Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Jun 2010 03:41 On Jun 8, 7:39 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The mutual time dilation that manifests the twin's paradox has never > > been observed. All observations have indicated an absolute > > simultaneity. All observations have challenged SR and GR. I have > > addressed all that in the past. <shrug> > > God knows *exactly* what you mean by the term "mutual time dilation" - > cranks love inventing new terminology, almost as much as they like > misappropriating old terminology. So, you don't understand SR after all. > If you mean that the effects of the twin's paradox has not been observed, > that is a complete nonsense. It has been directly tested on a macro scale by > flying clocks in airplanes. Time dilation itself is observed every day in > particle accelerators. The mutual time dilation a paradox. The paradox can never be observed, and the paradox has never been observed. All observations are strictly limiting to one frame which would break this symmetry. <shrug> > If you think SR is wrong, you first have to show some experimental evidence > in conflict with SR. Your airplane experiment is a fine example. <shrug> > Of course, you can't. > > So I guess you are probably wrong, huh? What an idiot you are! <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 9 Jun 2010 03:46 On Jun 8, 7:08 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: >> Is the Lorentz transform is unique among them >> because it satisfies the principle of relativity? > > If you accept Maxwell's equations to be correct, then the answer is yes, > because Maxwell's equations transform using Lorentz and so by equivalence > everything else you can measure must transform in the same way. Maxwell's equations can easily be transformed using any of the infinite numbers of transforms that explain the null results of the MMX but do not satisfy the principle of relativity. One example is Larmor's original Lorentz transform that does not satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug>
From: nuny on 9 Jun 2010 05:20 On Jun 9, 12:37 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 8, 5:37 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 9:40 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > > > > The following equation can never be derived from SR... > > > ... Do you understand what I am saying or not? If you don't, > > > we have nothing to discuss. <shrug> > > > Screw abstract math, yours *and* the "standard". I prefer the > > concrete to the abstract. Specifically: > > Physics with math is philosophy. In physics, there is the valid and > the invalid; in philosophy, there is no right and no wrong. <shrug> Screw philosophy; I'm talking phenomenology. You can twist things up with math any way you want them to go, but phenomena will expose trickery every time. > > > > Tell us why gold is yellow. > > > > It is yellow because it reflects only the yellow wavelength of light? > > > No. Read the paper again, but don't start at the beginning. Start > > with the paragraph wrapped around the medal. Ignore the graphic and > > read the text. Here's what's measured: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Image-Metal-reflectance.png > > > Can you explain that Classically? > > So, am I correct? Gold absorbs all wavelengths of life except > yellow. There is why it appears to be yellow. <shrug> No, you are wrong. You are incapable of reading a simple graph. You are incapable of understanding the question. You prefer to shrug off what you cannot understand. You cannot understand because you are ignorant, but do not bother to educate yourself. Your opinions are therefore worthless. You are a waste of time. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Peter Webb on 9 Jun 2010 08:36 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:75a624f8-168f-4adf-b270-2f447a1b1960(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 8, 7:39 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >> > The mutual time dilation that manifests the twin's paradox has never >> > been observed. All observations have indicated an absolute >> > simultaneity. All observations have challenged SR and GR. I have >> > addressed all that in the past. <shrug> >> >> God knows *exactly* what you mean by the term "mutual time dilation" - >> cranks love inventing new terminology, almost as much as they like >> misappropriating old terminology. > > So, you don't understand SR after all. > >> If you mean that the effects of the twin's paradox has not been observed, >> that is a complete nonsense. It has been directly tested on a macro scale >> by >> flying clocks in airplanes. Time dilation itself is observed every day in >> particle accelerators. > > The mutual time dilation a paradox. The paradox can never be > observed, and the paradox has never been observed. Simply untrue. People have flown clocks in airplanes, for example Science Vol. 177 pg 166-170 (1972) and in many other direct experiments. > All observations > are strictly limiting to one frame which would break this symmetry. > <shrug> Whatever that is supposed to mean. You can look at the clocks in any way you like, the travelling twin does age less, and this has been demonstrated many times experimentally. > >> If you think SR is wrong, you first have to show some experimental >> evidence >> in conflict with SR. > > Your airplane experiment is a fine example. <shrug> Well, show some experimental evidence. When people actually do transport clocks on aeroplanes, and satellites, and spacecraft the travelling clock ages less. When we fire particles around cyclotrons we fgind the same thing. When we analyse cosmic rays we see the same thing. The huge body of experimental evidence in support of SR is summarised here: http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Now, how about you provide the experimental evidence for some other theory, and what that theory is, right here: > >> Of course, you can't. >> >> So I guess you are probably wrong, huh? > > What an idiot you are! <shrug> > > Hmmm. Another claim without evidence. Don't forget to post that list of peer reviewed research of experiments which disprove SR, something like that list I provided above would be great.
From: Me, ...again! on 9 Jun 2010 08:56
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > On Jun 8, 4:36 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, PD wrote: >>> On Jun 8, 9:32 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >>> wrote: >>>>> Since the controversy -- as I've demonstrated with two dozen books written >>>>> in the last ten years--is ongoing, the only generous conclusion I can make >>>>> is that science has failed to resolve the controversy decades after E/R >>>>> came out. >> >>> I'm also curious about your apparent belief that if a theory were >>> really accepted scientifically, then there wouldn't be any dissenting >>> opinions. >> >> Here are (I think) two examples: first, the value of pi is 3.1416, and >> second, if I said "The sun came up yesterday", I would expect that there >> wouldn't be any significant dissent. > > First of all, those are not theories in the sense that there is a > model of the behavior of nature that makes predictions of measurable > behavior under specified sets of circumstances. The value of pi is a > constant that sometimes appears in such theories, such as the theory > surrounding electrodynamics. The *observation* that the sun came up > yesterday can certainly be used as experimental support or > falsification of a theory that would have made predictions about that > behavior occurring yesterday. > > Can you try a little better? Since you have a doctorate in a major > field of science, I would think that you would be able to distinguish > a theory from an observational fact or a numerical constant. It may seem trivial to you, but the value of pi derives from a mathematical formula and is both commercially useful and and of theoretical interest for those few people who like to calculate its value out to gazillion decimal places in the hopes of learning something profound of mathematical obscure significance in, shall I say, "numerology". My own realm of interest is _more_ in the Great Recession and the oil leak in the Gulf. My interest is also in _truth_ (or whatever enters our brains as knowledge [instead of superstition, etc]). I have this theory of my own that there really is very little truth; instead, we have tons of speculation, opinions, conjecture, belief, huffing-and-puffing, propaganda, disbelief, and somewhere I wrote down another two dozen terms. The "sun came up" statement was an attempt to find something that would be hard to argue against but it is a part of the "prediction theory" that says the sun comes up every day. Some "difficult" philosopher could argue that the sun does not come up every day, or that if I talke about the sun came up today, he could give me a difficult time on that, too. A very practical problem with theories is when people try to establish cause-and-effect relationships by using correlations. In complex worlds (eg. ours), correlations are imperfect evidence of cause-effect, but they do get publications from scholars who don't have the resources to design proper experiments since it would require the study of very large numbers of variables. Do you want specific examples? To get closer to what I think might satisfy YOU, I opened up that quantum mechanics (text, 668 pages so its not a comic book) book authored by Morrison (c 1990, so its not obsolete) to the chapter I read just recently on the wave-particle duality. He is a faculty member, so people can't as easily call him a nut-case because he is a practicing physicist, and the book is full of math, so he's not a kindergarten-level dumb twit, either [but he might have enemies in academia, as is not uncommon among competitors and I know about this as fact]). He cites another book he wrote (also physics) so its not a one shot deal, and at the end of chapters, he cites relevant and significant sources (in about 20 books), some by the famous names, that have appeared going back many decades. He gives a very nice, undogmatic discussion of the duality and I will discuss that because its a "simpler" _problem_ than E/R. And, if you want, I'd be glad to scan 2-3 pages into, say, a zipped .bmp file or .jpg (I'm not going to type up all those pages for you, and although I have an OCR program somewhere, its buggy and would take longer to set it all up) to see how an open-minded guy can be professional, academic, and intellectually honest about "theories." He discussed interpretation as a major problem area for developing knowledge from experiments (which themselves are limited and subject to design, errors, etc). He has many well thought out sentences. Here is a string of several short ones: "Electrons are not particles. They aren't waves either. They are something else for which we neither have a name nor a classical model. Properly, we should follow deBroglie's lead and refer to them as 'fragments of energy,' but that would be awkward. Or, we could follow Eddington and call them 'wavicles,' but that would be silly." So, in these pages I thought the guy was being knowledgeable, careful, wise, and...above all...undogmatic. |