From: PD on
On Apr 12, 5:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:16 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Miguel:  If those in universities actually do experiments and...
> question the present state-of-the-art, how is it that no one before
> yours truly realized that the M-M experiment didn't have a control?

Not all experiments require one. I'm shocked you didn't know this.

> And none of them realized that Coriolis's 1830 kinetic energy
> equation, KE = 1/2 mc^2, and Einstein's E = mc^2 / beta, BOTH violate
> the law of the conservation of energy??

No, they don't. We've been over this before.

>  The reason is: Those majoring
> in physics have never understood what the hell they were being taught,
> nor had their professors, and their professors before them.

This seems rather unlikely, doncha think, that literally thousands of
professors and students would *pretend* to understand something they
don't understand? Doncha think it's more likely that YOU didn't
understand what you were being taught? After all, you disagree with
your 5th grade science teachers as well. So do you think that hundreds
of thousands of primary and secondary school teachers don't understand
what they were taught either, and that you -- of all people -- are the
only one that understands?

> The
> solution?  FIRE at least 75% of those who teach physics, and fire
> about 50% of those coasting through life as supposed professors
> knowledgeable enough to... teach anyone anything at ANY university.
> You, and they, are laughable screw-ups!  — NoEinstein —  AKA John A.
> Armistead
>
>
>
> > On 11 abr, 00:55, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Apr, 18:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm interested in science because I'm interested in the natural world,
>
> > > > Which "natural world" is only demarcated by your arbitrary and
> > > > capricious labels.
>
> > > Which is the same arbitrary and capricious labels that everyone else
> > > uses. As I've said, the only difference is that a minority continue to
> > > insist that somehow science has no ideological content at all.
>
> > > For me, there is no useful argument to be had on, for example, whether
> > > unicorns or angels are "natural" or not - the real question is what
> > > sort of ideological framework do they fall into, and invariably you
> > > find that a belief in unicorns and angels is simply ancilliary to an
> > > ideology involving the supernatural, or ancilliary to a belief that
> > > the world does not operate in an understandable, predictable, and
> > > mechanistic way (which really sums up my axioms, my "ideology" in this
> > > respect).
>
> > > In fact, the existence of unicorns would not be incompatible with my
> > > general outlook at all. Even angels would not be, as long as they
> > > existed within naturalistic principles of cause and effect, and some
> > > plausible mechanism was posited for firstly how their influence
> > > manifests and secondly for why they have any interaction at all with
> > > humanity (or any concern for humanity).
>
> > > But once you scratch the surface, you often find that the explanations
> > > to these questions are sorely lacking, and that there is in fact not a
> > > great deal of concern with how it may be explained on the part of
> > > those who posit the existence of unicorns and angels. Indeed, when you
> > > ask where the idea even came from in the first place, the answer is
> > > rarely (if ever!) "from personal hypothesis", "from inference", or
> > > "from observation", but "from religious authority". Such proponents
> > > also tend to have a general worldview that is informed entirely by
> > > their imaginations or naive beliefs, and show a total unfamiliarity
> > > with history, science, politics, psychology, economics, or any
> > > systematic body of human knowledge that might offer any counter to the
> > > mere spoken word of their priest or other religious figures, or which
> > > may put a different slant on their beliefs.
>
> > > Indeed, for me, I also take the view that it will often be futile to
> > > attack ideology using mere logic. Most people hold an ideology because
> > > in some way or another because it has a concrete function for them,
> > > never because it is wholly logical. The answer to a stubborn ideologue
> > > is not to try and convince him otherwise, but instead to rob him of
> > > the support of others who can be convinced otherwise (if indeed you
> > > can rob him of his support and offer people a better ideology that is
> > > more functional for them).
>
> > > As long as people are familiar with the conflicting ideologies of
> > > science and religion, then it is fairly certain that most people will
> > > continue to support science as long as science continues to deliver
> > > the goods. For science to become overly concerned with an appearance
> > > of objectivity, or to try too hard to repress religion, will in fact
> > > be damaging for science - and may in fact be a reflection of the fact
> > > that science is delivering certain answers that scientists, and their
> > > paymasters, don't want to hear (because it conflicts with the tenents
> > > of the prevailing political ideology, in which the scientists often
> > > have a personal vested interest).
>
> > All these thoughts of yours are so typical of a person which knows
> > very little of how science works or is performed. It reminds me when a
> > physicist went to my high school, several years ago, and told us that
> > he was at one airport where he was questioned about his job. He
> > answered "I'm a physicist" and the guy at the airport told him "so,
> > you do physical therapy?".
>
> > I have been into a university system for over 40 years now and can
> > assure you none of your rantings have anything to do with how science
> > is performed. Most of scientists do their research "just for the fun
> > of it", meaning they love to explore Nature and discover its secrets.
> > In doing so, their only required law is to follow the scientific
> > method and produce replicable results. It also requires of them to
> > always question the current "state of the art" and in so doing
> > discover gaps or domains of applicability, where some improvement on
> > the current knowledge is necessary.
>
> > In many fields, such as mathematics, this game frequently results in
> > new algorithms and theorems whose applicability are near to nil, and
> > they will continue like that for several years or centuries (like
> > Fermat's last theorem). And then, some of those discovered relations
> > are re-discovered and put into work in un-expected ways. Look, for
> > instance, Gallager's LDPC coding, which for over 30 years was sleeping
> > in a shelve until somebody found them to be what the next generation
> > of data communications just needed.
>
> > Why you have got to think you can discuss (even in this crappy forum),
> > without any knowledge of even simple mathematics, and very little
> > knowledge about basic physics, theories like Special Relativity is not
> > even funny....it is just pathetic!!!
>
> > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>

From: PD on
On Apr 12, 5:37 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 8:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1d716e5d-6fb0-4a04-9aea-fe249242e945(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > On Apr 10, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:66fad22e-0a13-4979-b17f-2f405eb13607(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > On 10 Apr, 08:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> >>news:8431a5cd-222a-4118-9d15-7bcdf6450410(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> >> >> > The point is simply to talk in qualitative
> > > >> >> >> > terms about what happens to "simultaneity" between the points at
> > > >> >> >> > the
> > > >> >> >> > start and at the end at which we agree that the clocks are
> > > >> >> >> > synchronised.
>
> > > >> >> >> It changes
>
> > > >> >> > Will you quantify this change?
>
> > > >> >> I thought you just wanted to talk in qualitative terms.
>
> > > >> > I did, but not at such a ridiculously broad level.
>
> > > >> >> You also say you
> > > >> >> don't want to see math, so I'm not sure what you are expecting here
>
> > > >> > Just for you to say, for example, "when the local clock accelerates,
> > > >> > the distant clock falls out of simultaneity and leaps ahead... etc."
> > > >> > or something of that kind.
>
> > > >> I already said all that
>
> > > >> >> >> A frame moving relative to a clock will measure the clock as
> > > >> >> >> ticking
> > > >> >> >> slower.
> > > >> >> >> Less elapsed time will show between an pair of events for the
> > > >> >> >> relatively
> > > >> >> >> moving clock than an at-rest clock.  That is independent of the
> > > >> >> >> direction
> > > >> >> >> of
> > > >> >> >> the relative motion.
>
> > > >> >> >> I had though we agreed to ignore illusions due to propagation
> > > >> >> >> delays.
>
> > > >> >> > Indeed, but when you started talking of the clocks "speeding up",
> > > >> >> > that
> > > >> >> > caused me confusion.
>
> > > >> >> Why?  Just do not worry about optical illusions and concentrate on
> > > >> >> what
> > > >> >> is
> > > >> >> actually going on.
>
> > > >> > But you said the speeding up bit *is* a result of an optical illusion.
>
> > > >> No .. I didn't.  If you are talking about what is actually seen, then
> > > >> optical illusion makes a difference.  But there is NO optical illusion in
> > > >> the SR effects on measured clock rates and lengths etc
>
> > > >> > You see how hard it is to get a straight but comprehensive answer
> > > >> > here?
>
> > > >> You get them .. you just don't accept or understand them
>
> > > >> >> > would leave a small remainder of slowing,
>
> > > >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits.  You are talking about
> > > >> >> additonal
> > > >> >> optical illusions.
>
> > > >> > No,
>
> > > >> Yes .. you were.
>
> > =================
>
> > > >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, which is not
> > > >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both already agreed are
> > > >> > "illusions".
>
> > > >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not illusion.  The same
> > > >> that i
> > > >> already described in detail before
>
> > > > In view of Noether's work with GR  and the
> > > > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time
> > > > You seem to be  suggesting an aeroplane
> > > > might fly relative to another aeroplane on
> > > > some course that would weaken an air marshal's
> > > > bullet.  That would violate PoR.
>
> > > Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing?
>
> > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path
> > that is changing length under the term "illusion"
> > but you say there is some other effect that
> > causes a clock to slow.  Just to be clear to
> > what you are referring we need to be more
> > specific about the *process* that marks time.
>
> > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both
> > stella and terra's clocks  are synchronous motors
> > connected with long wires to that dynamo.
>
> > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a
> > revolution of both clocks motors.
>
> > What part of the voyage and by what *process*
> > do the clocks get out of sync?
>
> > > > The statement also also seems inconsistent with
> > > > Einstein's formal statement.
>
> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
>
> > > What statement?
>
> > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the
> > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
> > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
> > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.
> > In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
> > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by
> > an imaginary magnitude
>
> >    sqrt(-1)
>
> > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
> > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
> > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which
> > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as
> > the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
>
> > > > I know the practice is frowned on in many schools
> > > > but may I suggest you study material before
> > > > teaching it.  :-)
>
> > > I have
>
> > Fine for the links you snipped. Now you will
> > need this one and a bit of history too.
>
> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
>
> > Sue...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dear Sue:  Haven't you heard?  I have long since disproved SR and GR.

To whom?

> Where have you been?  — NoEinstein —

From: paparios on
On 12 abr, 18:35, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:16 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Miguel:  If those in universities actually do experiments and...
> question the present state-of-the-art, how is it that no one before
> yours truly realized that the M-M experiment didn't have a control?
> And none of them realized that Coriolis's 1830 kinetic energy
> equation, KE = 1/2 mc^2, and Einstein's E = mc^2 / beta, BOTH violate
> the law of the conservation of energy??  The reason is: Those majoring
> in physics have never understood what the hell they were being taught,
> nor had their professors, and their professors before them.  The
> solution?  FIRE at least 75% of those who teach physics, and fire
> about 50% of those coasting through life as supposed professors
> knowledgeable enough to... teach anyone anything at ANY university.
> You, and they, are laughable screw-ups!  — NoEinstein —  AKA John A.
> Armistead
>

So in which journals have your results been published?
Which are your qualifications that allow you to so easily disqualify
those professors? Are you, by any chance, a member of any universitary
accreditation institution???

Miguel Rios


From: Sue... on
On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:8801f2d3-b89a-4055-8ab0-cd87888b9cf4(a)c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 5:26 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12 abr, 16:28, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 12, 3:56 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > ===============
>
> >> > > And you clearly proof your troll behavior quite clearly, when you
> >> > > answer to the clear wording of Peter Webb "It has been explained to
> >> > > you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is independent of the
> >> > > speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of SR, is
> >> > > predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved
> >> > > experimentally."
>
> >> > What has been "massively proved" is the light used
> >> > for Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" does
> >> > not exist.
>
> >> Yeah right. that is the reason your hero, Dr. Fitzpatrick writes:
> >> "...Consider, now, a wave-like disturbance which is self-regenerating
> >> and does not require a medium through which to propagate. The most
> >> well known example of such a disturbance is a light wave. Another
> >> example is a gravity wave. According to electromagnetic theory the
> >> speed of propagation of a light wave through a vacuum is c=1/
> >> sqrt(epsilon_0*mu_0)=2.99729*10^8 m/sec
>

============

> > That implies no inertial motion of light as in
> > Einstien's RoS.
>
> It implies light travels at c.. all that is required for SR

Exactly my point. The gyrations with
"relativity of simultaneity" usually
serve to mislead people who will assume source
dependency on the train and and then
allow a Lorentz transformation to "fix"
a problem that did not even exist except
in the minds of Einstein's contemporaries.

In Einstein's defence, he writes that
it is an "apparent conflict".

Sue...
From: Inertial on

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:96e1c021-d505-4f43-a514-dcc1dcf6f396(a)u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8801f2d3-b89a-4055-8ab0-cd87888b9cf4(a)c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 12, 5:26 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 12 abr, 16:28, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 12, 3:56 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > ===============
>>
>> >> > > And you clearly proof your troll behavior quite clearly, when you
>> >> > > answer to the clear wording of Peter Webb "It has been explained
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is independent of
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of SR, is
>> >> > > predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved
>> >> > > experimentally."
>>
>> >> > What has been "massively proved" is the light used
>> >> > for Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" does
>> >> > not exist.
>>
>> >> Yeah right. that is the reason your hero, Dr. Fitzpatrick writes:
>> >> "...Consider, now, a wave-like disturbance which is self-regenerating
>> >> and does not require a medium through which to propagate. The most
>> >> well known example of such a disturbance is a light wave. Another
>> >> example is a gravity wave. According to electromagnetic theory the
>> >> speed of propagation of a light wave through a vacuum is c=1/
>> >> sqrt(epsilon_0*mu_0)=2.99729*10^8 m/sec
>>
>
> ============
>
>> > That implies no inertial motion of light as in
>> > Einstien's RoS.
>>
>> It implies light travels at c.. all that is required for SR
>
> Exactly my point.

You mean you have one?

Odd that you started arguing against me when I said that earlier.

> The gyrations with
> "relativity of simultaneity" usually
> serve to mislead people

Only those who don't understand

> who will assume source
> dependency on the train

Why?

> and and then
> allow a Lorentz transformation to "fix"
> a problem that did not even exist

Of course it did not exist. Measurements between frames are related by
Lorentz transforms.. that is a result of spacetime being Minkowski in
geometry (at least until you start to consider how mass curves it in GR ..
but we're ignoring that for now).

> except
> in the minds of Einstein's contemporaries.
>
> In Einstein's defence, he writes that
> it is an "apparent conflict".

Indeed .. there is no conflict.