Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 15:12 On Dec 29, 3:08 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > the curvature of space was "classically" proven, or > empirically, by Aristarchus (with a cohort at the same longitude, > different lattitude, same approx. time) and Gauss > (who invented the theodolite, to do it, in a survey > of (the disputed) Alsace-Lorraine for the French goment). > The point is 'curvature of space' is not physically meaningful while 'displacement of aether' is. 'Matter curves space' is not physically meaningful. Matter displaces the aether which would otherwise exist where the matter is, is physically meaningful. > > Anyways, it is the 'stuff of space' which is being 'curved' by matter. > > In other words, the aether is being displaced by matter. > > thus: > Lorenz found that they were deterministic, not fuzzy, but > every little bit counts; especially, > when you consider the vicisitudes of the manufacture > of floating-point processing-ware from the spec > (IEEE-755, -855; > the first is an article in Computer magazine, 1980 issue .-) > > > Where weather is concerned, how wide are the possibilities > > for a given day a month in the future? Somewhat rhetorical > > but I'll answer that. So wide as to be useless, as > > demonstrated by Lorenz. > > thus: > garbage up; garbage back down. like I said, > Minkowski couldn't take-back his spiel > about phase-space. > > thus: > in California, primarily the gangs constitute the only militia, > per the second amendment (you can look-up the case-law on that, > a digest re the Constitution on Lexis-Nexis, where > it is pretty clear that the "right to bear arms" includes > the wearing of long-sleeved shirts; likewise, > it exposes the liberal-media-owned-by-consWervatives silliness, > where they always confuse "separation of church & state" > with the foundational dysestablishmentarianism in A#1 -- yeah, > they really, always do that, cuz TJ said the six words !-) > > so, what is this remarkable Madison/Marx patrimony, > that we exist under?... of course, > they were contemporaries, and Marx actually supported Henry Clay, > for a while, til he was subverted by The Veiled Librarian > at the British Library, in London. and, here, > you can look-up the past publications where this stuff was put, > in *The Campaigner* magazine (it is no-longer called that, > since the goment forced a bogus ch.13 bankruptcy on it, and > several other Larouchiac pubs.:http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners > )). > > > I told her about the nutter web pages that keep posting bogus gun > > quotes attributed to the founders. All it takes is five seconds to > > thus: > I didn't know that Zeeman made such an experiment, although > I had read of Fizeau's (using high-pressure & -velocity water > in a tube of some sort; did Z verify that?) I woulnd't put > in the terms of either SR or mpc, because it's really more akin > to general relativity viz-a-vu the "curvature of space" > -- not of time, the big PLONK from Minkowski-THEN-he-died -- > and that is what surfer's cited essay & figures dyscuss. > > read it & sleep on the un-nullities of Michelson & Morley et al > (small, but quite regular; and, you can say "entrainment," if > you must, iff only to evoke Eisntein's gedankenspiel ... and, > we'll just ignore, that "eq. (B)" was derived by Lorentz, > firstly, if also from "the" theory .-) > > > > > > > > problem of Section VI again before us. The tube plays the part of the > > > > > railway embankment or of the co-ordinate system K, the liquid plays > > > > > the part of the carriage or of the co-ordinate system K', and finally, > > > > > the light plays the part of the man walking along the carriage, or of > > > > > the moving point in the present section. If we denote the velocity of > > > > > the light relative to the tube by W, then this is given by the > > > > > equation (A) or (B), according as the Galilei transformation or the > > > > > Lorentz transformation corresponds to the facts. Experiment 1 decides > > > > > in favour of equation (B) derived from the theory of relativity, and > > > > > the agreement is, indeed, very exact. According to recent and most > > > > > excellent measurements by Zeeman, the influence of the velocity of > > > > > flow v on the propagation of light is represented by formula (B) to > > > > > within one per cent..." > > neither M&M or their successors incurred this nullity, > > that proven by Einstein's say-so on DCMiller's article, at Caltech; > > fig. 3, belowsville, puts these results together in one picture. now, > > surfer's language may be peculiar but, so, is yours.... > >http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 > > --l'OEuvre,http://wlym.comhttp://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... > FCUK Copenhagen free carbon-credit trade rip-off; > put a tariff on imported energy!
From: spudnik on 29 Dec 2009 15:31 yeah, tell that to Aristarchus and Gauss; while you're at the seance, be sure to ask Minkowski to retract his silly statement about phase-space -- we Wanabi electronics folks are senstiive to this, like Dayton C. Miller was, actually anyway, I am not wont to use your particular language, which is bound to a century of Copenhagenskoolin' and Schroedinger's poor, jokey cat! "dysplacement of aether;" is that any thing like spooky action, up-close and in EPR's face?... the Dirac sea?... you must examine, where this aether is supposed to be being dysplaced, to, or if it is as neccesary as Einstein said, at times. as for antimatter, there is no way to dystinguish the light from it, because there is only one kind of light per Dirac: waves!... yes, one can use a "dual" formalism of "ray-tracing the photon," but that is of no more interest, than the dual-column proofs in projective geometry. > The point is 'curvature of space' is not physically meaningful while > 'displacement of aether' is. 'Matter curves space' is not physically > meaningful. Matter displaces the aether which would otherwise exist > where the matter is, is physically meaningful. thus: HAMLET: Ay, marry why was he sent into England? GRAVEDIGGER: Why, because a' was mad: a' shall recover his wits there; or, if a' do not, 'tis no great matter there. HAMLET: Why? GRAVEDIGGER: Twill not be seen in him there; there the men are as mad as he. (Hamlet, V.i. 144-149) thus: the curvature of space was "classically" proven, or empirically, by Aristarchus (with a cohort at the same longitude, different lattitude, same approx. time) and Gauss (who invented the theodolite, to do it, in a survey of (the disputed) Alsace-Lorraine for the French goment). > Anyways, it is the 'stuff of space' which is being 'curved' by matter. > In other words, the aether is being displaced by matter. thus: Lorenz found that they were deterministic, not fuzzy, but every little bit counts; especially, when you consider the vicisitudes of the manufacture of floating-point processing-ware from the spec (IEEE-755, -855; the first is an article in Computer magazine, 1980 issue .-) > Where weather is concerned, how wide are the possibilities > for a given day a month in the future? Somewhat rhetorical > but I'll answer that. So wide as to be useless, as > demonstrated by Lorenz. thus: garbage up; garbage back down. like I said, Minkowski couldn't take-back his spiel about phase-space. thus: in California, primarily the gangs constitute the only militia, per the second amendment (you can look-up the case-law on that, a digest re the Constitution on Lexis-Nexis, where it is pretty clear that the "right to bear arms" includes the wearing of long-sleeved shirts; likewise, it exposes the liberal-media-owned-by-consWervatives silliness, where they always confuse "separation of church & state" with the foundational dysestablishmentarianism in A#1 -- yeah, they really, always do that, cuz TJ said the six words !-) so, what is this remarkable Madison/Marx patrimony, that we exist under?... of course, they were contemporaries, and Marx actually supported Henry Clay, for a while, til he was subverted by The Veiled Librarian at the British Library, in London. and, here, you can look-up the past publications where this stuff was put, in *The Campaigner* magazine (it is no-longer called that, since the goment forced a bogus ch.13 bankruptcy on it, and several other Larouchiac pubs.: http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners )). > I told her about the nutter web pages that keep posting bogus gun > quotes attributed to the founders. All it takes is five seconds to thus: I didn't know that Zeeman made such an experiment, although I had read of Fizeau's (using high-pressure & -velocity water in a tube of some sort; did Z verify that?) I woulnd't put in the terms of either SR or mpc, because it's really more akin to general relativity viz-a-vu the "curvature of space" -- not of time, the big PLONK from Minkowski-THEN-he-died -- and that is what surfer's cited essay & figures dyscuss. Read it & sleep on the un-nullities of Michelson & Morley et al (small, but quite regular; and, you can say "entrainment," if you must, iff only to evoke Eisntein's gedankenspiel ... and, we'll just ignore, that "eq. (B)" was derived by Lorentz, firstly, if also from "the" theory .-) > > > > problem of Section VI again before us. The tube plays the part of the > > > > railway embankment or of the co-ordinate system K, the liquid plays > > > > the part of the carriage or of the co-ordinate system K', and finally, > > > > the light plays the part of the man walking along the carriage, or of > > > > the moving point in the present section. If we denote the velocity of > > > > the light relative to the tube by W, then this is given by the > > > > equation (A) or (B), according as the Galilei transformation or the > > > > Lorentz transformation corresponds to the facts. Experiment 1 decides > > > > in favour of equation (B) derived from the theory of relativity, and > > > > the agreement is, indeed, very exact. According to recent and most > > > > excellent measurements by Zeeman, the influence of the velocity of > > > > flow v on the propagation of light is represented by formula (B) to > > > > within one per cent..." > neither M&M or their successors incurred this nullity, > that proven by Einstein's say-so on DCMiller's article, at Caltech; > fig. 3, belowsville, puts these results together in one picture. now, > surfer's language may be peculiar but, so, is yours.... > http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 --l'OEuvre, http://wlym.com http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf FCUK Copenhagen free carbon-credit trade rip-off; put a tariff on imported energy!
From: Michael Moroney on 29 Dec 2009 15:37 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 29, 2:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> Whoops! You jumped to a conclusion without actually performing the >> experiment, or citing a similar experiment. Fail. >If Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with >respect to the embankment and the light from the lightning strikes in >the water at A/A' and B/B' arrive at M simultaneously, does the >Observer at M' conclude the lightning strikes in the water at A/A' and >B/B' were simultaneous, or not? >You have a problem answering a simple question when it does not fit >the dogma you choose to believe in. My answer is simply: YOU MUST PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT TO SEE WHICH THEORY IS CORRECT. You have not done so, you have come to a conclusion and present it as if it were a fact. There has been many times that scientists performing experiments have been completely surprised at the outcome. The Michelson-Morley experiment is the most famous example. "Everybody" back then "knew" that the ether wind blew, it was simply a matter of performing the experiment to find the velocity and direction. Oops. Actually, we have the experimental results already, and had it since before Einstein was even born. The Fizeau Experiment of 1851 which measured the effect of moving water on the speed of light in water (the one which you always misquote Einstein's comments) shows that the speed of light in a medium with index of refraction n was: V = c/n + v(1-1/n^2), and not the simple Gallilean addition V = c/n + v. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment)
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 15:37 On Dec 29, 3:31 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah, tell that to Aristarchus and Gauss; while > you're at the seance, be sure to ask Minkowski > to retract his silly statement about phase-space -- > we Wanabi electronics folks are senstiive to this, > like Dayton C. Miller was, actually > > anyway, I am not wont to use your particular language, > which is bound to a century of Copenhagenskoolin' and > Schroedinger's poor, jokey cat! > > "dysplacement of aether;" > is that any thing like spooky action, up-close and > in EPR's face?... the Dirac sea?... you must examine, > where this aether is supposed to be being dysplaced, to, or > if it is as neccesary as Einstein said, at times. > No, Aether Displacement is not like spooky action at a distance or anything like that. In fact, it is the opposite of that. The aether is physically displaced by matter. Think of putting a bowling ball into a tank of water. What happens to the water? It gets displaced by the bowling ball. What happens when you take the bowling ball out of the water, is a void left in the water? Of course not, the water fills back in. The filling back in by the water is the pressure the water exerts towards the bowling ball, similar to the aether pressure the aether exerts back towards the matter doing the displacing. In terms of the EPR experiment and Bell's Inequality all that is occurring when a photon is downgraded into a photon pair, is the pair must have exact opposite momentum for there to be conservation of momentum. Whenever you measure one of the pair, the other will be measured to be the exact opposite due to conservation of momentum. No entanglement nonsense, just conservation of momentum. > as for antimatter, > there is no way to dystinguish the light from it, because > there is only one kind of light per Dirac: > waves!... yes, one can use a "dual" formalism > of "ray-tracing the photon," but that is of no more interest, > than the dual-column proofs in projective geometry. > > > The point is 'curvature of space' is not physically meaningful while > > 'displacement of aether' is. 'Matter curves space' is not physically > > meaningful. Matter displaces the aether which would otherwise exist > > where the matter is, is physically meaningful. > > thus: > HAMLET: Ay, marry why was he sent into England? > GRAVEDIGGER: Why, because a' was mad: a' shall recover > his wits there; or, if a' do not, 'tis no great matter there. > HAMLET: Why? > GRAVEDIGGER: Twill not be seen in him there; > there the men are as mad as he. > (Hamlet, V.i. 144-149) > > thus: > the curvature of space was "classically" proven, or > empirically, by Aristarchus (with a cohort at the same longitude, > different lattitude, same approx. time) and Gauss > (who invented the theodolite, to do it, in a survey > of (the disputed) Alsace-Lorraine for the French goment). > > > Anyways, it is the 'stuff of space' which is being 'curved' by matter. > > In other words, the aether is being displaced by matter. > > thus: > Lorenz found that they were deterministic, not fuzzy, but > every little bit counts; especially, > when you consider the vicisitudes of the manufacture > of floating-point processing-ware from the spec > (IEEE-755, -855; > the first is an article in Computer magazine, 1980 issue .-) > > > Where weather is concerned, how wide are the possibilities > > for a given day a month in the future? Somewhat rhetorical > > but I'll answer that. So wide as to be useless, as > > demonstrated by Lorenz. > > thus: > garbage up; garbage back down. like I said, > Minkowski couldn't take-back his spiel > about phase-space. > > thus: > in California, primarily the gangs constitute the only militia, > per the second amendment (you can look-up the case-law on that, > a digest re the Constitution on Lexis-Nexis, where > it is pretty clear that the "right to bear arms" includes > the wearing of long-sleeved shirts; likewise, > it exposes the liberal-media-owned-by-consWervatives silliness, > where they always confuse "separation of church & state" > with the foundational dysestablishmentarianism in A#1 -- yeah, > they really, always do that, cuz TJ said the six words !-) > > so, what is this remarkable Madison/Marx patrimony, > that we exist under?... of course, > they were contemporaries, and Marx actually supported Henry Clay, > for a while, til he was subverted by The Veiled Librarian > at the British Library, in London. and, here, > you can look-up the past publications where this stuff was put, > in *The Campaigner* magazine (it is no-longer called that, > since the goment forced a bogus ch.13 bankruptcy on it, and > several other Larouchiac pubs.:http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners > )). > > > I told her about the nutter web pages that keep posting bogus gun > > quotes attributed to the founders. All it takes is five seconds to > > thus: > I didn't know that Zeeman made such an experiment, although > I had read of Fizeau's (using high-pressure & -velocity water > in a tube of some sort; did Z verify that?) I woulnd't put > in the terms of either SR or mpc, because it's really more akin > to general relativity viz-a-vu the "curvature of space" > -- not of time, the big PLONK from Minkowski-THEN-he-died -- > and that is what surfer's cited essay & figures dyscuss. > Read it & sleep on the un-nullities of Michelson & Morley et al > (small, but quite regular; and, you can say "entrainment," if > you must, iff only to evoke Eisntein's gedankenspiel ... and, > we'll just ignore, that "eq. (B)" was derived by Lorentz, > firstly, if also from "the" theory .-) > > > > > > > > problem of Section VI again before us. The tube plays the part of the > > > > > railway embankment or of the co-ordinate system K, the liquid plays > > > > > the part of the carriage or of the co-ordinate system K', and finally, > > > > > the light plays the part of the man walking along the carriage, or of > > > > > the moving point in the present section. If we denote the velocity of > > > > > the light relative to the tube by W, then this is given by the > > > > > equation (A) or (B), according as the Galilei transformation or the > > > > > Lorentz transformation corresponds to the facts. Experiment 1 decides > > > > > in favour of equation (B) derived from the theory of relativity, and > > > > > the agreement is, indeed, very exact. According to recent and most > > > > > excellent measurements by Zeeman, the influence of the velocity of > > > > > flow v on the propagation of light is represented by formula (B) to > > > > > within one per cent..." > > neither M&M or their successors incurred this nullity, > > that proven by Einstein's say-so on DCMiller's article, at Caltech; > > fig. 3, belowsville, puts these results together in one picture. now, > > surfer's language may be peculiar but, so, is yours.... > >http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 > > --l'OEuvre,http://wlym.comhttp://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... > FCUK Copenhagen free carbon-credit trade rip-off; > put a tariff on imported energy!
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 15:46
On Dec 29, 3:37 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 29, 2:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > > >> Whoops! You jumped to a conclusion without actually performing the > >> experiment, or citing a similar experiment. Fail. > >If Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with > >respect to the embankment and the light from the lightning strikes in > >the water at A/A' and B/B' arrive at M simultaneously, does the > >Observer at M' conclude the lightning strikes in the water at A/A' and > >B/B' were simultaneous, or not? > >You have a problem answering a simple question when it does not fit > >the dogma you choose to believe in. > > My answer is simply: YOU MUST PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT TO SEE WHICH THEORY > IS CORRECT. You have not done so, you have come to a conclusion and > present it as if it were a fact. There has been many times that scientists > performing experiments have been completely surprised at the outcome. > The Michelson-Morley experiment is the most famous example. "Everybody" > back then "knew" that the ether wind blew, it was simply a matter of > performing the experiment to find the velocity and direction. Oops. > > Actually, we have the experimental results already, and had it since before > Einstein was even born. The Fizeau Experiment of 1851 which measured the > effect of moving water on the speed of light in water (the one which you > always misquote Einstein's comments) shows that the speed of light in a > medium with index of refraction n was: V = c/n + v(1-1/n^2), and not the > simple Gallilean addition V = c/n + v. > (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) Denial. Dogma. Here we go again. Another SR yahoo who can't answer the simplest of questions. Everyone is in agreement, the Observer at M' will see the flash from B/B' prior to the flash from A/A'. The issue is, since the flashes of light occur in water at rest with respect to the embankment, what does the Observer at M' conclude? Does the Observer at M' conclude the lightning strike in the water at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A', or does the Observer at M' factor in the water at rest with respect to the embankment and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous? The question is, is the Observer at M' allowed to factor in the water at rest with respect to the embankment when determining the simultaneity of the lightning strikes, or not? And if the Observer at M' can or cannot factor in the water at rest with respect to the embankment, why, and what does this mean in terms of what the Observer at M' concludes about the simultaneity of the lightning strikes? Now, you are once again going to avoid answering this simple question. For whatever reason, I cannot fathom. But it is interesting. Is it simply a case of denial? Is it a case where your subconscious knows the answer is different than what you have been taught and may lead you to question your education? Is it a case of ignorance? What is it about the simple question as to the Observer at M' determining the simultaneity of the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' in water at rest with respect to the embankment that does not allow you to answer it? |