/As...retrograd.html
|
| Go outside and watch for the next couple of months.
| I predict you'll see Mars go retrograde. You dont need
| to stay outside for long, just find Mars and note where it is
| relative to the fixed stars each night before you go to bed.
|
|
| I haven't the foggiest what you're trying to tell me here, since
| none of it seems relevant to what I posted.

We are discussing your pov that Ptolemy could not accurately
predict, which he could, and Ian Parker's pov that Copernicus
was acting with mischievous intent, a conclusion I'd be forced
to make if I agreed with his philosophy.
No telescopes allowed, though.

As far as Ian Parker's pov goes, I'd like to know why he considers
I'd have mischievous intent if I challenged
1)
[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]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and
2)
http://www.siprep.org/faculty/dann/M...0exp_t_rel.pdf

I happen to think Einstein had mischievous intent when he wrote
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and I also happen to think that I can measure the speed of
a muon as the distance it travels divided by time and I
do not need a scintillator to stop it first, nd the answe I get
is v = x/t =100000m/0.0000022s = 150c, not the 0.998c the
relativist would like it to be with his scintillator brake, which
is mischievous intent to deceive.

Androcles





|
| | Discovery of a new
| | orbiting body would require the creation of new epicycles,
| | whereas the Newtonian theory of gravitation will explain newly
| | discovered orbits without kludges like epicycles. Copernican and
| | Keplerian mechanics are easily seen as subcases of the
| | application of the inverse square gravity law. In fact,
| | derivation of Kepler's laws is one of the little exercises for
| | students in a classical mechanics course.
|
| Nothing wrong with teaching kids real mechanics.
| E = M-e.sin(E) is too much for most though.
| http://www.akiti.ca/KeplerEquation.html
|
| Differential equations are too much for most.
|
| ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
| * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
| * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

The synchrotron accelerates with an RF field. The RF field is set for a
rotational speed of .999 .9999 .995 or so c.

There are things called coincidence couunters where a particle traveels
through one scintillator and then another. This eliminates the
contributions from radioactive minerals etc. The muon I can assure
everyone goes through a cooincidence counter at c as near as no
matter. A CC can tell the difference between 150c and 0.998c. It cant
really tell the difference between .998c and c, so let us say the muon
travells at c.

wrote in message
oups.com...
| The synchrotron accelerates with an RF field. The RF field is set for
a
| rotational speed of .999 .9999 .995 or so c.
|
| There are things called coincidence couunters where a particle
traveels
| through one scintillator and then another. This eliminates the
| contributions from radioactive minerals etc. The muon I can assure
| everyone goes through a cooincidence counter at c as near as no
| matter. A CC can tell the difference between 150c and 0.998c. It cant
| really tell the difference between .998c and c, so let us say the muon
| travells at c.


When the bullet left the rifle it travelled through the air at 2000 mph.
Then it hit the first tree and travelled on to the second tree at 100
mph.
Bullets travel between trees at 100 mph.
Let's say that bullets always travel at 98 mph to fit our theory that
nothing
can exceed 100 mph.

Or shall we say you are with mischievous intent denying solid and
undeniable
data that special relativity is a load of crap, and I'm not interested
in your
spiral accelerators that are designed to only go as a fast as you want
them too.

You can say the muon travels at c all you want to, but I say it travels
at
150c, and that you have mischievous intent to delay the advance of
astronomy
and physics.

Androcles.