EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 2 Aug 2008 00:37 Dear Sam Wormley: "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message news:2WQkk.280086$yE1.137306(a)attbi_s21... > john wrote: > >> Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! >> > > At least the unseen dark matter can, and is being, > mapped, John. Sam, as a sidelight, have you seen this: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/20/full/ It doesn't do anything for Dark Matter, but apparently is provides the "necessary" missing normal matter. I find it hard to believe there is a significant amount of O+5 in intergalactic space, but Nature doesn't care what I believe either... David A. Smith
From: Mitch Raemsch on 2 Aug 2008 01:00 On Aug 1, 8:37 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Sam Wormley: > > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message > > news:2WQkk.280086$yE1.137306(a)attbi_s21... > > > john wrote: > > >> Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! > > > At least the unseen dark matter can, and is being, > > mapped, John. > > Sam, as a sidelight, have you seen this:http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/20/full/ > > It doesn't do anything for Dark Matter, but apparently is > provides the "necessary" missing normal matter. > > I find it hard to believe there is a significant amount of O+5 in > intergalactic space, but Nature doesn't care what I believe > either... > > David A. Smith Dark matter at the Big Bang would be mixed with matter. Earth and stars ought to be made primarily of it. This is not the case. Mitch Raemsch
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Aug 2008 01:23 N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > Dear Sam Wormley: > > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message > news:2WQkk.280086$yE1.137306(a)attbi_s21... >> john wrote: >> >>> Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! >>> >> At least the unseen dark matter can, and is being, >> mapped, John. > > Sam, as a sidelight, have you seen this: > http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/20/full/ Yes David... And it will be interesting to see how this plays out. > > It doesn't do anything for Dark Matter, but apparently is > provides the "necessary" missing normal matter. > > I find it hard to believe there is a significant amount of O+5 in > intergalactic space, but Nature doesn't care what I believe > either... Even more interesting is how this O+5 and presumably a reasonable mix of the other elements escaped the galaxies in which it was created. New data... more often than not raises more questions than it resolves... The universe would be pretty boring if that was not the case. :-) > > David A. Smith > >
From: PD on 2 Aug 2008 10:47 On Aug 1, 8:43 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Aug 1, 4:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 4:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > ...but there is no single aether. > > > your theory is an oversimplification. > > > Of course not. There are four and a half ethers. Possibly more, if you > > count the one with the long ears. > > > I do love it when two people idle away the time by *making up stuff on > > the fly* that doesn't mean anything and chucking it at each other. > > It's kind of like watching two people at a costume party, having a > > conversation by saying things they *imagine* their characters would > > say, being wholly absorbed in the *game* and not at all in what each > > other is saying. > > > PD > > There is the aether in M + M's heads that > they 'disproved' after deciding what it could or could > not do beforehand. > > Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! > > Idiot. Dark matter is not aether. It provides no medium for electromagnetic transmission. > > John
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 1 Aug 2008 17:51
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:57:49 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 31, 5:40�pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 31, 4:59�am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> On Jul 29, 8:37�pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >> >> Dear Henri: �Yes, we've got PD pegged. �I just wish it was with a >> >> 'wooden stake' through his blood sucker's heart. ��� NoEinstein �� >> >> >:>) >> >Good to know you're irritated. >> >And apparently not just by me. >> >I wonder if you have a compulsion to be mocked. You certainly can't >> >seem to step away from the circumstances where that happens. Ever >> >wonder what your role in that is? >> >> Diaper, just accept the facts. YOU have been hopelessly indoctrinated by a >> typical religion. >> > >Well, that's one of your cut-and-paste statements that you toss out >when you lack the imagination to think of something new to say. > >I'll reiterate that some have the privilege (and I'm one) of running >experiments that are designed to discern whether relativity is the way >that nature works. So it becomes a matter of whether I should believe >my own eyes. If I understand you right: >1. If one reads a theoretical article or book about relativity and >verifies that it is logically consistent and mathematically correct, >then one is indoctrinated. >2. If one reads an experimental paper or book about relativity and >sees that reproducible data with documented integrity checks are >consistent with relativity, then one is indoctrinated. >3. If one runs an experiment for oneself and verifies for oneself that >data collected and carefully analyzed are in agreement with >relativity, then one is indoctrinated. >4. Only if one steadfastly refuses to believe any logically consistent >and mathematically correct theory that supports relativity, refuses to >believe any reproducible data with checked integrity that supports >relativity, and in fact refuses to believe one's own eyes if they do >an experiment to test relativity's claims -- only then does one escape >indoctrination. > >In other words, deny any verifiable reality if it supports relativity, >for the overriding purpose of avoiding indoctrination. The only 'experimental evidence' that even remotely supports Einstein's version of relativity is either statistically unsound or has alternative Newtonian explanations. For instance the GR and BaTh equation for gravitational redshift is exactly the same. >PD Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. |