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 22 Dec 2008 14:54 On Dec 22, 1:02 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 10:21 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 10:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 9:22 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 21, 5:03 am, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I believe the "black ops" comment tells us everything we need to know > > > > > about your mental state, thanks very much. > > > > > Your beliefs are irrelevant. Unless you speak from the inside, your > > > > comments are worthless. > > > > "Unless you speak from the inside...." > > > Hmmm... > > > > Well, Strich9, it's nice to see that at least the sedatives are > > > kicking in this morning for you.- > > > Are you desperately trying to imply you have clairvoyance, crackpot > > PD? > > One doesn't need clairvoyance to detect incoherence, Strich9.- But you need coherence to see incoherence. Ever saw the incoherence in relativity? No? As I said, you need some coherence first. When will you learn PD? Do you have a learning disability? Is English your native language? Do you need ritalin? Do you need tutors? I just can't believe you are sooooooooo stupid.
From: PD on 22 Dec 2008 15:04 On Dec 22, 1:50 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 1:01 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:41 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 11:39 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > facts if you are interested: > > > > > Your so-called "facts" have never been demonstrated, much less > > > > established as fact. > > > > > > [1] gravitational effects are superluminal. > > > > > What God told you this? > > > > > In PHYSICS, this is model dependent: in Newtonian gravitation, > > > > gravitational interactions are instantaneous; in GR and in the linear > > > > approximation to GR, gravitational effects propagate with speed c in any > > > > locally-inertial frame. Yet for many/most cases these models agree to > > > > much better than experimental accuracy, because in NG gravitation is a > > > > central force, but in GR and the linear approximation to GR gravity is > > > > NOT a central force. > > > > Double talk. The LIGO that was supposed to detect gravitational waves > > > propagating at c is conspicuously silent... > > > LIGO achieved design sensitivity in 2005. By design, the facility's > > odds for seeing an unambiguous event in a 5-year data-collection > > operation is 1 in 6. > > Why? At what rate did you expect LIGO to generate a result? And how > > did you arrive at that number? > > > PD- > > Hogwash. Negative is NEGATIVE. > > Convulse all you want. The LIGO is silent. Really? So if I turn on the LHC and don't see the Higgs on the first day, is that negative? If I commission a gamma-ray-burst detector and don't see a gamma ray burst in the first week, is that negative? If I have a periodic table that has had element 117 missing for some years now, even while 116 and 118 are observed, is that a negative? If LIGO is *designed* to produce a signal with 17% probability in the first five years of operation and the first four are not up yet, is that a negative? PD
From: PD on 22 Dec 2008 15:06 On Dec 22, 1:54 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 1:02 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 10:21 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 10:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:22 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 5:03 am, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > I believe the "black ops" comment tells us everything we need to know > > > > > > about your mental state, thanks very much. > > > > > > Your beliefs are irrelevant. Unless you speak from the inside, your > > > > > comments are worthless. > > > > > "Unless you speak from the inside...." > > > > Hmmm... > > > > > Well, Strich9, it's nice to see that at least the sedatives are > > > > kicking in this morning for you.- > > > > Are you desperately trying to imply you have clairvoyance, crackpot > > > PD? > > > One doesn't need clairvoyance to detect incoherence, Strich9.- > > But you need coherence to see incoherence. Ever saw the incoherence > in relativity? No? As I said, you need some coherence first. Ah, then please elucidate what you think is incoherent about relativity and why. And what does " Unless you speak from the inside, your comments are worthless" mean? In English, that is... > > When will you learn PD? Do you have a learning disability? Is > English your native language? Do you need ritalin? Do you need > tutors? I just can't believe you are sooooooooo stupid.
From: Strich.9 on 22 Dec 2008 15:16 On Dec 22, 3:04 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 1:50 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 1:01 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 11:41 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:39 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > facts if you are interested: > > > > > > Your so-called "facts" have never been demonstrated, much less > > > > > established as fact. > > > > > > > [1] gravitational effects are superluminal. > > > > > > What God told you this? > > > > > > In PHYSICS, this is model dependent: in Newtonian gravitation, > > > > > gravitational interactions are instantaneous; in GR and in the linear > > > > > approximation to GR, gravitational effects propagate with speed c in any > > > > > locally-inertial frame. Yet for many/most cases these models agree to > > > > > much better than experimental accuracy, because in NG gravitation is a > > > > > central force, but in GR and the linear approximation to GR gravity is > > > > > NOT a central force. > > > > > Double talk. The LIGO that was supposed to detect gravitational waves > > > > propagating at c is conspicuously silent... > > > > LIGO achieved design sensitivity in 2005. By design, the facility's > > > odds for seeing an unambiguous event in a 5-year data-collection > > > operation is 1 in 6. > > > Why? At what rate did you expect LIGO to generate a result? And how > > > did you arrive at that number? > > > > PD- > > > Hogwash. Negative is NEGATIVE. > > > Convulse all you want. The LIGO is silent. > > Really? > So if I turn on the LHC and don't see the Higgs on the first day, is > that negative? NOTE: LIGO was not turned on yesterday! > If I commission a gamma-ray-burst detector and don't see a gamma ray > burst in the first week, is that negative? NOTE: LIGO was not turned on last week! > If I have a periodic table that has had element 117 missing for some > years now, even while 116 and 118 are observed, is that a negative? > NOTE: LIGO has no entries AT ALL. It is all blank! > If LIGO is *designed* to produce a signal with 17% probability in the > first five years of operation and the first four are not up yet, is > that a negative? > Are you on the LIGO design team? Then stop spouting nonsense.
From: Strich.9 on 22 Dec 2008 15:17
On Dec 22, 3:06 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 1:54 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 1:02 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 10:21 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 10:27 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:22 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 21, 5:03 am, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I believe the "black ops" comment tells us everything we need to know > > > > > > > about your mental state, thanks very much. > > > > > > > Your beliefs are irrelevant. Unless you speak from the inside, your > > > > > > comments are worthless. > > > > > > "Unless you speak from the inside...." > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > > > Well, Strich9, it's nice to see that at least the sedatives are > > > > > kicking in this morning for you.- > > > > > Are you desperately trying to imply you have clairvoyance, crackpot > > > > PD? > > > > One doesn't need clairvoyance to detect incoherence, Strich9.- > > > But you need coherence to see incoherence. Ever saw the incoherence > > in relativity? No? As I said, you need some coherence first. > > Ah, then please elucidate what you think is incoherent about > relativity and why. > If you promise to take your medications, I'll help you out... |