Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Jeff Root on 27 Aug 2005 00:01 Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >> Which do you think is more likely? >> >> 1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, >> and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious >> contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. >> You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to >> people smarter than you, they still don't see them. > > They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they > agree. Why? For what purpose? People disagree with their peers and their employers all the time. Every day. All around the world. In every ethnic group and every religion. That's one reason there are thousands of different religions in the world: People disagree with the guff they are being fed, and leave to create something better. Are you are saying that physicists, engineers, technicians, and students don't have the balls to disagree with their peers and employers? Perhaps tens of millions of them over the last hundred years? Even after they retire? Or are you saying that they are so extremely stupid that they can't see that they are being indoctrinated, in addition to being unable to see the obvious flaw in relativity that you and Jim so clearly see? > .....such is the power of indoctrination. An amazingly successful indoctrination program! I wonder who administers it. The United Nations Relativity Acceptance Control Organization (UNRACO), maybe. Perhaps the UN was established mainly for the purpose of enforcing belief in relativity theory. It would have to be worldwide and extremely powerful. I wonder what they do with people who refuse to comply. They must be kept silent, somehow. Maybe most of the people supposedly in prison for drug crimes are really there because they threatened to tell the truth about relativity, and were drugged to wipe their memories. Do you think I'm a UNRACO agent? I wonder if you think that people are indoctrinated to believe that electricity is produced in generators powered by falling water or burning coal or oil or gas or fissioning uranium, rather than simply being pulled out of the ground through wires? There are people who believe that. >> or >> >> 2) You don't like relativity because it seems wrong. So you >> don't want to understand it and don't try to understand it. > > It is obviously wrong. > > The whole idea of distorting space to make light speed constant > is clearly as stupid as using Earth centricism to describe the > universe....yet the latter theory prevailed for many centuries > purely through similar religious indoctrination.. What is stupid about Earth centricism? Earth is obviously at the center of the Universe. The stars and planets, the Moon and the Sun all go around the Earth every day. Look for yourself, you will see. Religious indoctrination has nothing to do with it-- It is pure observation. I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't much, but if Earth centrism is really as stupid as you say, it should be easy for you to show that Earth is not at the center, and you will enjoy showing me up. This offer is to Henri Wilson only, and must be accomplished by the end of September 30, 2005. You will retain ownership and copyright of any original materials you submit to me for this purpose, but I will have perpetual, non-exclusive rights to use them in any way I choose. Jeff S. Root 48 27th Ave SE #4 Minneapolis, MN 55414 USA
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Aug 2005 17:22 On 26 Aug 2005 21:01:39 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > >>> Which do you think is more likely? >>> >>> 1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, >>> and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious >>> contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. >>> You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to >>> people smarter than you, they still don't see them. >> >> They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they >> agree. > >Why? For what purpose? witness the attitude on this NG towards anyone who speaks out against relativity. > >People disagree with their peers and their employers all the >time. Every day. All around the world. In every ethnic group >and every religion. That's one reason there are thousands of >different religions in the world: People disagree with the >guff they are being fed, and leave to create something better. Nah! Most of them end up dead pretty quickly. > >Are you are saying that physicists, engineers, technicians, >and students don't have the balls to disagree with their peers >and employers? Perhaps tens of millions of them over the >last hundred years? Even after they retire? There wouldn't have been more than about 10000 physicists ever. > >Or are you saying that they are so extremely stupid that they >can't see that they are being indoctrinated, in addition to >being unable to see the obvious flaw in relativity that you >and Jim so clearly see? That is what I am saying. Relativity is wrong from the start...but sti\udents are so overwhelmed by the novelty of it they just accept blindly. If they don't, they fail their exams. Hence they are indoctrinated for life. Relativity is based on the notion that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam in another. This is a simple misconception which came about because Albert noticed that raindrops appeared to move diagonally when viewed through the window of a moving train. > >> .....such is the power of indoctrination. > >An amazingly successful indoctrination program! > >I wonder who administers it. The United Nations Relativity >Acceptance Control Organization (UNRACO), maybe. Perhaps >the UN was established mainly for the purpose of enforcing >belief in relativity theory. It would have to be worldwide >and extremely powerful. I wonder what they do with people >who refuse to comply. They must be kept silent, somehow. >Maybe most of the people supposedly in prison for drug crimes >are really there because they threatened to tell the truth >about relativity, and were drugged to wipe their memories. > >Do you think I'm a UNRACO agent? > >I wonder if you think that people are indoctrinated to >believe that electricity is produced in generators powered >by falling water or burning coal or oil or gas or fissioning >uranium, rather than simply being pulled out of the ground >through wires? There are people who believe that. Why not? Most people think milk comes out of a bottle. > >>> or >>> >>> 2) You don't like relativity because it seems wrong. So you >>> don't want to understand it and don't try to understand it. >> >> It is obviously wrong. >> >> The whole idea of distorting space to make light speed constant >> is clearly as stupid as using Earth centricism to describe the >> universe....yet the latter theory prevailed for many centuries >> purely through similar religious indoctrination.. > >What is stupid about Earth centricism? Earth is obviously at >the center of the Universe. The stars and planets, the Moon >and the Sun all go around the Earth every day. Look for >yourself, you will see. Religious indoctrination has nothing >to do with it-- It is pure observation. ...and Earth centrism can be used to describe the motions of other planets,etc....but it gets awfully complicated very quickly...just like GR. > >I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT >at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't >much, but if Earth centrism is really as stupid as you say, >it should be easy for you to show that Earth is not at the >center, and you will enjoy showing me up. This offer is to >Henri Wilson only, and must be accomplished by the end of >September 30, 2005. You will retain ownership and copyright >of any original materials you submit to me for this purpose, >but I will have perpetual, non-exclusive rights to use them >in any way I choose. How can I prove that little planet Earth is not the centre when relativity insists that all starlight in the universe is designed to travel here at precisely c? Eistein must be right you know. :) > >Jeff S. Root >48 27th Ave SE #4 >Minneapolis, MN 55414 >USA HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Eric Gisse on 27 Aug 2005 19:29 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 26 Aug 2005 21:01:39 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > > > >>> Which do you think is more likely? > >>> > >>> 1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, > >>> and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious > >>> contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. > >>> You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to > >>> people smarter than you, they still don't see them. > >> > >> They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they > >> agree. > > > >Why? For what purpose? > > witness the attitude on this NG towards anyone who speaks out against > relativity. You say that as if relativity is a cause instead of a theory. There is no "speaking out" against relativity theory unless there is either physical evidence against it or an internal contradiction. The people who think they are "speaking out" have been shown again and again to be flat out wrong, yet they do not accept it. Like yourself. > > > >People disagree with their peers and their employers all the > >time. Every day. All around the world. In every ethnic group > >and every religion. That's one reason there are thousands of > >different religions in the world: People disagree with the > >guff they are being fed, and leave to create something better. > > Nah! Most of them end up dead pretty quickly. You are amazingly paranoid. Is this what it takes to sustain your worldview? > > > > >Are you are saying that physicists, engineers, technicians, > >and students don't have the balls to disagree with their peers > >and employers? Perhaps tens of millions of them over the > >last hundred years? Even after they retire? > > There wouldn't have been more than about 10000 physicists ever. Off by a few factors of ten. > > > > >Or are you saying that they are so extremely stupid that they > >can't see that they are being indoctrinated, in addition to > >being unable to see the obvious flaw in relativity that you > >and Jim so clearly see? > > That is what I am saying. ....what? That people like Jim are to be listened to instead of actual scientists? Ask him what he thinks of complex numbers, or the concept of multiplying negative numbers together. The only reason you mention him is because he agrees with you. You are acting with exactly the same traits you assign to the people you deride. > Relativity is wrong from the start...but sti\udents are so overwhelmed by the > novelty of it they just accept blindly. If they don't, they fail their exams. > Hence they are indoctrinated for life. You said at one time you were an applied mathematician. I still can't believe that, considering the vast amounts of misconceptions you have about education. I think you failed out of college and have been ever-since bitter about it. You make it sound like people who fail exams are martyrs instead of people who just didn't learn it right the first time. > > Relativity is based on the notion that a vertical light beam in one frame > becomes a diagonal light beam in another. This is a simple misconception which > came about because Albert noticed that raindrops appeared to move diagonally > when viewed through the window of a moving train. Hey look, more misconceptions about relativity. That isn't what relativity is based on, it is based on postulates because it is a mathematical theory. You should know this, considering it has been explained to you literally hundreds of times. [snip] Years and years of your whining and you still have nothing to show for it. Incredible.
From: Jeff Root on 28 Aug 2005 02:38 Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >>>> Which do you think is more likely? >>>> >>>> 1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, >>>> and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious >>>> contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. >>>> You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to >>>> people smarter than you, they still don't see them. >>> >>> They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they >>> agree. >> >> Why? For what purpose? > > witness the attitude on this NG towards anyone who speaks out > against relativity. You didn't address my question at all. I asked you why anyone would ridicule, ostracise, or fire someone who agrees that there are glaringly obvious contradictions in relativity. What purpose would such actions serve? As for your comment: Anyone who speaks out against a thing is attacking that thing. Bad things are appropriate targets of attack; good things aren't. Reasonable people can and frequently do disagree about which things are good and which are bad. Anyone who attacks something because he doesn't understand it looks foolish. Anyone who is given hundreds of opportunites to learn about the subject he is attacking, but rejects them all, never learning anything, and keeps on attacking, is going to look mentally ill. Not all mentally ill people are unable to learn. Not all mentally ill people attack what they don't understand. The subjects of cosmology and fundamental physics have a particular attraction for people (virtually all male) with certain mental disorders. Some of those people develop obsessions which drive them to attack whatever they obsess about. The more grandiose a topic sounds, the more likely it is to appeal to such a person as the object of obsession. In your case, it is relativity theory. What you are witnessing is the attitude of people who are being attacked by mentally ill people obsessed about relativity theory. >> People disagree with their peers and their employers all the >> time. Every day. All around the world. In every ethnic group >> and every religion. That's one reason there are thousands of >> different religions in the world: People disagree with the >> guff they are being fed, and leave to create something better. > > Nah! Most of them end up dead pretty quickly. I've had innumerable disagreements with people. Yet I have never tried to kill anyone, and as far as I know, no-one has ever tried to kill me. I've seen innumerable disagreements between other people. Yet I have never seen anyone killed by another person. According to your comment, a majority of them should have been killed. Martin Luther disagreed with some of the tenets of the Roman Church, and there are now over 1,500 denominations of Protestant religions. Half of all Americans identify themselves as Protestants. Every part of the Western Hemisphere was once a colony of some European nation. Only a vanishingly tiny fraction has not yet gained complete political independance. Einstein disagreed with his peers that observers in different situations would measure the same interval between events. Of course, Einstein managed to survive only because of his skills as a swordsman and the army of bodyguards he hired to protect him from jealous physicists. It is obviously true that many people have been killed when they disagreed. But "most"? You are a fool. >> Are you are saying that physicists, engineers, technicians, >> and students don't have the balls to disagree with their peers >> and employers? Perhaps tens of millions of them over the >> last hundred years? Even after they retire? > > There wouldn't have been more than about 10000 physicists ever. The American Physical Society is an organization for American physicists. It currently has over 43,000 members. Many American physicists do not belong to that organization. Some of them belong to other organizations. Other nations have similar organizations. When you are wrong-- which is often-- you are *very* wrong. >> Or are you saying that they are so extremely stupid that they >> can't see that they are being indoctrinated, in addition to >> being unable to see the obvious flaw in relativity that you >> and Jim so clearly see? > > That is what I am saying. A clear response! That eliminates a great deal of ambiguity. > Relativity is wrong from the start...but students are so > overwhelmed by the novelty of it they just accept blindly. How would you know? You've never taken a course in relativity and you don't know anyone who has. I guarantee that if you ever tried to explain your ideas face-to-face to a college physics student-- even one who hadn't yet seen a textbook on relativity-- he or she would be laughing at you within two minutes. Laughing at your ignorance of physics and your foolishness for thinking you could explain anything about physics to anyone else. Get this Henri: Physics students question what they are taught EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS YOU DO. I've never known an advanced physics student who didn't question *EVERYTHING*. I've met a fair number of physics students, professors, and teaching assistants. Not all of them could express themselves well, either orally or in writing. But every one of them was smarter than you are, and every one of them understood physics better than you do. "Understanding physics" means knowing how to use physics to do things. > If they don't, they fail their exams. Hence they are > indoctrinated for life. I guess that's why no new ideas ever catch on that conflict with old, existing ideas. Everyone believes the old ideas, and rejects anything that would conflict with them. > Relativity is based on the notion that a vertical light > beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam in another. > This is a simple misconception which came about because > Albert noticed that raindrops appeared to move diagonally > when viewed through the window of a moving train. I'm not going to argue physics with you in this post. Almost anyone can do it better than I, so I'll leave it to someone else. >>> .....such is the power of indoctrination. >> >> An amazingly successful indoctrination program! >> >> I wonder who administers it. The United Nations Relativity >> Acceptance Control Organization (UNRACO), maybe. Perhaps >> the UN was established mainly for the purpose of enforcing >> belief in relativity theory. It would have to be worldwide >> and extremely powerful. I wonder what they do with people >> who refuse to comply. They must be kept silent, somehow. >> Maybe most of the people supposedly in prison for drug crimes >> are really there because they threatened to tell the truth >> about relativity, and were drugged to wipe their memories. >> >> Do you think I'm a UNRACO agent? >> >> I wonder if you think that people are indoctrinated to >> believe that electricity is produced in generators powered >> by falling water or burning coal or oil or gas or fissioning >> uranium, rather than simply being pulled out of the ground >> through wires? There are people who believe that. > > Why not? Most people think milk comes out of a bottle. Milk DOES come out of a bottle, unless it freezes or curdles. It also comes out of a carton unless it freezes or curdles. Milk comes out of a cow under just about any conditions. I've never seen a curdled cow; I never hope to see one. All you could get from a frozen cow would be altered steaks. There are three major groups of people, in particular, who know that milk doesn't always come out of a bottle: Females, males over the age of nine, and babies. I guess you were referring to the remainder of the population. >>>> or >>>> >>>> 2) You don't like relativity because it seems wrong. So you >>>> don't want to understand it and don't try to understand it. >>> >>> It is obviously wrong. >>> >>> The whole idea of distorting space to make light speed constant >>> is clearly as stupid as using Earth centricism to describe the >>> universe....yet the latter theory prevailed for many centuries >>> purely through similar religious indoctrination.. >> >> What is stupid about Earth centricism? Earth is obviously at >> the center of the Universe. The stars and planets, the Moon >> and the Sun all go around the Earth every day. Look for >> yourself, you will see. Religious indoctrination has nothing >> to do with it-- It is pure observation. > > ..and Earth centrism can be used to describe the motions of > other planets,etc....but it gets awfully complicated very > quickly...just like GR. Anything beyond a certain level of complexity must be wrong? >> I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT >> at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't >> much, but if Earth centrism is really as stupid as you say, >> it should be easy for you to show that Earth is not at the >> center, and you will enjoy showing me up. This offer is to >> Henri Wilson only, and must be accomplished by the end of >> September 30, 2005. You will retain ownership and copyright >> of any original materials you submit to me for this purpose, >> but I will have perpetual, non-exclusive rights to use them >> in any way I choose. > > How can I prove that little planet Earth is not the centre > when relativity insists that all starlight in the universe > is designed to travel here at precisely c? What makes you think you have to involve relativity theory? Can't you put relativity aside even for a short time? > Einstein must be right you know. :) As far as I can see, Einstein and relativity theory are both irrelevant to the problem at hand. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: jgreen on 28 Aug 2005 03:41
Jeff Root wrote: > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > > >> George replied to Jeff: > >> > >> >> Jim Greenfield replied to George Dishman: > >> >... > >> >>> A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time > >> >>> counting the revs (frequency); > >> >... > >> >>> another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain > >> >>> that for the two results to be the same under GR: > >> >>> 1) The clocks do NOT tick together > >> > > >> >> That is what GR predicts and measurements show. > >> > > >> > Careful Jeff, the previous line said "for the > >> > two [frequencies] to be the same. > >> > >> Arrrgggh. I deleted several lines after I had already > >> clicked "Preview", because I changed my mind at the last > >> moment about what he probably meant by "the two results". > >> I didn't give it enough thought to see that I needed to > >> replace the lines with more info, not just delete them. > > > > This is bordering on the pathetic! > > You have accused me of being ambiguous and unclear on a > > situation which is perfectly clear, and then be this nonchalant. > > I don't know about "nonchalant". I mucked up because your > expression "the two results" is ambiguous and unclear. What > two results do you mean? Results of what? You still haven't > said! You have agreed that: 1) the axle doesn't twist 2) ALL attached clocks to the axle read the same, whether they are considered to be the same clock (just different hands) 3) A GpS clock at the top will read differently (COUNT differently) 4) Axle rotation is constant Now you and I and Henri will sit up there and watch both the GpS and attached clocks, and decide which set of hands is telling CORRECT TIME This is perfectly clear: if you have not the ability to either picture or discuss the situation, go join the radical religious nuts- they too share your penchant for believing magical bullshit. Jim G c'=c+v |