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: Strich.9 on 18 Dec 2008 08:47 On Dec 17, 6:21 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 1:57 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 6, 4:04 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 > > > Two lines of advice: > > > Never wake a sleeping dragon... > > > Never heckle a vacationing enemy... > > oooh.... an *enemy*. Carrying a plastic sword and knee pads, no less. > Impressive! > > > > > > > As for your tilling the field of relativity, take my other advice... > > nothing will grow out of it. Like all wrong theories, it is a dead > > end...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No plastic sword needed. Your deluded overestimation of a schizophrenic theory will be amusing for generations. Logic... Strike one. LIGO... Strike two. GPB... Strike three. Relativity strikes out but the fans refuse to believe their make believe invincible team lost.
From: glird on 19 Dec 2008 17:55 On Dec 16, 3:14 pm,(bjones) wrote: > On 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". >> "Synchronous": Synchronous clocks are those whose hands are set identically at a given epoch and remain so at successive instants. <<In particular, you must specify precisely how to set two identical clocks separated by some distance so they are "synchronous". >> HOW to do that is NOT part of the definition. (It was the way Einstein confused his followers into thinking his contrary definition is valid.) << 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. >> Einstein's definition of how to set clocks is independent of their accuracy. < "c invariance" by definition means the same measured light speed c in all frames. To show it, you need at least two frames (to comply with the "invariance" part). 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. ... Here is the diagram: Frame A [0]---------------x----------------[x/c] S~~> Frame B [0]---------------x----------------[x/c] 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 clock. > Einstein repeatedly stipulated that frame A (his system K) is a stationary system. As such, the speed of light in any direction in it would indeed be c, regardless of how or if it was measured. Even so, for the sake of others, let me clarify your example, B. J. Let frame A (x,y,z; t) be at rest in the "empty space" in which Einstein postulated that the speed of light is a constant, c = 1 unit/ second. Let rod rAB, attached to frame A, be one unit long with a clock attached at each end. Let end A be at x = 0 and end B at x = 1. Let frame B (xi,eta,zeta; tau) be moving to the right at .6c as measured by frame A. Let rod rA'B', which is identical to rAB, be attached to frame B; with end A' and its clock A' at xi = 0 and end B' and its clock B' at xi = 1. Let the origins coincide with a light source S at t = tau = 0; when S emits a ray of light toward clocks B and B', which coincide at that instant. Here is the diagram: Frame A 0-------------x--------------B, at x = 1 Ray ~~> Frame B 0-------------x--------------B', at xi = 1 < 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.> Einstein didn't do that, BJ. He set the time on STATIONARY clock B to t = x/c = 1. Then in accord with HIS DEFINITION adjusted the time on THE MOVING clock B' to REGISTER tau = 1 when the ray arrived. In the following explanation we will let lengths remain constant regardless of velocity. {Anyone who disagrees is invited either to quote anything in the 1905 paper that supports his argument or to shut up.} At tA = tauA' = 0 a ray emits from the coinciding origins toward clocks B and B'. It will take the ray t = x/c = 1/1 = 1 second to get to clock B. If clock B has a different time than that when the ray arrives, it is adjusted by hand to say "t = 1". Since clock B' is moving to the right at .6c it will take the ray xi/ (c-v) = 1/.4 = 2.5 seconds to get to it. In order for frame B to plot this as tauB' = xi/c = 1, Einstein's definition requires that the time of clock B' be adjusted to be in accord with the following two equations: tautB' - tauA' = tau2 - tauB' and .5[tauA' + tau2) = tauB'; in which tau2 is the time of clock A' when the ray returns to it. The left side of the first equation denotes the one way time outbound and the right side denotes the one way return time. The left side of the second equation denotes the total roundtrip time and the right side denotes the one way time outbound. Hence, as he wrote in his 1905 paper, .5[1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]delta tau/delta t = delta tau/delta x' + [1/(c-v)]delta tau/delta t. Other than for the prior stipulation that "x' = x - vt", Einstein never verbally or mathematically defined the expressions delta tau/ delta t or delta tau/delta x'. I will do so now. delta tau/delta t = dtau/dt denotes the ratio of rates of clocks of the two systems, as measured by frame A. In delta tau/delta x' = dtau/ dx' = dtau/d(x-vt), dtau denotes the difference between the adjusted time of clock B' compared to that of clock A' of frame B; delta x' = dx' = d(x - vt) is the distance between clocks A' and B' of frame B as plotted by frame A; where x is the position of each moving clock on X at a time t, and v is the velocity of frame B relative to frame A. <<< 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." > Einstein didn't define "simultaneity' OR "synchronism". He defined a method of setting the hands of individual clocks of a given system so they will MEASURE the speed of light as a constant in all directions even though, as HIS findings proved, it isn't. <<There's no hope of your doing anything relevant to physics while you remain so willfully ignorant of experiments, definitions, and theories. Tom Roberts >> There's no hope of Tom Roberts or any physicist doing anything relevant at all, while remaining so willfully ignorant of experiments, definitions, and theories.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 19 Dec 2008 18:18 glird <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message b7505a8d-ecca-4b68-9d67-a1931555472f(a)a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com > On Dec 16, 3:14 pm,(bjones) wrote: >> On 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". >> > > "Synchronous": Synchronous clocks are those whose hands are set > identically at a given epoch and remain so at successive instants. > > <<In particular, you must specify precisely how to set two identical > clocks separated by some distance so they are "synchronous". >> > > HOW to do that is NOT part of the definition. (It was the way > Einstein confused his followers into thinking his contrary definition > is valid.) > > << 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. >> > > Einstein's definition of how to set clocks is independent of their > accuracy. > > < "c invariance" by definition means the same measured light speed c > in all frames. To show it, you need at least two frames (to comply > with the "invariance" part). 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. ... Here is the diagram: > Frame A [0]---------------x----------------[x/c] > S~~> > Frame B [0]---------------x----------------[x/c] > 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 clock. > > > Einstein repeatedly stipulated that frame A (his system K) is a > stationary system. As such, the speed of light in any direction in it > would indeed be c, regardless of how or if it was measured. Even so, > for the sake of others, let me clarify your example, B. J. > Let frame A (x,y,z; t) be at rest in the "empty space" in which > Einstein postulated that the speed of light is a constant, c = 1 unit/ > second. Let rod rAB, attached to frame A, be one unit long with a > clock attached at each end. Let end A be at x = 0 and end B at x = 1. > Let frame B (xi,eta,zeta; tau) be moving to the right at .6c as > measured by frame A. Let rod rA'B', which is identical to rAB, be > attached to frame B; with end A' and its clock A' at xi = 0 and end B' > and its clock B' at xi = 1. Let the origins coincide with a light > source S at t = tau = 0; when S emits a ray of light toward clocks B > and B', which coincide at that instant. Here is the diagram: > Frame A 0-------------x--------------B, at x = 1 > Ray ~~> > Frame B 0-------------x--------------B', at xi = 1 > > < 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.> > > Einstein didn't do that, BJ. He set the time on STATIONARY clock B > to t = x/c = 1. Then � in accord with HIS DEFINITION � adjusted the > time on THE MOVING clock B' to REGISTER tau = 1 when the ray arrived. > In the following explanation we will let lengths remain constant > regardless of velocity. {Anyone who disagrees is invited either to > quote anything in the 1905 paper that supports his argument or to shut > up.} > At tA = tauA' = 0 a ray emits from the coinciding origins toward > clocks B and B'. It will take the ray t = x/c = 1/1 = 1 second to get > to clock B. If clock B has a different time than that when the ray > arrives, it is adjusted � by hand � to say "t = 1". > Since clock B' is moving to the right at .6c it will take the ray xi/ > (c-v) = 1/.4 = 2.5 seconds to get to it. In order for frame B to plot > this as tauB' = xi/c = 1, Einstein's definition requires that the time > of clock B' be adjusted to be in accord with the following two > equations: > tautB' - tauA' = tau2 - tauB' and .5[tauA' + tau2) = > tauB'; > in which tau2 is the time of clock A' when the ray returns to it. The > left side of the first equation denotes the one way time outbound and > the right side denotes the one way return time. The left side of the > second equation denotes the total roundtrip time and the right side > denotes the one way time outbound. Hence, as he wrote in his 1905 > paper, .5[1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]delta tau/delta t = delta tau/delta x' + > [1/(c-v)]delta tau/delta t. > Other than for the prior stipulation that "x' = x - vt", Einstein > never verbally or mathematically defined the expressions delta tau/ > delta t or delta tau/delta x'. I will do so now. > delta tau/delta t = dtau/dt denotes the ratio of rates of clocks of > the two systems, as measured by frame A. In delta tau/delta x' = dtau/ > dx' = dtau/d(x-vt), dtau denotes the difference between the adjusted > time of clock B' compared to that of clock A' of frame B; delta x' = > dx' = d(x - vt) is the distance between clocks A' and B' of frame B as > plotted by frame A; where x is the position of each moving clock on X > at a time t, and v is the velocity of frame B relative to frame A. > > <<< 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." > > > Einstein didn't define "simultaneity' OR "synchronism". He defined a > method of setting the hands of individual clocks of a given system so > they will MEASURE the speed of light as a constant in all directions > even though, as HIS findings proved, it isn't. > > <<There's no hope of your doing anything relevant to physics while you > remain so willfully ignorant of experiments, definitions, and > theories. Tom Roberts >> > > There's no hope of Tom Roberts � or any physicist � doing anything > relevant at all, while remaining so willfully ignorant of experiments, > definitions, and theories. Right, just what we need here... a dementing imbecile trying to educate a demented one - good grief. Dirk Vdm
From: schoenfeld.one on 21 Dec 2008 06:03 On Dec 9, 7:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > GSS wrote: > > An unquestioning faith is the keystone of all regions. > > I assume you meant "religions". Yes. > > The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with > modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning > faith". > > "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" > -- Arthur C, Clarke > > "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." > -- Tom Roberts > > The key is to advance YOUR OWN understanding so that you can distinguish > them. > > > However, > > demanding an unquestioning faith in any of the scientific disciplines > > will surely lead to stagnation and self destruction in that > > discipline. > > No scientific discipline "demands" that. What they require is > UNDERSTANDING, not faith. But to you, and to all too many people around > here, the two are indistinguishable. > > > The so called 'crackpots' and 'cranks', are extremely important > > members of the scientific community, who are nurturing the important > > discipline of Physics and preventing its degeneration into a religious > > faith. > > Not true. There is no instance in the history of physics of someone > making a contribution to the field without understanding the > then-current theories and experiments. Contrary to your claim, crackpots > and cranks who do not understand the now-current theories and > experiments are not any part of the scientific community. People who > present dissenting opinions with full knowledge of current theories and > experiments are neither crackpots nor cranks -- one obvious difference > is these latter can get published in the mainstream literature. Cranks > and crackpots generally cannot get published in the mainstream > literature, because a major purpose of peer review is to avoid wasting > readers' time with "impossible" nonsense (see my next paragraph for the > meaning of "impossible" here). > > > Exploration of all possible alternatives, hypothesis and > > viewpoints, is absolutely essential for the well being and progress of > > any scientific discipline. > > Yes. The key word is "possible", which in science means "consistent with > all known experiments". Without knowing the current experimental record, > a crackpot or crank simply does not understand what is and is not POSSIBLE. > > One must generally understand the then-current theories > used when the experiment was published, in order to be > able to read their paper(s) intelligently. The MMX is an > excellent example of this, as are Miller's measurements. > Such papers are inherently embedded in the context and > milieu of physics when they were written. > > > It is certainly not necessary that all dissenting opinion must be > > workable, brilliant or acceptable to the mainstream. > > No. But it _IS_ necessary that USEFUL "dissenting opinion" be POSSIBLE > (in the above sense). Impossible "dissenting opinion" is useless and can > be safely ignored. That's why so few real scientists pay attention to > this newsgroup -- >90% of the posts are nonsense (or worse), and >99% of > the "dissenting opinions" are IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense). > > > Dissenting > > opinion must be treated as an essential part of the exploration > > process, to explore various inadequacies and shortcomings in the > > current paradigm and to explore various alternatives. > > Not when such "dissenting opinion" is IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense). > > The scientific literature is full of "dissenting opinion". Practically > all of modern physics was once "dissenting opinion". And there are > several current schools of thought about extending relativity ("doubly > special relativity", "loop quantum gravity", "string theory", ...). But > you won't hear about them around here, because they are all advanced > topics far beyond the capabilities of just about everybody who > contributes to this newsgroup; there are MUCH better forums in which to > discuss them (primarily the literature, not the internet). The cranks > and crackpots around here are in a completely different world, which is > unrelated to science (and thus uninteresting to most scientists). > > Tom Roberts Roberts knows only what he has been exposed to. Black ops people know the current physics is a bunch of nonsense as far as it being "the truth", but it does have limited commercial applications. facts if you are interested: [1] gravitational effects are superluminal. [2] the "strong nuclear force" and "gravity" are aspects of the same "effect". [3] gravity has a "wave-like" structure and something to do with deformations of "spacetime". note: this description relies on our existing understanding and is thus imprecise, but shows what it is similar to. ultimately, it is likely something totally different. [4] artifical gravity can be produced by "amplifying" the "strong nuclear force" and channeling the energy, somehow, via wave-guides (like a microwave does) over regions of spacetime which appear to result in deformations of spacetime creating a local dip in spacetime allows the craft to "fall" into it. the waves always interfere just infront so the craft is always falling into the aritifical dip its creating. [5] teleportation effects occur when matter approaches a "luminal structure", thereby reducing mass to 0 but maintaining its compoisition somehow, and then displacing as "superluminal light". [6] quantum theory is just a mathematical theory with no physical significance. most of its results, when it comes to more complex molecules, are bogus and require ad-hoc algorithms/approaches to derive meaningful results (i.e. cancel infinities). you can solve the emission spectrum problems and solve for molecules using classical EM properly. for example, understanding that accelerated charges do not radiate merely because they are accelerated, but because accelerated charges tend to have spacetime Fourier transforms with components that are proportional to frequency/ c, can lead to a model of the electron as a spherical shell of charge rotating in needed ways to prevent it radiations (requires 2 angular momentum vectors - see electron orbitsphere for more info). Bob Lazar covers some interesting info, if anyone bothers to care.
From: Dono on 21 Dec 2008 11:22
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 David (Seppala) and schoenfeld are back in force :-) |