Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Stuart Ray
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
 |
|
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shubee@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
What endorsements have you received?
There are acknowledgments that can be interpreted as an endorsement on
some level. Thus, the nicest endorsement that I've received was from
Eugene V. Stefanovich in his paper, A Hamiltonian Approach to Quantum
Gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019).
|
If that is indeed the nicest endorsement you and/or your "derivation"
have received, then I'm afraid you have not received any favorable
endorsements at all. First, Mr. Stefanovich is a known lunatic, so
receiving an "endorsement" from him is like getting a character
recommendation from Charles Manson. Second, he did not refer at all to
your "derivation", which is what we were discussing. (If you thought I
was asking for general character endorsements, I'm sorry for not
making this more clear.) All we have is a well-known crackpot (Mr.
Stefanovich) saying in one of his idiotic pseudo-papers on HIS idiotic
crackpot theory that he had "helpful online discussions" with you.
This does not in any way constitute an endorsement of (or even a
comment on) your "derivation". Which brings me back to the original
question: Has ANY human being (or any other creature) who has
examined your "derivation" concluded that it was valuable? If, as
seems to be the case, the answer is No, then what do you conclude from
this? Is everyone else in the world really so much dumber than you
are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
"Stuart Ray" <sbray@spamlessss.com> wrote in message
news:4870ee37.334260890@news.gte.net...
| On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shubee@gmail.com>
| wrote:
| >> What endorsements have you received?
| >There are acknowledgments that can be interpreted as an endorsement on
| >some level. Thus, the nicest endorsement that I've received was from
| >Eugene V. Stefanovich in his paper, A Hamiltonian Approach to Quantum
| >Gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612019).
|
| If that is indeed the nicest endorsement you and/or your "derivation"
| have received, then I'm afraid you have not received any favorable
| endorsements at all. First, Mr. Stefanovich is a known lunatic, so
| receiving an "endorsement" from him is like getting a character
| recommendation from Charles Manson. Second, he did not refer at all to
| your "derivation", which is what we were discussing. (If you thought I
| was asking for general character endorsements, I'm sorry for not
| making this more clear.) All we have is a well-known crackpot (Mr.
| Stefanovich) saying in one of his idiotic pseudo-papers on HIS idiotic
| crackpot theory that he had "helpful online discussions" with you.
| This does not in any way constitute an endorsement of (or even a
| comment on) your "derivation". Which brings me back to the original
| question: Has ANY human being (or any other creature) who has
| examined your "derivation" concluded that it was valuable? If, as
| seems to be the case, the answer is No, then what do you conclude from
| this? Is everyone else in the world really so much dumber than you
| are?
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics is also known as the drivel bucket.
Every nutter and his dog dumps a paper in it and nobody reads it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:14 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 1:45 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
You ran out of medication again. Try a cold shower, might calm down
your vivid delusions.
|
You sure do go to extreme lengths to try to cover your mathematical
inadequacies. What sane person believes that you're capable of
mathematical understanding? It's clear to everyone that is civilized
that you only impress yourself and other shit-throwing chimpanzees.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 9:01 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
Gisse, you are contradicting yourself!
There is no "modern" statistical analysis!
You 'need' enough points to draw conclusions valid
at some chosen probability.
|
That's why they had four clocks. They findings are consistent with
special relativity.
[...]
| Quote: |
So how come muon and pion beams exist? How come the Sagnac effect is
real? How come Compton scattering works
What a mix!
Marcel Luttgens
|
Well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 9:28 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 6:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:40 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?
Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.
Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.
Marcel Luttgens
Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10.
Without Sagnac and local gravitational effects, clocks
or any other mechanism subject to gravito-inertial
fields, violates the relativity principle if it is
affected by motion. So you can't have it both ways.
Either H&K is misinterpreted, or the principle of
relativity was violated.
"The relativity principle?http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
|
Thank you sue, for your typical irrelevant words and link.
H&K is not a test of special relativity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jem
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:09 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
Shubee wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 5, 8:45 am, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
Shubee wrote:
Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug
This from a thoroughly delusional incompetent who's spent more than
five years unsuccessfully trying to derive the basic SR transformation
that relates frame-dependent quantities.
Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf is a valid
derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
ever conceived.
|
I'm still waiting to see you demonstrate that the "weakest axiom set
ever conceived" for deriving the Lorentz Transformation, is
inconsistent with the Galilean Transformation. Can you do that,
Shooby? Sorry, Shooby, dumb question. What I meant is, do you have a
good excuse for not being able to do it?
| Quote: |
Unfortunately, the misguided competition still believes the false
assumption that homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations
must be presupposed in order to derive the Lorentz transformation.
|
What are "homogeneous and isotropic coordinate transformations", Shooby? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:28 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 7:08 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 9:28 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:40 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?
Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.
Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.
Marcel Luttgens
Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10.
Without Sagnac and local gravitational effects, clocks
or any other mechanism subject to gravito-inertial
fields, violates the relativity principle if it is
affected by motion. So you can't have it both ways.
Either H&K is misinterpreted, or the principle of
relativity was violated.
"The relativity principle?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
Thank you sue, for your typical irrelevant words and link.
|
Your are quite welcome.
| Quote: |
H&K is not a test of special relativity.
|
I certainly agree with you on that point.
<< The authors unfortunately went through
an inconsistent analysis of their
data to establish that Special Relativity
was valid [4, 6].
[...]
[4] 4] J. C. Hafele, & R. E. Keating, Science, 177, 166-170 (1972).
[6] J. C. Hafele, Nature, 227,270 (1970). >>
--C. S. Unnikrishnan
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406023
Sue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 4:28 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 7:08 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:28 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:40 am, mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?
What's your delusion this time? That the time dilation will accumulate
while the clocks are separate and magically undo itself when brought
back together?
Once again, you show your incapacity to go beyond what
you read in textbooks. Calling "babble" interesting
considerations about SR is a good example.
Try to realize that time dilation on moving clocks is
a mere product of observation. There is absolutely no proof
that those clocks will show a time difference with
clocks at rest when reunited. And don't invoke
statistically not interpretable experiment like H&K's
to justify the contrary.
Marcel Luttgens
Let's hear your argument as to why H&K is wrong and why modern clocks
are wrong. Relativistic effects on clocks are trivially observable
when you have clocks that are accurate to parts in 10^-10.
Without Sagnac and local gravitational effects, clocks
or any other mechanism subject to gravito-inertial
fields, violates the relativity principle if it is
affected by motion. So you can't have it both ways.
Either H&K is misinterpreted, or the principle of
relativity was violated.
"The relativity principle?
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
Thank you sue, for your typical irrelevant words and link.
Your are quite welcome.
H&K is not a test of special relativity.
I certainly agree with you on that point.
The authors unfortunately went through
an inconsistent analysis of their
data to establish that Special Relativity
was valid [4, 6].
[...]
[4] 4] J. C. Hafele, & R. E. Keating, Science, 177, 166-170 (1972).
[6] J. C. Hafele, Nature, 227,270 (1970).
--C. S. Unnikrishnanhttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406023
Sue...
|
...and why is the analysis inconsistent? Your irrelevant [surprise!]
reference doesn't explain why, and neither do you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:27 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 10:02 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 2:59 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
Shubee wrote:
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
Shubee wrote:
Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug
Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfis a valid
derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
ever conceived.
Perhaps Jem's description should be amended to something like,
"... spent more than five years deluding himself into believing ..."
Wow, a professional shit-throwing chimpanzee.
Shubee
|
Why do you persist in posting here?
You don't like any of us, and you will not advance your cause from
this newsgroup. So why not just fuck off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:44 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 9:27 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 6, 10:02 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 6, 2:59 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
Shubee wrote:
jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
Shubee wrote:
Geometry is the study of invariants. Sadly, physicists believe that
special relativity is the study of frame-dependent quantities. <shrug
Http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdfisa valid
derivation of the Lorentz transformation from the weakest axiom set
ever conceived.
Perhaps Jem's description should be amended to something like,
"... spent more than five years deluding himself into believing ..."
Wow, a professional shit-throwing chimpanzee.
Shubee
Why do you persist in posting here?
|
Good question. There is little if any science about it.
I suppose there is some small pleasure in seeing
windmills where others see dragons.
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~david/images/doredonandwindmills.jpg
Sue...
| Quote: |
You don't like any of us, and you will not advance your cause from
this newsgroup. So why not just fuck off? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 9:22 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com
wrote: [some lame insults and irrelevant foolishness]
|
Use your brain Androcles. If you can't accept my challenge to simplify
an idiot's high school algebra, then you're just as dumb as Dono and
Gisse. I don't waste my time with chimpanzees.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shubee
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:00 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Jul 6, 10:32 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e00dfe75-3cb3-4b8f-bd0a-97b8244acf3c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| On Jul 6, 9:22 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
| > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>| > wrote: [some lame insults and irrelevant foolishness]
|
| Use your brain Androcles. If you can't accept my challenge to simplify
| an idiot's high school algebra, then you're just as dumb as Dono and
| Gisse. I don't waste my time with chimpanzees.
|
| Shubee
|http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
You have nothing important to say and no brain to use, fuckhead,
and you are even dumber than Dono and Gisse. I don't waste my
time with your lame insults or your irrelevant foolishness.
Here's MY challenge, arsehole, and if you had a brain you'd answer it.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Hint: Because he was a fucking idiot like you.
|
So you're answering my challenge with a challenge. Do you realize,
Androcles, that you're appealing to the same lame argument of
authority as your alter-ego, Stuart Ray?
To answer your question I would tell Einstein, if he were alive today,
that he should rewrite his paper because he is making the subject far
more difficult than it really is.
Shubee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Stuart Ray
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 7:22 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shubee@gmail.com>
wrote: [some lame insults and irrelevant foolishness]
The question on the table is this: Since NO human being who has
examined your "derivation" has concluded that it was valuable, what do
you conclude from this? Is everyone else in the world really so much
dumber than you are? Are ALL other human beings deluded fools and are
you the only clear-thinking person alive? Has it ever (and I mean even
once, for just a moment) occurred to you that YOU are the one who
isn't seeing clearly? I would honestly like to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.Shubee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e00dfe75-3cb3-4b8f-bd0a-97b8244acf3c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| On Jul 6, 9:22 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
| > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com>
| > wrote: [some lame insults and irrelevant foolishness]
|
| Use your brain Androcles. If you can't accept my challenge to simplify
| an idiot's high school algebra, then you're just as dumb as Dono and
| Gisse. I don't waste my time with chimpanzees.
|
| Shubee
| http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
You have nothing important to say and no brain to use, fuckhead,
and you are even dumber than Dono and Gisse. I don't waste my
time with your lame insults or your irrelevant foolishness.
Here's MY challenge, arsehole, and if you had a brain you'd answer it.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Hint: Because he was a fucking idiot like you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:11 am Post subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real? |
|
|
"Shubee" <e.Shubee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0fda963f-63c4-4a55-85af-bcadbf4548dd@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| On Jul 6, 10:32 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| >
news:e00dfe75-3cb3-4b8f-bd0a-97b8244acf3c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Jul 6, 9:22 pm, sb...@spamlessss.com (Stuart Ray) wrote:
| > | > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Shubee
<e.Shu...@gmail.com>| > wrote: [some lame insults and irrelevant
foolishness]
| >
| > |
| > | Use your brain Androcles. If you can't accept my challenge to simplify
| > | an idiot's high school algebra, then you're just as dumb as Dono and
| > | Gisse. I don't waste my time with chimpanzees.
| > |
| > | Shubee
| > |http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
| >
| > You have nothing important to say and no brain to use, fuckhead,
| > and you are even dumber than Dono and Gisse. I don't waste my
| > time with your lame insults or your irrelevant foolishness.
| > Here's MY challenge, arsehole, and if you had a brain you'd answer it.
| >
| > Why did Einstein say
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same?
| >
| > Hint: Because he was a fucking idiot like you.
|
| So you're answering my challenge with a challenge.
My challenge has been out on usenet for weeks. I have priority.
YOU are answering MY challenge with a challenge. I don't waste
my time with your lame insults or your irrelevant foolishness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
