"Michael Gordge" wrote in message
...
On Dec 28, 10:07 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

What is the next step?
I'll tell you. It is light accelerator for interplanetary communications.
It takes far too long to communicate with Spirit and Opportunity
on Mars or Cassini orbiting Saturn. This blind faith that light
has one speed only is an absurdity quickly disproven by Sagnac
and by this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/Algol.htm

Nature and technology is already giving light's speed a boost,
it is the responsibility of the engineer to do so on a grander scale
and leave the crackpot "scientists" in the dust.

Sagnac is a light accelerator, but few realize it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
They don't realize it because the scientist tells them it cannot be done,
and for that reason there is no funding available for development.
The scientist is a fool, robbing himself of an important area of physics
by his blind ignorance.

: What a welcome breath of fresh air you are. Keep it coming, I must
: check out those web sites, I read or heard the other day that a group
: of German scientists claim they have propelled an object on earth
: faster than the speed of light, which was treated as a hoax by the
: main stream science claiming the energy required is not possible.

Here's some real gobbledegook from a so-called "physicist" displaying
his total ignorance of logical reasoning:

"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle."

Ref: http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html#2

Of course he doesn't say who these "prominent theoretical physicists"
are, if he ever had he'd have left himself wide open to a law suit for
libel.
Nor does he actually say what this "principle of relativity" actually is.
(Galileo did in "Dialogue", an amusing and instructive paper from 1632.
Ref http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html)

What he does do is give an example and you are expected to know
what it is without any proof. That makes it an axiom, a concept
so primitive that it requires no proof to be believed. An axiom is
slightly different from a postulate, an axiom is believed by all that
are sane, whereas a postulate is temporarily accepted for the
purpose of debate and belief can be suspended. One does not
believe in magic, but magic is postulated when reading Harry Potter,
for example, because Harry Potter is fiction and there is no story
without Harry flying on a broom carrying a wand. The sane reader
accepts the postulate and suspends his normal beliefs in order to
enjoy the story.
The example he gives is contained in the opening paragraph of
his paper, which he then discusses in the second paragraph.
Ref : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

It is :
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet"

He has used the term "relative motion" without first defining it. If the
reader does
not know what this "relative motion" is then he is lost, but of course he
does
know intuitively, we all do.

He then goes on in paragraph 2 with:
"Examples of this sort [...] suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics
as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the
first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which
will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate...."

There is no "conjecture", the principle of relativity already has the status
of an axiom. It can be and is believed without proof and needs no "raising"
to the status of a postulate, for a postulate, like Harry Potter's magic,
only
holds good for the purpose of the story or debate.

So what is this "relative motion" mathematically?
It is simply the motion of A as measured or observed by B, which is
in all ways identical to the motion of B as observed or measured by A,
the observer having no motion of his own relative to himself.
What is the measurement? It is distance divided by time.
The speed of A in the frame of B is the speed of B in the frame of A.
IF there is a difference, then A meets B at a different time or place
to when B meets A, an absurdity.
Now we come to a third observer, C, who finds A has some motion
relative to C and B has some motion relative to C, and concludes
A has some motion relative to B (it may be zero, as when a plane
and its passengers have the same motion relative to an airport).
The measure of that motion is vA - vB. A passenger on the plane
approaches the airport at 503 mph, the plane approaches at 500 mph,
the passenger walked the aisle of the plane (relative to the plane) at 3
mph.
503-500 = 3. ALL speeds are relative to some reference point, no
exceptions.
So, to respond to your query, I ask you to state the velocity
of hadron A as seen by hadron B, postulating that the speeds of
hadron A and B are the speed of light (relative to the collider)
in this animation:
http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/a.../lhc_atlas.swf

"Michael Gordge" wrote in message
...
On Dec 29, 1:45 am, Traveler wrote:

ahahaha... There is no space at all. Space is a perceptual
illusion.

Oh gawd not another ****ing Kantian mystic.

Before your brand new and invented definition for space, what had you
and your brain dead ilk identify space as, and how did you know it
existed?

How does your brand new invented version of space, a perceptual
illusion, differentiate space from anything else, e.g. your very close
cousin's god, and from water and car and tree?

Michael Gordge

Beware of Savain, keep a padlock on your arse.

stated his heartfelt desire and declared his homosexuality
in ...
Quote:
: ahahaha... Bend over, Wabi. I'll show you some coordinates. ahahaha...
: AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Unquote.

He attempts to imitate ahahanson, who is no fool but enjoys Jew-baiting
more than physics. Savain is just another crank.

On Dec 29, 8:54*am, Traveler wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:44:07 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge

wrote:

[snip crap]

ahahaha...

Stop your nervous laughing and answer the ****ing questions, ewe
knuckle-dragging queer.

What did your dopey ilk call space BEFORE you and your retards
invented the new meaning for it?

HOW did you know what to re-invent a definition of, if it was only a
perceptual ****ing illusion?

Michael Gordge

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:32:01 -0800 (PST), ass kisser Michael Gordge
wrote:

[snip crap]

ahahaha... **** you, Gordge. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm