Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: Dono on 15 Dec 2008 02:22 On Dec 14, 7:54 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > > Anyhow, SR (and GR) are products of primitive century old theoretical > interpretations, <snip rest of your deluded ramblings> Lattkes You now sound exactly like Ken Shito. You must be approaching the ripe age of 80. Congratulations!
From: Dono on 15 Dec 2008 10:57 On Dec 6, 1:04 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It's worth noting that Spaceman has decided to snap out of it and has > turned his attention to other pointless pursuits. > NoEinstein has petered off to a few random posts on the weekend, no > longer able to muster the lung power to puff himself up anymore. > Strich9 and his several aliases seemed to have finally stopped > chattering. > Brian Jones gave a brief gasp and announced he was quitting. > ahahahanson is tired of hyenish cackling. > Louis Savain no longer has the strength to tell people to pack it for > months. > Gerald O'Barr has finally shut up. > Lester Zick has decided not to dress up anymore. > Andre Michaud is sniffing less and less, and can still be heard over > Marcel Luttgens. > And there are a few others that seem to have faded away. > > "Henri Wilson" and Ken Seto still persist in their attention-mongering > ways, and so their physical health must be fine even if their mental > health has deteriorated. > > Time to till the field and see what weeds pop up in the spring! > > PD One thing: Juan Alvarez Gonzalez and his sidekick Albert Zotkin are going strong :-)
From: Dono on 15 Dec 2008 16:53 On Dec 15, 10:53 am, "JuanShito R." <juanrgonzal...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > snip whining< Juanshito, You made the crank list, you are at the top, be proud!
From: Dono on 15 Dec 2008 18:21 On Dec 6, 1:04 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > It's worth noting that Spaceman has decided to snap out of it and has > turned his attention to other pointless pursuits. > NoEinstein has petered off to a few random posts on the weekend, no > longer able to muster the lung power to puff himself up anymore. > Strich9 and his several aliases seemed to have finally stopped > chattering. > Brian Jones gave a brief gasp and announced he was quitting. > ahahahanson is tired of hyenish cackling. > Louis Savain no longer has the strength to tell people to pack it for > months. > Gerald O'Barr has finally shut up. > Lester Zick has decided not to dress up anymore. > Andre Michaud is sniffing less and less, and can still be heard over > Marcel Luttgens. > And there are a few others that seem to have faded away. > > "Henri Wilson" and Ken Seto still persist in their attention-mongering > ways, and so their physical health must be fine even if their mental > health has deteriorated. > > Time to till the field and see what weeds pop up in the spring! > > PD Must add : Stamenin, "the Romanian cretin" to the list. He has resurected himself :-)
From: bjones on 16 Dec 2008 15:14
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Tom Roberts wrote: >bjones wrote: >> 1. Use synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed. > > First you need to define what you mean by "synchronous". > In particular, you must specify precisely how to set two > identical clocks separated by some distance so they are > "synchronous". > > As I have pointed out many times, this is not going to > be very useful, because the accuracy of atomic clocks > is insufficient to your purpose. This is much better than the wimping-out of PD and the no-showing of Dr. Dirk. At least you do not ignore or deny the fact that (absolutely) synchronous clocks would overturn SR theory, and that was all that I was trying to get across. But you are of course wrong about that accuracy thing - the time for light to travel a 10 mile course between two (absolutely) synchronous clocks will be over 50,000 ns if Earth's speed through space is merely .001c. Anyway, this is not a matter of accuracy, but a matter of theory vs. theory, and the absolutely-synchronous clock theory beats Einstein's theory all day long. I can go further. You have complained about my proposed experiments to overturn SR theory, so now I will complain about SR's alleged experimental "result" of c invariance, and wait to see how you defend SR. "c invariance" by definition means the same measured light speed c in all inertial frames. However, you cannot even show this on paper, much less experimentally. To show it, you need at least two frames (to comply with the "invariance" part), and since these two frames need to be different frames, you cannot use identical copies, but must let only one frame carry the light source. (Otherwise, you are merely repeating the experiment with only one frame.) For example, let Frame A have a light source S located at the origin, along with an origin clock. When Frame B's origin clock is at Frame A's, S emits a light ray toward two distant clocks. (Observers in each frame have used at-rest rulers to measure the distant between clocks as x.) Here is the diagram: Frame A [0]---------------x----------------[x/c] S~~> [0]---------------x----------------[x/c] Frame B I will cut you some slack here by accepting the assumption that the light's speed is c in Frame A. This justifies Einstein's placement of the time "x/c" on A's distant (unstarted) clock. Now, all you have to do is justify Einstein's placement of the time "x/c" on B's distant clock, bearing in mind that B is moving relative to S. If you cannot even show Einstein's c invariance on paper, then it certainly cannot happen experimentally. > >> 2. Perform the Michelson-Morley experiment with an unshrunken >> ruler. > >That experiment uses no ruler at all. > Objection overruled. Irrelevant. > >> 3. Perform the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment with an unslowed >> clock. > >That experiment uses no clock at all. > Objection overruled. Irrelevant. > >> 4. Try to apply Einstein's "synchronization" definition to more >> than one frame.[...] > >That definition cannot possibly be applied to clocks at rest in >different frames. > Einstein disagrees with you - "Also the definition of simultaneity can be given relative to the train in exactly the same way as with respect to the embankment." http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html > >There's no hope of your doing anything relevant to physics while you >remain so willfully ignorant of experiments, definitions, and theories. > >Tom Roberts /bjones/ |