EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 11 Aug 2008 16:30 On Aug 11, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: Good question! Mass is: "That which can be acted upon by gravity." Since gravity is just "flowing ether", then tangles of ether must impede the flow of etherand thus be subject to a force being applied. The tighter the tangles, the higher the mass. NoEinstein
From: Yuancur on 11 Aug 2008 16:32 On Aug 11, 3:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Dear Jenny: My X, Y, Z interferometer can detect the speed and the > velocity of the Earth without making any OUTSIDE observations. But > one must make inside observations to count the fringe shifts. > NoEinstein And somewhere in the process, I'm sure that you compare one count with some other count. Love, Jenny
From: Spaceman on 11 Aug 2008 16:42 NoEinstein wrote: > On Aug 10, 7:13 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: >> Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: >>> On Aug 10, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >>>> Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >>>>> With respect to what? >> >>>> The observers reference frame... if you deny that, then you deny >>>> any and all observation. Have you learned anything in the thread >>>> "Jenny"? >> >>> Now let's sum up the conversation; >>> ____________________________ >>> Jenny's question: >>> Isn't comparison, the very substance of the experiment? >>> How do you measure something without reference to something >>> else? >> >>> Eric's response: >>> Acceleration is absolute - no reference required. >> >>> Jenny's response (attempting to draw out the realization that >>> comparison is the very substance of experiment): >>> I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my acceleration? >> >>> Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else >> >>> Sam: >>> I can determine that the earth is rotating... >>> pendulum _ >>> ________________________________ >> >>> Notice that all your examples have involved *referencing* things to >>> other things. >> >>> In this case, my motion to the pendulum's motion. >> >>> In order to show that comparison is not the very substance of >>> experiment, you have to come up with something other than comparing >>> "me" to "not me". >> >> Hi Jenny, >> You are talking to the "relativists" that actualy do not really >> understand relativity, they merely worship it and have learned all >> the "catch" phrases such as acceleration is absolute and time is not >> etc. >> They have been brainwashed to accept these phrases and can't realize >> the problems no matter how many times you ask them to say "no >> reference" they will just twist around the original statement until >> you get sick of it and >> they say something else wrong that you will try and get them to >> realize. You will be in a never ending loop of them ignoring any >> questions >> you ask specifically like such. >> So just remember to have fun, and don't forget to call them Einstein >> dingleberries once in a while. >> :) >> >> -- >> James M Driscoll Jr >> Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory >> Spaceman- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Dear Spaceman: Amen! �� NoEinstein �� :) I have yet seen even one of them realize how stupid it is to say u+v is wrong and yet use it inside an equation as if it were correct. If they can do such, it would be there first step towards the de-brainwashing. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Aug 2008 16:50 Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote: >> > I went back to school last September to this April to take a degree in > physics. > > I was travelling in May > > In June and July I took some maths courses. > > September 3rd I'll be back in school for my second year. > > Love, > > Jenny > Good for you Jenny... going back to school in physics. Stay active in these newsgroups. You probably won't accept this an an example, but counting fringes doesn't require a reference other than referencing any change. Differential measurement! Take Care.
From: PD on 11 Aug 2008 16:54
On Aug 11, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 11, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 9, 4:49 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > > Dear PD: Good question! Mass is: "That which can be acted upon by > gravity." That's an interesting definition. You do realize, don't you, that this is not the definition that physics uses for "mass" at all? > Since gravity is just "flowing ether", Yes, I remember you saying that. You still haven't explained where the "flowing ether" that flows into the moon emerges. > then tangles of > ether must impede the flow of ether Sorry, this doesn't follow from your own definition. You say mass is that which is acted on by gravity, but here you say gravity is that which is impeded by mass. Which one is acted on by which? > and thus be subject to a force > being applied. The tighter the tangles, the higher the mass. > NoEinstein |