GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jeckyl on 24 Jun 2007 11:02 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1182668489.618438.156220(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:1182609335.322097.277120(a)e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Another content free post. Congratulations! >> >> Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing >> worthwhile >> saying .. you're just stalking me because you're pissed off that you were >> wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so apparent. >> It >> wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very >> clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect) >> mathematic >> justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and >> (incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all the >> while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when you >> grow >> up, you'll learn. > > Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS > solution to the problem you keep refering to? Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS solution to the problem?
From: Dono on 24 Jun 2007 11:40 On Jun 24, 8:02 am, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:1182668489.618438.156220(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >>news:1182609335.322097.277120(a)e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > >> > Another content free post. Congratulations! > > >> Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing > >> worthwhile > >> saying .. you're just stalking me because you're pissed off that you were > >> wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so apparent. > >> It > >> wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very > >> clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect) > >> mathematic > >> justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and > >> (incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all the > >> while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when you > >> grow > >> up, you'll learn. > > > Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS > > solution to the problem you keep refering to? > > Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS solution to > the problem?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I did. In the process I pointed out all the errors in what you call your "solution"
From: Jeckyl on 24 Jun 2007 11:56 "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1182699610.215467.149970(a)e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 24, 8:02 am, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:1182668489.618438.156220(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1182609335.322097.277120(a)e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > Another content free post. Congratulations! >> >> >> Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing >> >> worthwhile >> >> saying .. you're just stalking me because you're pissed off that you >> >> were >> >> wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so >> >> apparent. >> >> It >> >> wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very >> >> clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect) >> >> mathematic >> >> justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and >> >> (incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all >> >> the >> >> while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when >> >> you >> >> grow >> >> up, you'll learn. >> >> > Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS >> > solution to the problem you keep refering to? >> >> Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS solution >> to >> the problem?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I did. In the process I pointed out all the errors in what you call > your "solution" There were no errors in my solution .. .the only errors are yours. You don't understand SR .. that much is blatantly obvious. you simply blindly plug values into the equations you've just learnt and don't know how to apply them or what they mean. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation
From: Pentcho Valev on 24 Jun 2007 12:09 Jeckyl wrote: > "Dono" <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:1182699610.215467.149970(a)e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 24, 8:02 am, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >> > >> news:1182668489.618438.156220(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jun 23, 4:24 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> "Dono" <s...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >> > >> >>news:1182609335.322097.277120(a)e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> >> > Another content free post. Congratulations! > >> > >> >> Well .. thanks for the report card. You obviously have nothing > >> >> worthwhile > >> >> saying .. you're just stalking me because you're pissed off that you > >> >> were > >> >> wrong and your arrogance and lack of understanding was made so > >> >> apparent. > >> >> It > >> >> wasn't just the misinterpretation of a result (as was pointed out very > >> >> clearly to you) .. that would be fine .. its all the (incorrect) > >> >> mathematic > >> >> justification and (incorrect) different ways of looking at it and > >> >> (incorrect) plain-nonsense arguments you gave to defend yourself, all > >> >> the > >> >> while attack the person trying to help you. Truly sad. maybe when > >> >> you > >> >> grow > >> >> up, you'll learn. > >> > >> > Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS > >> > solution to the problem you keep refering to? > >> > >> Yet another content free posting. Why don't you revisit your BS solution > >> to > >> the problem?- Hide quoted text - > >> > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > I did. In the process I pointed out all the errors in what you call > > your "solution" > > There were no errors in my solution .. .the only errors are yours. You > don't understand SR .. that much is blatantly obvious. you simply blindly > plug values into the equations you've just learnt and don't know how to > apply them or what they mean. Jeckyl, Jeckyl, Jeckyl, Dono, Dono, Dono! Why don't you ask Master Tom Roberts to resolve your problem? You don't believe Master Tom Roberts is a reliable hypnotist anymore? Bellicose zombies in Einstein criminal cult are not programmed to fight one another. Pentcho Valev
From: sean on 27 Jun 2007 10:13
On 20 Jun, 14:51, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > sean wrote: > > to see how classical theory only can explain both sagnac and MMx . > > Sure, certain classical theories can explain them both. So what? There > are MANY other experiments that such theories cannot explain; SR on the > other hand explains them all (within its domain). Name these experiments. this is a false claim by you as there are NO experiments that classical cannot explain. Whereas as Ive hown SR cannot explian both sagnac and MMx See the simulations at... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8 which clearly show that Classical theory can explain bothy sagnac and MMx > See the FAQ for over a hundred experiments that confirm > SR; most of them are completely inconsistent with any > classical theory (i.e. pre-SR). > > > To start with you dont seem to understand that the sagnac source is > > essentially identical to the MMx in that they both rotate around an > > axis . > > The instruments are VERY different: Sagnac's has a large enclosed area, > and the MMX has zero enclosed area, and this makes all the difference as > far as rotation is concerned. Rubbish. You ignore the fact that regardless of the setups of both experiments the source in both does exactly teh same thing...It rotates about a central axis. Which is one reason why any physics students should not read your faq. Its misinformation based on false evidence.The proof you rely on at your faq is in fact false evidence > > Yet SR says that a source that rotates around an axis sometimes > > has light leaving it at variable speeds (when SR tries to explain > > sagnac) and sometimes has light leaving it at constant speeds(when SR > > tries to explain MMx). > > This is complete nonsense. You should learn about SR before attempting > to describe what it says. And you should learn about the differences in > these two experiments and their instruments. <shrug> > > > Even a pseudoscientist like yourself should be able to see this > > inherent contradiction in SR. More like your inabilty to supply proof that classical cannot explain any known experiment or your inabilty to refute why SR predicts inconsistent speeds of light for the same frame. (Ie Sr predicts that in an inertial frame sometimes light is at c (sagnac) and sometimes its variable(MMx). Bad science without proof. Supply evidence for your arguments Tom. Not hand waving rhetoric) Sean www.gammarayburst.com see.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8 for a full explanation of how SR and the standard model cannot explain grb`s , sagnac and MMx . And how classical theory is able to completely explain all known observations. |