And speculation about how the stupid ether nonsense is involved.

I can only think of one possible reason all the ethernuts even know
about LET, and that is because the 1904 paper was published and reprinted
in the book "Relativity", most recently and widespread by Dover in paperback.

That paper was included as a historical artifact, it has no value otherwise.

There are a number of other confusions that tke up bandwidth, the
next most idiotic thing is failure to state if a statement refers to what an
observer sees, or what a meter stick measures, or what the math predicts.

Problems constructed using observers traveling at high percentages
of c are moronic, simply because there is no way for anything bigger than
an atom to be made to travel at that speed.

The number of math experts that claim superior skill in SR math
is simply amusing, but only because most of them disagree with each other.

That problem is not as great with GR, there are not many that
know GR well enough to argue.

I would be surprised if any two people agree on everything in
relativity, unless maybe if they took the same class together, with the
same professor.

I think the translation from German to English is a bigger
problem than should be expected, I am beginning to see more and
more different wording in various publications of the same paper,
but part of it may be due to attempts to rewrite history to appeal
to certain groups.

There should be no disagreement at all in Special Relativity,
it is too simple, as long as the observer viewpoint is stated.
I don't see how math skills can possibly vary so much
for such a simple problem.


I would like to ask for Glome mathematicians to help
free gratis for a project, but there probably are none, vary few
presentations even contain any trig.

Luckily, screen names and fake addresses protect
some writers from complete ridicule.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
And speculation about how the stupid ether nonsense is involved.

you use a lot of words and say nothen


I can only think of one possible reason all the ethernuts even know
about LET, and that is because the 1904 paper was published and reprinted
in the book "Relativity", most recently and widespread by Dover in paperback.

That paper was included as a historical artifact, it has no value otherwise.

what do you know


There are a number of other confusions that tke up bandwidth, the
next most idiotic thing is failure to state if a statement refers to what an
observer sees, or what a meter stick measures, or what the math predicts.

!?


Problems constructed using observers traveling at high percentages
of c are moronic, simply because there is no way for anything bigger than
an atom to be made to travel at that speed.

what do you know?

non-locally the galaxes are traveling faster than c


The number of math experts that claim superior skill in SR math
is simply amusing, but only because most of them disagree with each other.

whay not mentioned _your_ math experience?

is it close to zero?


That problem is not as great with GR, there are not many that
know GR well enough to argue.

you said many times you dont know gr either


I would be surprised if any two people agree on everything in
relativity, unless maybe if they took the same class together, with the
same professor.

!?


I think the translation from German to English is a bigger
problem than should be expected, I am beginning to see more and
more different wording in various publications of the same paper,
but part of it may be due to attempts to rewrite history to appeal
to certain groups.

now you have somthin against the translations


There should be no disagreement at all in Special Relativity,
it is too simple, as long as the observer viewpoint is stated.
I don't see how math skills can possibly vary so much
for such a simple problem.

what has math to do with simple problems you understand?



I would like to ask for Glome mathematicians to help
free gratis for a project, but there probably are none, vary few
presentations even contain any trig.

why gratis when you can pay for it


Luckily, screen names and fake addresses protect
some writers from complete ridicule.

Joe Fischer

stop farting around you, your brain needs oxigen not farts

the phosphorus in your farts certainly are destructive, not good
for your decreassing amount of neurons and neuron connections

On 3 Dec "Vollane" wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
And speculation about how the stupid ether nonsense is involved.

you use a lot of words and say nothen

Thank you for the perfect represention of just how
retarded a person has to be to believe in aether. :-)

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:

And speculation about how the stupid ether nonsense is involved.

I can only think of one possible reason all the ethernuts even know
about LET, and that is because the 1904 paper was published and reprinted
in the book "Relativity", most recently and widespread by Dover in paperback.

That paper was included as a historical artifact, it has no value otherwise.

There are a number of other confusions that tke up bandwidth, the
next most idiotic thing is failure to state if a statement refers to what an
observer sees, or what a meter stick measures, or what the math predicts.

Problems constructed using observers traveling at high percentages
of c are moronic, simply because there is no way for anything bigger than
an atom to be made to travel at that speed.

The number of math experts that claim superior skill in SR math
is simply amusing, but only because most of them disagree with each other.

That problem is not as great with GR, there are not many that
know GR well enough to argue.

I would be surprised if any two people agree on everything in
relativity, unless maybe if they took the same class together, with the
same professor.

I think the translation from German to English is a bigger
problem than should be expected, I am beginning to see more and
more different wording in various publications of the same paper,
but part of it may be due to attempts to rewrite history to appeal
to certain groups.

There should be no disagreement at all in Special Relativity,
it is too simple, as long as the observer viewpoint is stated.

You mean there should be no disagreement over "too simple" concepts like
"only small things can move at speeds near c".

Yes, SR is simple, and learning it is fairly easy, but unlearning that
commonsense view of the world we all grew up with, that's hard - real hard.

I don't see how math skills can possibly vary so much
for such a simple problem.


I would like to ask for Glome mathematicians to help
free gratis for a project, but there probably are none, vary few
presentations even contain any trig.

Luckily, screen names and fake addresses protect
some writers from complete ridicule.

Joe Fischer

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:31:20 -0500, jem wrote:

Joe Fischer wrote:
There should be no disagreement at all in Special Relativity,
it is too simple, as long as the observer viewpoint is stated.

You mean there should be no disagreement over "too simple" concepts like
"only small things can move at speeds near c".

I did not say "only small things _can_ move at speeds near c".

I see no reason to assume that nothing can "move at c",
or even faster than 300000 km/sec., the limiting factor in math
is that nothing can be measured or observed as moving at c
or above, so comparison of objects in two frames is out.

Yes, SR is simple, and learning it is fairly easy, but unlearning that
commonsense view of the world we all grew up with, that's hard - real hard.

Just what is it you grew up with that involved speeds more
than 50,000 miles per hour?

Joe Fischer

Dear Joe Fischer:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
....
Yes, SR is simple, and learning it is fairly easy, but
unlearning that commonsense view of the world we
all grew up with, that's hard - real hard.

Just what is it you grew up with that involved
speeds more than 50,000 miles per hour?

Radio transmission and other EM. Cannon. Meteors. Rumor.

David A. Smith

Joe Fischer wrote:
I can only think of one possible reason all the ethernuts even know
about LET, and that is because the 1904 paper was published and reprinted
in the book "Relativity", most recently and widespread by Dover in paperback.
That paper was included as a historical artifact, it has no value otherwise.

It's value is that it was the basis for calling them the Lorentz
transformations.


I would be surprised if any two people agree on everything in
relativity, unless maybe if they took the same class together, with the
same professor.

That is merely your IGNORANCE talking. There are many thousands of high
energy physicists who all agree on the details of SR. And members of
other fields agree also....


I don't see how math skills can possibly vary so much
for such a simple problem.

Around here such skills vary wildly. Among physicists this is indeed
very basic and uncontroversial. SR is only "controversial" to fools,
idiots, and uneducated buffoons. Unfortunately, the latter dominate
around here. shrug


Tom Roberts

On Sun, dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear Joe Fischer:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
...
Yes, SR is simple, and learning it is fairly easy, but
unlearning that commonsense view of the world we
all grew up with, that's hard - real hard.

Just what is it you grew up with that involved
speeds more than 50,000 miles per hour?

Radio transmission and other EM. Cannon. Meteors. Rumor.
David A. Smith

EM has no mass.

The fastest cannon is abut 3,000 MPH, rail guns are
limited to about 20,000 MPH.

Most meteors move at less than 35,000 MPH
relative to a point on Earth.

Joe Fischer

Dear Joe Fischer:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear Joe Fischer:

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
. ..
...
Yes, SR is simple, and learning it is fairly easy, but
unlearning that commonsense view of the world we
all grew up with, that's hard - real hard.

Just what is it you grew up with that involved
speeds more than 50,000 miles per hour?

Radio transmission and other EM. Cannon. Meteors. Rumor.

EM has no mass.

The speed is there. Lightning then... 1000 to 21000 km/sec.
Electrons aren't massless.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/lfacts.htm
http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/Metr30...tning-stu.html
.... "up to 1/10th the speed of light"

The fastest cannon is abut 3,000 MPH, rail guns are
limited to about 20,000 MPH.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9c06e85360.htm
.... 45,000 mph, and this was in 2001.

Most meteors move at less than 35,000 MPH
relative to a point on Earth.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...s/impacts.html
.... 10-70 km/sec. That is 22,000 - 150,000 miles per hour.

I guess you didn't touch "rumor" since it also is massless... ;)

David A. Smith

Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 08:31:20 -0500, jem wrote:


Joe Fischer wrote:

There should be no disagreement at all in Special Relativity,
it is too simple, as long as the observer viewpoint is stated.

You mean there should be no disagreement over "too simple" concepts like
"only small things can move at speeds near c".


I did not say "only small things _can_ move at speeds near c".

You think because you said _make_ them move, what you said is OK? In
SR, Fischer, speed isn't a property of objects; it's a relationship
between two objects. If one of them is moving fast, so's the other.

I see no reason to assume that nothing can "move at c",
or even faster than 300000 km/sec., the limiting factor in math
is that nothing can be measured or observed as moving at c
or above, so comparison of objects in two frames is out.

That gibberish is pretty much indecipherable, but FYI, in SR, Inertial
observers can't measure relative speeds that exceed c.



Yes, SR is simple, and learning it is fairly easy, but unlearning that
commonsense view of the world we all grew up with, that's hard - real hard.


Just what is it you grew up with that involved speeds more
than 50,000 miles per hour?

Completely irrelevant to the point of the comment, Fischer. What's hard
to give up, are the things you haven't been able to give up.