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: PD on 22 Dec 2008 15:46 On Dec 22, 2:17 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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... That's fine. I'll take every medication that is prescribed for me by my doctor. What do you think is incoherent about relativity and why? PD
From: PD on 22 Dec 2008 15:50 On Dec 22, 2:16 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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! That's correct. It achieved its design sensitivity in late 2005. > > > 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? I don't have to be. Here are the public documents from the design team: https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/ppcomm/Papers.html You see? You can find information about LIGO for free, rather than resorting to just making stuff up! This way, you won't make bonehead mistakes like asserting that if LIGO hasn't found a positive signal by the end of its third year of operation, then it can be taken to have produced a negative scientific conclusion. > Then stop spouting nonsense.
From: RustyJames on 22 Dec 2008 16:04 On Dec 14, 9:45 am, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Dec 14, 8:43 am, shuba <tim.sh...(a)lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote: > > >> Thank you, next time, I shall use this argument before the court > > > In mluttgens-land, where the purpose of police radar is to > > measure the speed of the radar signal, it just might work. > > > ---Tim Shuba--- > > :-) :-) when was the last time you someone came up with an original idea that you could use the laws of know physics to prove or disprove it, every one here has no original ideas that can be proven by what we or others much smarter in higher levels of mathematics can show, I would love someone to at lest attempt to do the math on some of my harebrain ideas and show me on paper so I may correct the errors in my brain and get back on track to what I can see thats correct once worked out on paper I dont hold any grudges please work with me not against me I know some of you know much more about the mathematics but have no original thoughts on solving other possible conclusions to things that have puzzled me and many others.
From: Strich.9 on 22 Dec 2008 16:20 On Dec 22, 3:50 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 2:16 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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! > > That's correct. It achieved its design sensitivity in late 2005. > > > > > > 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? > > I don't have to be. Here are the public documents from the design > team:https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/ppcomm/Papers.html > You see? You can find information about LIGO for free, rather than > resorting to just making stuff up! Then why did make things up then? Did you even read the links? Oh wait, you never understand your own links.
From: Strich.9 on 22 Dec 2008 16:21
On Dec 22, 3:46 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 2:17 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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... > > That's fine. I'll take every medication that is prescribed for me by > my doctor. > What do you think is incoherent about relativity and why? > > PD- If you don't know, then you're hopeless. Change doctors. Your current medications are not working... |