FR Bending of Light -- Proof
in [Relativity]
|
From: Phil Bouchard on 25 Jan 2010 13:56 eric gisse wrote: > > Have you ever seen a grant application, Phil? Yes, you need a biographical sketch for every individual part of the application.
From: Androcles on 25 Jan 2010 14:01 "Phil Bouchard" <phil(a)fornux.com> wrote in message news:4b5de648$1(a)news.x-privat.org... > PD wrote: >> >> Not at all. He's no god. Just a physicist. Happened to get a few >> things right. > > Well the 2 postulates of SR are wrong, Well the 2 names of Phil Bouhcard are wrong, but the first is correct. The 3rd postulate of SR is wrong too; "the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A" is complete nonsense if A moves wrt B. Phuckwit Duck gets nothing right. quote/ I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there. I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD /unquote Be careful not to blast his tail feathers, you might demoralize the hypocritical bigot again.
From: PD on 25 Jan 2010 14:09 On Jan 25, 12:43 pm, Phil Bouchard <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > > Not at all. He's no god. Just a physicist. Happened to get a few > > things right. > > Well the 2 postulates of SR are wrong, What evidence is there that the principle of relativity is wrong, Phil? What evidence is there that the speed of light in a vacuum is not c, Phil? > E=mc^2 never really was proven, ... Theories are not proven, Phil. Were you expecting it should be? > > > First you have to mount a challenge. If you enter a boxing ring with a > > world-class boxer and say, "I challenge you!," trust me, that's no > > challenge. > > If you're already some national champion he'll have to accept the > challenge actually. Not if the challenger is a schmuck from the street. > That's how it is, you challenge state title holders > after winning regional ones; you go on with the national tournament > after winning the state-wise one; and you then end up with world class > championships if all went well at your national tournament. Then you have a few preliminaries to win first, don't you?
From: Sam Wormley on 25 Jan 2010 14:23 On 1/25/10 12:43 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote: > > Well the 2 postulates of SR are wrong... > Is that all the better you can do Phil? From Einstein's ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905 They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to (1) the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only (2) apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas and make his case... I would like to remind you Phil, that there has NEVER been on observation that contradicts a prediction of special or general relativity. NEVER!
From: oriel36 on 25 Jan 2010 15:14
On Jan 25, 7:01 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "Phil Bouchard" <p...(a)fornux.com> wrote in message > > news:4b5de648$1(a)news.x-privat.org... > > > PD wrote: > > >> Not at all. He's no god. Just a physicist. Happened to get a few > >> things right. > > > Well the 2 postulates of SR are wrong, > > Well the 2 names of Phil Bouhcard are wrong, but the first is correct. > The 3rd postulate of SR is wrong too; "the ``time'' required by light to > travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A" is > complete nonsense if A moves wrt B. > > Phuckwit Duck gets nothing right. > quote/ > I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. > > I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather > than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for > that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting > to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound > thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal. > > While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the > intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual > "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a > reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn > from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in > someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it > straight, and then make progress from there. > > I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would > read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was > confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, > my heart does not. > > [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to > appear] > PD > /unquote > Be careful not to blast his tail feathers, you might demoralize > the hypocritical bigot again. Did you not announce to everyone that you are a relativist after all - http://www.bartelby.net/173/4.html Keep your mouth shut when I tell you but don't pretend not to be a relativist when Albert is consistent from chapter 4 to chapter 5. Let you state publicaly where you stand and don't you ever try to tangle with me again you foulmouthed nuisance |