Dirk Van de moortel schreef:

the Jan Verheul name or the Jaco Verheij name?

and even the change
of the title of one of my postings, by someone who has apparently
moderating privileges on this forum.

The moderator changed the title, tsk tsk.

There is a simple psychological
explanation for this. Someone who knows for certain that his ideas are
right does not behave in a hostile manner. Only if you cling to ideas
for other reasons than love for the truth, you will react hostile if
your illusions are in danger.

Moderators can do powerful things with your messages,
look out ;-)

Dirk Vdm

The fact that I didn't know how to change the subject of a thread
should be proof of the fact that I am not someone (Jaco Verheij?) who
has been active on this forum before. I was brand new when I started
posting a few days ago. But as you can see I am learning fast. Filling
in a new subject name in the reaction will change the subject as
displayed on the sci.physics.relativity page.

It was a surprise for me to see how quickly you are being ridiculed
here because of assumed mathmatical illiteracy. I have won prizes in
math contests at highschool (Wiskunde Olympiade in my country Holland;
you are dutch too, aren't you?) and I have a cum laude master's degree
in Computer Science, mainly because of high performance in math related
subjects. However, this is some twentyfive years ago now. It is more
than ten years ago that I have solved a differential equation. If I
have to solve an integral with goniometric substitution, I really have
to go back to the books to figure out the details.

My approach until now has been: reasoning without calculation. That's
always the preferred way in methematics. If you want to prove that a
chessboard with removed upper-left and lower-right square cannot be
covered with 31 domino stones, you can try all possible combinations.
That's calculation. The clever approach is reasoning. A domino stone
always will cover a white and a black square. Since the board in
question has two same colored squares removed, it is not possible to
cover the board.

Doppler effects should cancel out in my twin experiment. That's
intuition about Doppler effect. If Doppler effect is defined such that
it compensates the time dilation as observed by the traveling clock,
then this is a calculation trick in my view. It might be that SR is
mathematically entirely consistent. I have my doubts is acceleration
and gravity is involved, but it will take me some time to verify this.
However, if SR appears to be mathematically 100% consistent, this does
not prove that SR describes reality.

My problems with SR are not because of an inability to appreciate
complex elegant math. I can appreciate the prime number theorem, the
beauty of complex numbers and the elegance of Fourier and Laplace
transforms. My problems with SR are based on the fact that consequences
of SR are in conflict with my intuition of reality. It is not that I
cannot immagine SR to be consistent and valid, but simply my belief
that reality has not the kind of relativity that SR claims.

Meanwhile I see that among proponents of SR there is no unity on how to
interpret the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment. Some downplay
the results, knowing that it disproves Relativity, some present
calculations that try to explain the results. There is no consensus on
how that calculation should be carried out. In this context it is
inappropriate to call someone "imbicile" because of assumed math
illiteracy. Someone who says this repeatedly is obviously not capable
of seeing the difference between mathematical consistence and agreement
between theory and reality. If this makes you being rude and calling
names, you are just simply one big asshole. Redirecting my postst to a
different group is also not very hospitable towards a new participant
(how did you do that?).

Of course I am arrogant by posting no less than four "proofs" of
invalidity of SR, as someone uneducated in Physics. However, I have
reason to be confident in my intuition, and I consider myself more
objective than a physicist who is indoctrined for many years with
validity of SR.

I believe in absolute time and in a zero inertial frame. Not because I
cannot appreciate the beatiful complexity of relativity and velocity
symmetry, but simply because I don't believe this is how the universe
works. Posting some bold statements on sci.physics.relativity will
hopefully reveal to me the point where SR and reality are in conflict.
So far I have seen only calculation based arguments. With this you can
only prove that Relativity is mathematically consistent. It might be
that SR is mathematically consistent. I have my doubts, if there is
already no consensus on how to interpret the Hafele-Keating experiment.
However, should SR be mathematically consistent, this is no guaratee
that SR describes reality.

One of the foundations of my conviction about absolute time is my
belief as a christian in a ubiquitous creator God. The omnipresence of
an intelligent being implies the conceptual possibility of
communication faster than light. Communication faster than light
immediately invalidates SR. I believe therefore that SR is the wrong
explanation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Other
solutions are possible, which are not in conflict with the conceptual
possibility of infinitely fast information transfer.

I think the "zero-frame" is also visible in quantum mechanics. I am not
an expert in quantum mechanics and probably I will be stoned to death
immediately with what I am going to say now. Quantum mechanics teaches
us spontaneous creation and anihilation of particle - antiparticle
twins, if enough energy is available, or even with "borrowed" energy in
empty space. Consider an electron-positron pair. Both have mass and
therefore momentum and velocity. The average momentum and velocity of
all spontaneously created particle pairs favour one particular inertial
frame. This is the zero frame.

Regards, Jan.

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Henri Wilson wrote: [about the H&K experiment]
|
| You don't have to go to all this trouble.
| As soon as the planes carrying the clocks are in the air, just stop the
Earth
| from rotating.
| Somehow, relativists will claim that this action will affect the now
remote
| clocks. They will now read the same time when reunited.
|
| I would like your answer the question at the end
| of this posting.
|
| Two supersonic planes are flying in opposite directions
| around the Earth along equator.

Nah, two supersonic satellites with clocks, GPS type.

| The ground speed is one Earth circumference per sidereal day (ca. 1670
km/h, MACH 1.36).

Nah, the ground speed is 2000 mph


| Each plane is carrying a ring laser gyro detecting
| the rotation around an axis parallel to the Earth axis
| (the pitch axis).

Whatever.

| The planes are starting at a point at the Earth, and
| returning to the same point one sidereal day later.

Whatever.

| Case 1:
| The experiment is performed on the rotating Earth.
| How many rotations are measured by the gyros in
| the East- and West going plane respectively?
| (The obvious answer is: 2 and 0)
|
Whoopee.

| Case 2:
| The experiment is performed on a non-rotating Earth.
| How many rotations are measured by the gyros in
| the East- and West going plane respectively?
| (The obvious answer is: 1 and 1)

Whoopee again.

| Now the question I would like you to answer:
| Do you claim that the rotation of the Earth
| somehow will affect remote ring laser gyros?
|
Of course! Each satellite's clock is slower than the other,
caused by GR/SR, so naturally the rotation of Earth would
affect remote ring laser gyros by GR/SR calculation.
You can't use "obvious" when dealing with GR/SR, you have
to follow the math. OBVIOUSLY. :-)

Androcles

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"jem" wrote in message ...


wrote:


[snip crackpot Verheul]


Yes, of course you're right. It's truly pathetic how thousands of physicists have blindly followed Einstein's mistakes and
unwittingly adopted a logically inconsistent description of the world.

However, although your astute insights are right on target, you've not been the first to perceive them. Ken Seto came to the same
realization years ago and has created the Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) to reveal Nature's TRUE character.

Seto's works are detailed at http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm, but to date his promotional efforts haven't been all that
successful. Rather than waste your time trying to enlighten indoctrinated Einsteinian disciples, you ought to contact Mr. Seto.
A collaboration between two as perceptive as yourselves would no doubt lead to a result the rest of the world couldn't possibly
ignore.


Another gem, jem :-)

Dirk Vdm



Thanks, Dirk.

says...

It was a surprise for me to see how quickly you are being ridiculed
here because of assumed mathmatical illiteracy.

That's because you are making the same mathematically illiterate
arguments that hundreds have made before you.

My approach until now has been: reasoning without calculation.

Yes, and it is a misguided approach in this case. You *cannot*
understand relativity without being willing to do the calculations.
What you are doing is using, not the *actual* theory of relativity,
but the version for children who don't understand math. That version
is *wrong*, but it's the closest that you can do without buckling
down and doing the math.

That's always the preferred way in methematics.

No, it's actually not. Mathematicians very often work to polish
an argument so that calculations are kept to a minimum, but the
original proofs for mathematical theorems inevitably involve
lots of messy work with the details. Only after thoroughly
understanding these original proofs do people come up with
clever and elegant proofs that avoid the messy details.

If you want to prove that a chessboard with removed upper-left
and lower-right square cannot be covered with 31 domino stones,
you can try all possible combinations. That's calculation. The
clever approach is reasoning. A domino stone always will cover
a white and a black square. Since the board in question has two
same colored squares removed, it is not possible to cover the board.

As I say, in a well-understood field, it is possible to come
up with "clever" approaches to solve problems, but you can't
*learn* a new field by concentrating on the clever proofs.

Doppler effects should cancel out in my twin experiment.

That's not true, if you actually worked out the details.

That's intuition about Doppler effect.

Your intuition is wrong in this case.

If Doppler effect is defined such that it compensates the time
dilation as observed by the traveling clock, then this is a
calculation trick in my view.

It's not a *trick*, it's just applying the mathematics carefully.
There is no trick involved.

It might be that SR is mathematically entirely consistent.

It certainly is. This is without dispute by anyone mathematically
competent.

I have my doubts is acceleration and gravity is involved, but it
will take me some time to verify this.

I predict it will never happen, because you show no willingness
to actually do the work necessary to understand the subject. You
are trying to understand a difficult subject on the "cheap". You
are trying to take the easy road, and it will not get you there.
You have to buckle down and actually learn the mathematics if
you want to understand.

It isn't *very* difficult mathematics. It requires at most
simple algebra and and understanding of linear equations.
But that's too much for some people.

However, if SR appears to be mathematically 100% consistent, this does
not prove that SR describes reality.

Yes, there are two parts to a scientific theory: Internal consistency,
and agreement with experiment. Relativity is successful in both
respects.

My problems with SR are not because of an inability to appreciate
complex elegant math.

It's your inability or unwillingness to *learn* the mathematics.
You are reasoning based on SR for children. It's like discussing
Shakespeare with someone who has only read comic books.

My problems with SR are based on the fact that consequences
of SR are in conflict with my intuition of reality.

You don't know the consequences of SR. You haven't bothered
to learn them.

It is not that I cannot immagine SR to be consistent and valid, but
simply my belief that reality has not the kind of relativity that
SR claims.

Intituitions and beliefs can be wrong.

Meanwhile I see that among proponents of SR there is no unity on how to
interpret the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment. Some downplay
the results, knowing that it disproves Relativity, some present
calculations that try to explain the results. There is no consensus on
how that calculation should be carried out. In this context it is
inappropriate to call someone "imbicile" because of assumed math
illiteracy.

What you have said about SR is mathematically wrong. Maybe it's
rude to call you an "imbecile" because of it, but the frustrating
thing is that (1) You are completely confused about SR, and (2)
Rather than trying to fix your confusion, you blame it on SR.
That's the hallmark of a crackpot. An actual competent person
tries first to understand a subject before claiming that the
experts are all wrong.

Someone who says this repeatedly is obviously not capable
of seeing the difference between mathematical consistence
and agreement between theory and reality.

It is certainly possible that SR could be falsified by some
experiment. But it can only be done by someone who knows what
SR *actually* says. Falsifying your distortions of SR doesn't
say anything about SR itself.

Of course I am arrogant by posting no less than four "proofs" of
invalidity of SR

But you don't even know what SR says. Your proofs are garbage.
Start with the actual equations of SR, the actual claims made
by SR. Don't start with your cartoon version.

as someone uneducated in Physics. However, I have
reason to be confident in my intuition,

That shows a dreadful lack of self-knowledge. Your intuitions
in this matter are worthless. It would be as if you asked a
3 year old, who had not learned to count yet, what his opinion
of a paper on Fourier analysis was. His opinion is completely
worthless on that subject.

Your opinion about SR is similarly worthless.

and I consider myself more objective than a physicist who
is indoctrined for many years with validity of SR.

That's the hallmark of a crackpot. Rather than viewing your
lack of knowledge as something that should be *fixed*, you
instead think of as something that gives you an advantage
over the people who have actually studied the subject.

What you call "indoctrination" is nothing more than the
hard work necessary to understand a subject. You aren't
willing to do that hard work.

I believe in absolute time and in a zero inertial frame.

And your opinion is as significant as the opinion of that
three-year old about Fourier analysis.

Posting some bold statements on sci.physics.relativity will
hopefully reveal to me the point where SR and reality are in conflict.
So far I have seen only calculation based arguments.

That's the way you get to understand a technical subject.

One of the foundations of my conviction about absolute time is my
belief as a christian in a ubiquitous creator God.

In the Bible, God never expressed an opinion about relativity. Better
to leave God out of it.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl McCullough schreef:


Doppler effects should cancel out in my twin experiment.

That's not true, if you actually worked out the details.

That's intuition about Doppler effect.

Your intuition is wrong in this case.

Nice opinion. The REAL Doppler effect follows not from flawless working
math but from careful measurements. I know of no experiments that have
verified relativistic Doppler effect.

If Doppler effect is defined such that it compensates the time
dilation as observed by the traveling clock, then this is a
calculation trick in my view.

It's not a *trick*, it's just applying the mathematics carefully.
There is no trick involved.

It might be that SR is mathematically entirely consistent.

It certainly is. This is without dispute by anyone mathematically
competent.

Mathematics has structures like groups, fields and manifolds that can
be used to construct a working, consistent system. However, this does
not prove that this system describes reality.

I have my doubts is acceleration and gravity is involved, but it
will take me some time to verify this.

I predict it will never happen, because you show no willingness
to actually do the work necessary to understand the subject. You
are trying to understand a difficult subject on the "cheap". You
are trying to take the easy road, and it will not get you there.
You have to buckle down and actually learn the mathematics if
you want to understand.

Your comments are too harsh. I did thorough calculations with the
three-frame configuration some years ago, only to see that it is
mathematically consistent. However, that time I was unable to get a
recipe for a calculation with acceleration involved. I got the
impression that acceleration was too difficult for computations on SR.

I am not lazy. I am reading (and studying) The Road to Reality from
Roger Penrose at the moment. Sooner or later I will arrive at Penrose's
treatment of Relativity. If I make a "lazy" impression it's mainly
because I understand that knowledge of a flawlessly working
mathematical system is no guaratee for validity.


It isn't *very* difficult mathematics. It requires at most
simple algebra and and understanding of linear equations.
But that's too much for some people.

Not for me. I have once verified that speed additions within SR form a
group.

Yes, there are two parts to a scientific theory: Internal consistency,
and agreement with experiment. Relativity is successful in both
respects.

That's your opinion. Many experimental verifiable facts such as time
dilation can also be explained by other theories.

One of the foundations of my conviction about absolute time is my
belief as a christian in a ubiquitous creator God.

In the Bible, God never expressed an opinion about relativity. Better
to leave God out of it.

God has knowable properties of Himself revealed in the Bible that are
in conflict with aspects of Relativity.

Regards, Jan.

wrote:

I was brand new when I started
posting a few days ago. But as you can see I am learning fast.


Yes, you are definitely first class crackpot material: you are filling
posts with crap at very high speed.


It was a surprise for me to see how quickly you are being ridiculed
here because of assumed mathmatical illiteracy.

Not only mathematical (you can't write an equation to support your
crank views) but mostly physics illeteracy. You are writing crap.


I have won prizes in
math contests at highschool (Wiskunde Olympiade in my country Holland;
you are dutch too, aren't you?) and I have a cum laude master's degree
in Computer Science, mainly because of high performance in math related
subjects.

So what? Your physics is still crap.


However, this is some twentyfive years ago now. It is more
than ten years ago that I have solved a differential equation. If I
have to solve an integral with goniometric substitution, I really have
to go back to the books to figure out the details.

"Goniometric"? You are a liar about your math as well. There is no such
thing as "goniometric substitution", you are not only an idiot but a
fraud as well.



My approach until now has been: reasoning without calculation. That's
always the preferred way in methematics.

Well, your "reasoning" is flawed.


That's calculation. The clever approach is reasoning. A domino stone
always will cover a white and a black square. Since the board in
question has two same colored squares removed, it is not possible to
cover the board.

In physics it is called "experimental proof". Of which you are clearly
ignorant.



Doppler effects should cancel out in my twin experiment.

One word answer : cretin.

That's
intuition about Doppler effect. If Doppler effect is defined such that
it compensates the time dilation as observed by the traveling clock,
then this is a calculation trick in my view.

One word answer: imbecile



However, if SR appears to be mathematically 100% consistent, this does
not prove that SR describes reality.

Since the above is the view of Jan Verheul, proven cretin, it does not
count.



My problems with SR are not because of an inability to appreciate
complex elegant math.

No, they are due to inability to understan basic physics combined with
clear prejudice.



I can appreciate the prime number theorem, the
beauty of complex numbers and the elegance of Fourier and Laplace
transforms.

What is the Fourier transform of sin(x)?



My problems with SR are based on the fact that consequences
of SR are in conflict with my intuition of reality.

This is standard crackpot fare. There are many more like you on this
forum, you are not unique.

It is not that I
cannot immagine SR to be consistent and valid, but simply my belief
that reality has not the kind of relativity that SR claims.


We appreciate your honesty. Do they allow you to use the computer as
part of your therapy at your asylum?


Meanwhile I see that among proponents of SR there is no unity on how to
interpret the results of the Hafele-Keating experiment. Some downplay
the results, knowing that it disproves Relativity, some present
calculations that try to explain the results. There is no consensus on
how that calculation should be carried out. In this context it is
inappropriate to call someone "imbicile" because of assumed math


Not "imbicile". Imbecile.


Someone who says this repeatedly is obviously not capable
of seeing the difference between mathematical consistence and agreement
between theory and reality. If this makes you being rude and calling
names, you are just simply one big asshole. Redirecting my postst to a
different group is also not very hospitable towards a new participant
(how did you do that?).

We just did: alt.morons


Of course I am arrogant by posting no less than four "proofs" of
invalidity of SR, as someone uneducated in Physics. However, I have
reason to be confident in my intuition, and I consider myself more
objective than a physicist who is indoctrined for many years with
validity of SR.

It has been several days that you haven't taken your meds, call the
nurse and she would be more than happy to administer them.



I believe in absolute time and in a zero inertial frame. Not because I
cannot appreciate the beatiful complexity of relativity and velocity
symmetry, but simply because I don't believe this is how the universe
works.

Good, there are others that do that The one that comes to mind is
". He is weak on the experimental part, you are zero
on the theoretical part, if you worked together on his "theory" you
might become quite a force. We shudder at what you might be able to
produce.





Posting some bold statements on sci.physics.relativity will
hopefully reveal to me the point where SR and reality are in conflict.
So far I have seen only calculation based arguments. With this you can
only prove that Relativity is mathematically consistent. It might be
that SR is mathematically consistent. I have my doubts, if there is
already no consensus on how to interpret the Hafele-Keating experiment.
However, should SR be mathematically consistent, this is no guaratee
that SR describes reality.

You are repeating yourself. Repeating idiocies doesn't make them true.



One of the foundations of my conviction about absolute time is my
belief as a christian in a ubiquitous creator God.

Oh, now we see it. Does your God agree with recursive programming
techniques?



The omnipresence of
an intelligent being implies the conceptual possibility of
communication faster than light. Communication faster than light
immediately invalidates SR. I believe therefore that SR is the wrong
explanation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Other
solutions are possible, which are not in conflict with the conceptual
possibility of infinitely fast information transfer.

OK, so you must be about 45-50 years old. You can't **** very well
anymore, you are having a midlife crisis. But it is rather early for
daementia praecox. There is medication for this, you know.



I think the "zero-frame" is also visible in quantum mechanics. I am not
an expert in quantum mechanics and probably I will be stoned to death

"Derided to death". You are right about something (finally)

schreef:

Yes, you are definitely first class crackpot material: you are filling
posts with crap at very high speed.

bla, bla, bla, etc. etc. etc.

"Derided to death". You are right about something (finally)

Writing in such hostile manner to someone you barely know is indicative
of severe psychological problems. You hate yourself and you project
this in other people. Judging the severity of the case I can advice
only one thing. Jump before a train or cut your throat with a sharp
knife.

wrote:
schreef:

Yes, you are definitely first class crackpot material: you are filling
posts with crap at very high speed.

bla, bla, bla, etc. etc. etc.

"Derided to death". You are right about something (finally)

Writing in such hostile manner to someone you barely know is indicative
of severe psychological problems. You hate yourself and you project
this in other people. Judging the severity of the case I can advice
only one thing. Jump before a train or cut your throat with a sharp
knife.

So noted. make sure you take your meds, you are several days behind.

says...

Daryl McCullough schreef:


Doppler effects should cancel out in my twin experiment.

That's not true, if you actually worked out the details.

That's intuition about Doppler effect.

Your intuition is wrong in this case.

Nice opinion.

It's not an opinion. If you know how to calculate Doppler
for relativistic sources, then you know that the effects
don't cancel out.

The REAL Doppler effect follows not from flawless working
math but from careful measurements. I know of no experiments
that have verified relativistic Doppler effect.

Before you can compare the predictions of SR with experiments,
you have to actually know what SR predicts. You haven't gotten
past that stage yet.

I have my doubts is acceleration and gravity is involved, but it
will take me some time to verify this.

I predict it will never happen, because you show no willingness
to actually do the work necessary to understand the subject. You
are trying to understand a difficult subject on the "cheap". You
are trying to take the easy road, and it will not get you there.
You have to buckle down and actually learn the mathematics if
you want to understand.

Your comments are too harsh. I did thorough calculations with the
three-frame configuration some years ago, only to see that it is
mathematically consistent. However, that time I was unable to get a
recipe for a calculation with acceleration involved. I got the
impression that acceleration was too difficult for computations on SR.

I am not lazy.

You are *intellectually* lazy. SR is something simple enough to
work through the basic material in maybe 3 weeks. You haven't done
that.

I am reading (and studying) The Road to Reality from
Roger Penrose at the moment. Sooner or later I will arrive at Penrose's
treatment of Relativity.

So why have you *already* started posting about how relativity
is wrong, when you haven't even learned it yet? How about waiting
until you know something about the subject before making a conclusion
about it?

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

wrote:


Nice opinion. The REAL Doppler effect follows not from flawless working
math but from careful measurements. I know of no experiments that have
verified relativistic Doppler effect.

Regards, Jan.

this only proves that you are an ignorant imbecile (as if we needed
another proof).
Ever heard of the Ives-Stilwell experiment and its MANY re-enactments?
Take a few antipschotic pills and Google "Ives-Stilwell", cretin.