Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: eric gisse on 31 May 2010 21:29 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:07:18 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:23:34 -0700, eric gisse >>> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:49:40 -0700 (PDT), PD >>>>> <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 29, 8:03 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On May 28, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove >>>>>>> > relativity? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cannot be disproved means not falsifiable....any theory cannot be >>>>>>> falsified, by definition, is not scientific. >>>>>> >>>>>>I didn't say relativity wasn't falsifiable. It is certainly >>>>>>falsifiable, and a number of tests have been performed in that >>>>>>attempt. >>>>>>I asked why the OP felt the NEED to disprove relativity. >>>>> >>>>> ...because the Einsteinian version has brought physics almost to a >>>>> standstill. >>>> >>>>So you are of the opinion that science and technology today is >>>>essentially where it was at in 1904? >>>> >>>>Are you retarded? >>> >>> No, astronomy is.....because of Einstein. >> >>Ah, just astronomy? >> >>Not thermodynamics, which Einstein directly contributed to (theory of >>Brownian motion, calculation of specific heats for quantum solids) and >>indirectly contributed to (every time thermodynamics uses quantum theory) >>? >> >>Not quantum mechanics, which he helped create? Whose very nature was >>formed by Einstein's arguments, to this very day? >> >>Not the laser, the theoretical groundwork of which was laid down directly >>by Einstein? >> >>Not particle physics, which exists only because of Einstein? Not the >>proton/anti-proton beam cancer therapies which exist only because of >>special relativity? >> >>You don't seem to have thought this through too much. > > when are you going to say something intelligent? Why even respond, Ralph? > > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 31 May 2010 21:35 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > I don't have a theory of RI yet for the smple reason that the required > data is unavailable. Ah, you have no clue about optics. But you are still sure you are right. K. [snip rest]
From: PD on 1 Jun 2010 11:15 On May 30, 4:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On May 29, 12:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 28, 8:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? > > >> It is not a need to but what experiment shows. <shrug> > > >Which experimental measurement is quantitatively in conflict with a > >prediction of relativity? > > >> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. > > >> Yes, it is. Just go back to the null results of the MMX. <shrug> > > >Relativity predicts null results in the MMX. > > Relativity uses the ballistic nature of light to explain the MMX null result. No, it doesn't. You do, or so you claim. But relativity doesn't. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 1 Jun 2010 17:50 On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 30, 4:46�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On May 29, 12:13�am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On May 28, 8:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? >> >> >> It is not a need to but what experiment shows. �<shrug> >> >> >Which experimental measurement is quantitatively in conflict with a >> >prediction of relativity? >> >> >> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. >> >> >> Yes, it is. �Just go back to the null results of the MMX. �<shrug> >> >> >Relativity predicts null results in the MMX. >> >> Relativity uses the ballistic nature of light to explain the MMX null result. > >No, it doesn't. You do, or so you claim. But relativity doesn't. SR says light moves at c throughout the source frame. ...straight BaTh. The whole apparatus is at rest in that frame. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 1 Jun 2010 20:19
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On May 30, 4:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 06:46:34 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On May 29, 12:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> On May 28, 8:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> > First question is, why do you feel the need to disprove relativity? >>> >>> >> It is not a need to but what experiment shows. <shrug> >>> >>> >Which experimental measurement is quantitatively in conflict with a >>> >prediction of relativity? >>> >>> >> > Second comment is, it's simple to disprove a theory. >>> >>> >> Yes, it is. Just go back to the null results of the MMX. <shrug> >>> >>> >Relativity predicts null results in the MMX. >>> >>> Relativity uses the ballistic nature of light to explain the MMX null >>> result. >> >>No, it doesn't. You do, or so you claim. But relativity doesn't. > > SR says light moves at c throughout the source frame. ...straight BaTh. SR also assumes light moves at c in the observer frame. Is that BaTh too? > > The whole apparatus is at rest in that frame. > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |