EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Yuancur on 11 Aug 2008 02:35 On Aug 11, 12:28 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > My original point was that you can't measure something without > > reference to something > > else. I explained that in my last post, but you've snipped it out of > > your response. > > > If you had read that post properly, you wouldn't have had to ask your > > question. > I would suggest, Jenny, or whom ever you are, that you might want > to work on your communications skills. Do you find fault in the > Physics FAQ reference detailing the experimental basis of Special > Relativity? > http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.... > > August is your month to post. That's a neat change of subject. As for my communication skills, which part of what I wrote didn't you understand? What you first responded to was my asking: "I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my acceleration? Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else". A very simple pair of sentences. Your response that you could determine that the Earth was rotating by using a pendulum as a reference obviously did'nt fit the bill. Is there any specific section of the FAQ that gives an example of measuring something without reference to something else? As for my "finding fault" with the FAQ, I'm sure that it's fine. Your question is phrased in such a way as to suggest that you think that I might "disagree" with FAQ. I don't know why you might think that, since my only reference to any FAQ has been to quote from one in support of my position. Is there anything I wrote that suggests that I find fault with SR? Love, Jenny
From: Jerry on 11 Aug 2008 02:58 On Aug 10, 11:00 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > What the "others" mean is not clear to me. So far three respondents > have failed to give a singlecounter example and yet continue to > maintain that I'm wrong. > > As far as I can tell they are > > A 4th (5th?)year physics student. > A retired Researcher at Iowa State. > A maintainer of the newsgroup FAQ. > > I'm just a dumb girl. I'm often wrong, but I have to be shown that I'm > wrong. > > Love, > > Jenny Stop lying about your gender. I've sensed for a long time that you're not what you claim to be, and you've just proved it. Jerry
From: PD on 11 Aug 2008 09:11 On Aug 9, 4:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 9, 12:13 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 4:53 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...(a)newsguy.org> wrote: > > > > > In article <12eaa318-32bc-4942-9b17-249fa8f40...(a)f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > > > > NoEinstein says... > > > > > >On Aug 1, 12:20=A0am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > > >Dear Sam: And in just one hour of analysis in my local library, I > > > > >realized that M-M lacked a CONTROL. > > > > > Then maybe you needed 1 1/2 hours. For what you 'realized', as SO often, is not > > > > even true. > > > > > [snip] > > > > Dear Matthew: Anyone is welcomed to "shoot me down"if they can. > > > I wouldn't say anyone is trying to shoot you down. You can fly in the > > wrong direction all you want. Some of us will simply be noting that > > you are flying in the wrong direction, and then watching you continue > > to do it. > > > > But to do such, one must do more than "make a claim". They must > > > explain the whys and the where-fors. > > > I don't know why you think anyone owes it to you to convince you of > > something you have no intention of entertaining. One might as well try > > to teach arithmetic to a river stone. > > > This is not a forum for "Shut me up if you can" or "Convince me I'm > > wrong if you dare." If that is the game you want, I hope you like > > solitaire. > > Dear PD: :}- ~ - NoEinstein If you have no response, then why bother posting an empty response. If you have nothing to say, then I recommend that you simply not say it. PD
From: PD on 11 Aug 2008 09:23 On Aug 9, 4:49 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 9, 12:18 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 5, 8:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Aug 2, 10:47 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > PD: Ether has no mass. But tangles of it do. Instead of looking for > > > the missing mass, just realize that the estimate of the Universe's > > > mass, from Newton's Law of U. G., is wrong. > > > The estimate of the universe's mass doesn't come from Newton's law of > > U. G. > > Please do catch up. > > > And I'm curious why tangles of something massless have mass, as you > > say. > > > > Correct that, and you can > > > stop the insane searches for mass. NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear PD: The "assumed" masses of the universe are those necessary to > hold the orbiting bodies in their observed (Doppler shifted) orbits. > And those forces are based on Newton's "Law" of Universal Gravitation Nope. Not based on Newton's law of universal gravitation. I don't know where you got the goofy idea that they are. And you still haven't answered how tangles of something massless can have mass. > > which is in error. NoEinstein
From: Yuancur on 11 Aug 2008 13:01
On Aug 11, 1:58 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 10, 11:00 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > I'm just a dumb girl. I'm often wrong, but I have to be shown that I'm > > wrong. > > > Stop lying about your gender. I've sensed for a long time that > you're not what you claim to be, and you've just proved it. > LOL! My husband thinks I'm female, he got a laugh out of that one. Did you notice that when people have been shown to be wrong they try to change the subject and, if not succesful at that, they go away. Now, back to the topic, if you have an example of how to measure something without referencing it to something else, let me know. Eric, Dave and Sam have all gone away rather than give an example of what they claim. Don't you think they would have given an example if they could?. And why would they make claims that they can't back up? Is that the New Scientific Method? Love, Jenny |