 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / November 2005The Lie that Has Destroyed Theoretical Science
Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c=300000 km/s." Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. BUT IN REALITY THIS IS NOT THE CASE." Pentcho Valev [snip] Oh god, just shut the f.ck up. New here, but ... what? > New here, but ... what? http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm > > New here, but ... what? > > http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm Interesting! Are these the opinions of the biologists Athel Cornish-Bowden and María Luz Cárdenas ? But then, who of them is the "I" figure? > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in > empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that > this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c=300000 > km/s." Nice intro. > Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in > vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > relativity would be laid in the dust. BUT IN REALITY THIS IS NOT THE > CASE." Right. So? And where is the lie, do you think? Harald >> Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler >> law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nice intro. Every child at school knows that if A meets B then B meets A. This is not an approximation as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, it is a law far simpler than any stupidity about speed. Valev has omitted the chapter title, "The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity", which does not discuss the Principle of Relativity AT ALL, it being KNOWN to be a simpler law. The intro SUCKS, as does Einstein. >> Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in >> vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Harald 'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' --Bertrand Russell. Valev can think, and he does. He's spotted the lie. Vanlintel would sooner die. "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity." In other words, it is false. A Lie. Bullshit. Crapola. Phuckwittery. Observation: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Explanation: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3) (Or stars explode twice in three months). That's called "spelling it out". Androcles. 'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' --Bertrand Russell. > >> Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > >> law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity." > In other words, it is false. A Lie. Bullshit. Crapola. Phuckwittery. It was erroneous, but still workable. The same can be said of the preceding theory of Newton, which is still in use as well. > Observation: > http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's called "spelling it out". Although very interesting, that's a slightly different subject than the one of gravitation that Einstein had in mind. Wasn't this one already discussed in the relativity group? If not, you could start a thread on it. Cheers, Harald >> >> Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler >> >> law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > preceding > theory of Newton, which is still in use as well. Nonsense. The time for a radioed signal to reach Cassini-Huyghens from Earth does not equal the time for signal from Cassini-Huyghens to reach Earth. The speed is ~ 3.0003m/sec one way and ~ 2.9997m/sec the other, depending on the relative positions of Earth and Saturn at the epoch of emission. There is no "limit speed". The theory of relativity is not "workable". Newtonian physics is workable which is why it is still in use, the same cannot be said. >> Observation: >> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Cheers, > Harald Valev already has. You've replied to it, but said nothing of consequence. Androcles 'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' --Bertrand Russell. "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in news:rbDhf.74980$Es4.15442 @fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk: > Nonsense. > The time for a radioed signal to reach Cassini-Huyghens from Earth [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Newtonian physics is workable which is why it is still in use, > the same cannot be said. stinking amateur. plonk > "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in news:rbDhf.74980$Es4.15442 > @fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > plonk f.cking imbecile. *plonk* Androcles > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pentcho Valev There once was a time when I didn't understand the difference between speed and velocity either, just like you. But I overcame my ignorance and became educated. It can do wonders for your outlook. It might be worth your while Just a suggestion. >> Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler >> law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and became educated. It can do wonders for your outlook. It might be > worth your while Just a suggestion. You still don't. Get educated instead of indocrinated. Just a suggestion. BTW, you are not adressing Valev. All he has done is quoted Einstein, so I take it your remarks are directed at Einstein. Too late, he's dead. Androcles. > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and became educated. It can do wonders for your outlook. It might be > worth your while Just a suggestion. Igor, funny enough you're mistaken, your new education is useless for correctly understanding old English publications. Maybe you were too much in newsgroups, and don't read enough publications, especially of that time period -- also just a suggestion. Or learn German -- just another suggestion. In any case, Einstein's Geschwindigkeit in the above text means "speed" in the jargon of this newsgroup. And if you knew to which calculation Einstein referred in the above text, you would already know that. Harald > > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > > > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Harald As far as I have verified, whenever the word "Geschwindigkeit" appears in the original article, he is talking about the speed (or in a few cases the closing speed, when The only place where he is talking about the vector, he calls it "Geschwindigkeitsvektor". And besides that, your remark is entirely irrelevant and off the mark. You seem to have a problem reading what people (and that even includes yourself) write. Agenda? Dirk Vdm > > > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > > > > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > appears in the original article, he is talking about the speed (or > in a few cases the closing speed, when ... he also specified 'relativ zum...' ) Dirk Vdm > The only place where he is talking about the vector, he calls > it "Geschwindigkeitsvektor". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dirk Vdm > > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > > > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Harald I understand exactly what you saying, but I don't think it should matter. Anyone with even a high school physics education should at least be able to distinguish between what he was saying in those two statements. Unless you're really dense or just trying to be a major pain like Valev and Androcles, people should know better. I'm beginning to understand why Uncle Al said goodbye a few months ago. These trolls keep rehashing the same lame and stupid arguments. I think they're just looking for attention. >> > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler >> > > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > I understand exactly what you saying, but I don't think We know that. Thinking is way beyond your capability. > it should > matter. Yes, thinking should matter, but in your case it's hopeless. > Anyone with even a high school physics education should at > least be able to distinguish between what he was saying in those two > statements. But you don't have an education, you have an indoctrination. > Unless you're really dense Which you are... > or just trying to be a major > pain like Valev and Androcles, I like being a major pain to any phuckwitted moron. > people should know better. Of course, you are not people, you are imbecile. > I'm > beginning to understand Not a snowball's chance in hell. > why Uncle Al said goodbye a few months ago. See what I mean... you can't count to two, so you say "a few" > These trolls keep rehashing the same lame and stupid arguments. Trolls are phuckwit mporons, like you, that cannot count to two. > I > think No you don't. If you actually did think you'd die of shock. > they're just looking for attention. Of course. Every poster expects a little attention. Why bother to post otherwise? Now... stooopid. You have my attention. Explain the difference between speed and velocity. Begin by explaining what velocity is. If you can. Androcles. [snip] > Now... stooopid. You have my attention. Explain the difference between > speed and velocity. Begin by explaining what velocity is. If you can. > Androcles. By all means, try to explain it to Androcles: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Variables.html Dirk Vdm >Now... stooopid. You have my attention. Explain the difference between >speed and velocity. Begin by explaining what velocity is. If you can. >Androcles. Why don't you eventually post the "Androcles' Speed and Velocity FAQ", for all those furriners here, and eplain why the English folks need two words for one and the same thing. w. > > > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > > > > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > least be able to distinguish between what he was saying in those two > statements. I now think that you really don't know to what calculation Einstein referred in the second text -- for if you knew, it wouldn't make sense for you to suggest that the meaning of his first velocity is different form the second one. > Unless you're really dense or just trying to be a major > pain like Valev and Androcles, people should know better. I hoped that you knew better... Harald < I'm > beginning to understand why Uncle Al said goodbye a few months ago. > These trolls keep rehashing the same lame and stupid arguments. I > think they're just looking for attention. >> Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler >> law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >and became educated. It can do wonders for your outlook. It might be >worth your while Just a suggestion. It's not the difference between speed and velocity. But you have to be careful in specifying who is making the measurement. General relativity locally reduces to special relativity, and the local speed of light is always c. When you throw in the spacetime curvature of the general theory, the speed can differ over extended regions. E.g. the Shapiro effect.  Signature"One idea that is carried out, that is given body and form, one idea that assumes definite, tangible form and bears concrete results is worth a million ideas that are born but to die." -- Manual of the U.S. Army, 1911 (Lie should be spelt Lige.) > It's not the difference between speed and velocity. But you have to be > careful in specifying who is making the measurement. General relativity > locally reduces to special relativity, and the local speed of light is > always c. When you throw in the spacetime curvature of the general > theory, the speed can differ over extended regions. E.g. the Shapiro > effect. How is it the speed? Does it work like refraction? >(Lie should be spelt Lige.) I had assumed that the subject header was talking about algebra. <snip> /BAH >(Lie should be spelt Lige.) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >How is it the speed? Does it work like refraction? How do you measure a speed? But the time it takes for something to go from point A to point B. In special relativity the elapsed time depends on the motion of the observer, but space transforms, too, so the ratio of the distance over time is constant for a light ray. General relativity retains that for local measurements. That is, when everything involved in a measurement is in a small enough region that the spacetime curvature doesn't matter. So when you have a light ray bending around the Sun, you could have a sequence of observers each making their own measurements of the speed in their own small regions, and each gets c. But the distant observer will get a different result because of the curvature between them. The distant observer, making careful measurements of the local observers' rulers by e.g. the apparant sizes in his telescope, and comparing their timers to his own, will disagree with the lengths and elapsed times that are reported and will find a different ratio. And he'll disagree that each local observer measures the same c. Dear Pentcho would find his objections, if not his incredulity and indignation, evaporating if he carefully thought about what a measurement means and who was making it, and transformed both space and time as the theory demands. Or, for that matter, improved his critical reading skills. He quotes: Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity." Well, general relativity is not special relativity. It's not clear whether he noticed that. Signature"No one need be surprised that the subject of contagion was not clear to our ancestors."-- Heironymus Fracastorius, 1546 > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and became educated. It can do wonders for your outlook. It might be > worth your while Just a suggestion. And one for you Ig! Explain the "difference" in speed and velocity, between someone on a merry-go-round, and Mum standing beside. Now do it opposite. (Hint: velocity is a vector, and when a photon which is emitted from the ceiling of a trainvertically MISSES the earth's center, that photon was travelling FASTER Jim G c'=c+v >Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler >law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Pentcho Valev If you would spend as much time studying the subject as you do complaining about it, you might say one day "Oh, now I get it." And if you ask a question, someone on this newsgroup might answer it for you. Surely you still wouldn't like the theory, and I doubt it would end your industrious Usenet activity. But you might tilt at fewer windmills. Signature"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pentcho Valev Poncho Valev does not know the differences between - speed and velocity, - kneeling down and bending over, - local and global, - a sycophant in English and in French, - massive and massless particles, - a Real Pentcho and a Sears Pentcho, - implication and equivalence, - inertial and non-inertial, - group velocity and phase velocity, - science and religion Dirk Vdm > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler > > law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > - speed and velocity, > - science and religion That's very childish Dirk, in the above passages they are synonyms and you know it; moreover, the difference between science and religion is usually emphasized by those who don't realise their similarities. Harald > > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1132901420.099476.156830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > know it; moreover, the difference between science and religion is usually > emphasized by those who don't realise their similarities. Harry, we *all* know that engineers with an ether agenda don't understand the difference between speed and velocity. You don't have to remind us. Dirk Vdm Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:4387430c$1@epflnews.epfl.ch... > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:zdHhf.57010$fp6.3476531@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a > > > > simpler law in physics than that according to which light is > > > > propagated in empty space. -=- CLEARLY FiRST & FOREMOST, EinsteiN's focus is PARTiCLE COUNT.!! > > > > -=- Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that > > > > this propagation takes place in straight lines with a > > > > velocity c=300000 km/s." > > > > > > > > Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of > > > > light in vacuo, -=- CLEARLY ..AGAiN, EinsteiN's focus is on PARTiCLE COUNT.!! [VELOCiTY of LiGHT has "constancy" per CONSTANT COUNT].!! > > > > -=- which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions > > > > in the special theory of relativity and to which we have [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's very childish Dirk, in the above passages they are synonyms and you > > know it; moreover, the difference between science and religion is --=- ..in the PARTiCLE COUNT.!! > -=- usually emphasized by those who don't realise their similarities. > > Harry, we *all* know that engineers with an ether agenda don't > understand the difference between speed and velocity. -=- Duh... $ NEW SI GUESS iSS CODATA LaGrangian L: L = h*fL = nL*h*c / wl = nA*{mph}*ls*c^2 / rA = m1*c^2 = [mph]*c^2 = E - eM - eV = eK - eV = eM - eF = [(m1*v1^2 / 2)*(m1/M1 + 1)] .!! You'll NEED, essentially, iN THEORY, a *well-defined* LaGrangian.!! (Question: Why'd dimwits ALL stick to lunatic-Tivity LaGrangians.?) LiGHT velocity c is NOW a MATHEMATiCAL constant ..just as is, pi.!! LiGHT velocity v VARiEs, inversely, WiTH the path-PARTiCLE-COUNT.!! o o o o o o o vector o o o PROjECTiON A--------VELOCiTY vector v-->B - - - - - -> C o o o o o o o o ..ANY actual PATH o GUESS *SPEED* is CLEARLY (..ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON.!! VELOCiTY = (Any measured or imagined VECTOR) / DURATiON.!! CLEARLY ..POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point, ON the PATH.!! Any OTHER two POiNTs on *SAME path*, a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!! brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > -=- You don't have to remind us. > > Dirk Vdm Re: The Lie that Has Destroyed Theoretical Science. Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:4387430c$1@epflnews.epfl.ch... > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:zdHhf.57010$fp6.3476531@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > > > Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a > > > > simpler law in physics than that according to which light is > > > > propagated in empty space. -=- CLEARLY FiRST & FOREMOST, EinsteiN's focus is PARTiCLE COUNT.!! > > > > -=- Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that > > > > this propagation takes place in straight lines with a > > > > velocity c=300000 km/s." > > > > > > > > Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of > > > > light in vacuo, -=- CLEARLY ..AGAiN, EinsteiN's focus is on PARTiCLE COUNT.!! [VELOCiTY of LiGHT has "constancy" per CONSTANT COUNT].!! > > > > -=- which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions > > > > in the special theory of relativity and to which we have [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's very childish Dirk, in the above passages they are synonyms and you > > know it; moreover, the difference between science and religion is --=- ..in the PARTiCLE COUNT.!! > -=- usually emphasized by those who don't realise their similarities. > > Harry, we *all* know that engineers with an ether agenda don't > understand the difference between speed and velocity. -=- Duh... $ NEW SI GUESS iSS CODATA LaGrangian L: L = h*fL = nL*h*c / wl = nA*{mph}*ls*c^2 / rA = m1*c^2 = [mph]*c^2 = E - eM - eV = eK - eV = eM - eF = [(m1*v1^2 / 2)*(m1/M1 + 1)] .!! You'll NEED, essentially, iN THEORY, a *well-defined* LaGrangian.!! (Question: Why'd dimwits ALL stick to lunatic-Tivity LaGrangians.?) LiGHT velocity c is NOW a MATHEMATiCAL constant ..just as is, pi.!! LiGHT velocity v VARiEs, inversely, WiTH the path-PARTiCLE-COUNT.!! o o o o o o o vector o o o PROjECTiON A--------VELOCiTY vector v-->B - - - - - -> C o o o o o o o o ..ANY actual PATH o GUESS *SPEED* is CLEARLY (..ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON.!! VELOCiTY = (Any measured or imagined VECTOR) / DURATiON.!! CLEARLY ..POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point, ON the PATH.!! Any OTHER two POiNTs on *SAME path*, a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!! brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > -=- You don't have to remind us. > > Dirk Vdm Re: The Lie that Has Destroyed Theoretical Science. Re: Velocity vector magnitude & direction, v. [snip previous messages] >Duh... The most intelligent thing I have read today in this group. >$ NEW SI GUESS iSS CODATA LaGrangian L: >L = h*fL = nL*h*c / wl = nA*{mph}*ls*c^2 / rA = m1*c^2 = [mph]*c^2 >= E - eM - eV = eK - eV = eM - eF = [(m1*v1^2 / 2)*(m1/M1 + 1)] .!! > >You'll NEED, essentially, iN THEORY, a *well-defined* LaGrangian.!! >(Question: Why'd dimwits ALL stick to lunatic-Tivity LaGrangians.?) Isn't there some way you can accentuate the things you think are important? I just found the site for TraxMath, but it is coded for 800 x 600 resolution, now watch for some idiot ask me "don't tell me you use 640 x 480?". >LiGHT velocity c is NOW a MATHEMATiCAL constant ..just as is, pi.!! That sounds like a good idea, thanks for letting us know. >LiGHT velocity v VARiEs, inversely, WiTH the path-PARTiCLE-COUNT.!! > o o o o [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > o o o > o o ..ANY actual PATH o I thought you said it is a constant, can comstants vary, gosh. >GUESS *SPEED* is CLEARLY (..ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON.!! "Speed" is what the observer measures, too bad all observers are hopelessly fixated on Euclidean and Newtonian concepts. >VELOCiTY = (Any measured or imagined VECTOR) / DURATiON.!! "Imagined" is a good word for anything measured. >CLEARLY ..POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point, ON the PATH.!! Isn't that the path where I saw some snake yesterday? >Any OTHER two POiNTs on *SAME path*, a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!! > > brian a m stuckless > >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> What an enlightening newsgroup this has become, 44 nuts and about 6 sane posters. Joe Fischer On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:03:18 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>: <snip> >Harry, we *all* know that engineers with an ether agenda don't >understand the difference between speed and velocity. You don't >have to remind us. "Ignoramuses" is not spelled "engineers". HTH; HAND. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:03:18 GMT, the following appeared in > sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bob C. Quite right. "Ignoramus" is spelt (present tense, "spelled" is past tense), "dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com" Androcles > "Evidence confirming an observation is > evidence that the observation is wrong." > - McNameless >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:03:18 GMT, the following appeared in >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Quite right. "Ignoramus" is spelt (present tense, "spelled" is past >tense) In American English, "spelt" has fallen out of general usage and has been replaced with "spelled". >, "dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com" Sorry, but I have to disagree. My comment was solely directed at the unfortunate tendency among some scientists to lump all engineers together WRT (lack of) scientific knowledge; fallout from the (usually misapplied) Salem Hypothesis. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless > >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:03:18 GMT, the following appeared in > >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > knowledge; fallout from the (usually misapplied) Salem > Hypothesis. Point taken. My remark was only valid for the newsgroups sci.physics.relativity and sci.physics on which *all* engineers (with 3 exceptions) are idiots like you have never seen before. The most notable example is the entity with which you find yourself arguing over spelling: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html See also http://www.google.com/search?q=site:users%2Epandora%2Ebe+androcles Cheers, Dirk Vdm On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:36:59 GMT, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>: >> >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:03:18 GMT, the following appeared in >> >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >and sci.physics on which *all* engineers (with 3 exceptions) are >idiots like you have never seen before. OK. I'm following this in sci.skeptic, where kooks abound but where quite a few of the engineers (hopefully including yours truly) are at least layman-level conversant with the principles of science. >The most notable example is the entity with which you find yourself >arguing over spelling: > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html Hmmm...An EE who isn't aware of characteristic impedance, and who seems to think that "pure copper" has zero resistance. Uh-huh... >See also > http://www.google.com/search?q=site:users%2Epandora%2Ebe+androcles Oh, my. The few I looked at seem to prove your contention, although how an "electronic engineer" managed to get through both general and semiconductor physics, not to mention E&M, while continuing to make the claims he does, is rather puzzling. Maybe the same way Creationists get through the "evolution" part of biology classes - parrot the text while refusing to either accept it or to actually think about it. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:36:59 GMT, the following appeared in > sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > and who seems to think that "pure copper" has zero > resistance. Uh-huh... "Someone that thinks a pure copper conductor is a 50 ohm resistor, regardless of length, is totally hopeless." -- Androcles. Characteristic IMPEDANCE is not resistance. No power is lost in a coax, save through the resistance, which is of course kept to a practical minimum by the use of copper. I have no objection to the imbecile quoting me, thinking its a fumble. Hmmm? >>See also >> http://www.google.com/search?q=site:users%2Epandora%2Ebe+androcles > > Oh, my. The few I looked at seem to prove your contention, Name one, oh your. Androcles. > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:36:59 GMT, the following appeared in > sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > yours truly) are at least layman-level conversant with the > principles of science. Yes, I can indeed imagine that most engineers on sci.skeptic are "perfectly okay". Of course mine truly is no engineer. Some of my best friends are though, and my eldest son almost is one :-) > >The most notable example is the entity with which you find yourself > >arguing over spelling: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "evolution" part of biology classes - parrot the text while > refusing to either accept it or to actually think about it. Actually, that's exactly how he admitted getting his degree - that is of course, in his own peculiar way he *did* do some *kind* of thinking about it :-) Cheers, Dirk Vdm >>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:03:18 GMT, the following appeared in >>> sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In American English, "spelt" has fallen out of general usage > and has been replaced with "spelled". In English it has not. I do believe Merriam Webster is an American dictionary. I am also aware that the plural of "you" is "yawl" in Texas cowpoke and "youens" in western Pennsylvania honky where "nigga" is strictly ebonic and bad form to use within earshot of an African American, even if HE says it. We have African Englishmen in England, often speaking Jamaican, and we call them black. It does not offend them and many of them speak perfect Cockney. English is more easily understood in San Franscisco than Hatfield-McCoy hillbilly or Cajun backwater. Visit India and be sure to wear your shirtings and suitings. Meet cobbers in Orsetrylea. Which dialect would you recommend be used for Usenet (there are plenty to choose from)? Ah dinna recommend scorts, eirran or cymru, boyo. :-) >>, "dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com" > > Sorry, but I have to disagree. Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that yawl have no idea what youens are dialecting about. :-) > My comment was solely > directed at the unfortunate tendency among some scientists dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com is not a scientist. > to lump all engineers together WRT (lack of) scientific > knowledge; fallout from the (usually misapplied) Salem > Hypothesis. 'The "Salem Hypothesis" is credited to Bruce Salem, who developed it as a regular contributor to the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup. It continues to be used in circles where the debate between evolution and creation is ongoing, often for its humor value.' Bruce Salem is a phuckwit, shown by wackypedia (the book anyone can write) to be a laughingstock. Engineers are scientists unable to stomach the excrement of the male bovine of academia, the builders of technology. They are for the most part gentle quiet folk, providing workaround solutions to such fuckups as the general theory of relativity applied to GPS satellites; whereas academia writes papers, engineers write code for the automatic upload of ephemeris from groundstations. Engineers have far more knowledge of how things really work than do arrogant crackpots who only think they know. Show me a man who has never made a mistake and I'll show you a professor. Show me a man who has made a mistake and I'll show you a man who has built something that works. Androcles. "Maybe you can point me to a description of the physics experiment which discovered spacetime and determined what its structure is? " -- John Kennaugh " He was and would continue to be [after he retired from engineering] a teacher, and as with most skilled teachers, he would occasionally tell lies as harsh exemplars of a deeper truth." --- Tom Clancy, "Executive Orders" Observation: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Explanation: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3) (Or stars explode twice in three months). Better get rid of that aether agenda and that c-constant agenda. > "Evidence confirming an observation is > evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless Let the facts show that on 11/26/05 11:56 PM, Androcles at > Which dialect would you recommend be used for Usenet (there are > plenty to choose from)? > Ah dinna recommend scorts, eirran or cymru, boyo. :-) Cymru is the country, Cymraeg's the language. Shawn. In America, and all this knowledge of Welsh stuff!? > Let the facts show that on 11/26/05 11:56 PM, Androcles at > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cymru is the country, Cymraeg's the language. Mea culpa. > Shawn. In America, and all this knowledge of Welsh stuff!? I spent the first year of my life in Abergavenny, two years travelling world wide on business, eighteen years in Pittsburgh, two years in Port Charlotte Fl and now I'm back in Englestan without a turban. My younger sister still lives in Abergavenny where her granddaughter speaks better Cymraeg than I, which is not at all. I can just barely follow it spoken, as I learnt from my grandmother who would never use English when talking to her sisters. I can still pronounce "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch" which I learnt while holidaying with my parents in Pwllheli at the age of 8, even if I can't spell it and had to look it up. Androcles. > >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:03:18 GMT, the following appeared in > >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Hypothesis. > -- Don't worry, Dirk can't be a scientist: he shows to have the mental level of a 4 year old and keeps reminding us of that -- here again he not only pretends not to know that velocity is often used as synonym for speed, but his argument is even logically defective. And he's too dumb to know that he himself has the most primitive agenda that exists. Harald > Don't worry, Dirk can't be a scientist: he shows to have the mental level of > a 4 year old and keeps reminding us of that -- here again he not only > pretends not to know that velocity is often used as synonym for speed, Since when are "velocity" and "speed" used as synonyms in the physics literature? > but > his argument is even logically defective. And he's too dumb to know that he > himself has the most primitive agenda that exists. Jerry > > Don't worry, Dirk can't be a scientist: he shows to have the mental level of > > a 4 year old and keeps reminding us of that -- here again he not only > > pretends not to know that velocity is often used as synonym for speed, > > Since when are "velocity" and "speed" used as synonyms in the > physics literature? Since at least more than a century ago -- see for example the title of Lorentz's 1904 paper, which Tom yesterday cited again, or simply the Lorentz transformations: "v" stands for "velocity". Harald > > > Don't worry, Dirk can't be a scientist: he shows to have the mental > level of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Lorentz's 1904 paper, which Tom yesterday cited again, or simply the Lorentz > transformations: "v" stands for "velocity". CURRENT physics literature? Physics nomenclature has evolved since the turn of the century....or haven't you noticed? Jerry "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message : SNIP > > > Since when are "velocity" and "speed" used as synonyms in the > > > physics literature? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > CURRENT physics literature? Physics nomenclature has evolved since > the turn of the century....or haven't you noticed? Oh, you wrote SINCE but in fact you meant UNTIL. All comments here were about old writings of Einstein and not current literature -- didn't you notice? Still, you asked an interesting question, and I vaguely remember having even seen rather recent articles where "velocity" was used for "speed". Just check with Google Scholar (I now did). You will readily spot some. Cheers, Harald > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message : > SNIP [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > seen rather recent articles where "velocity" was used for "speed". Just > check with Google Scholar (I now did). You will readily spot some. Please provide links to current papers in the peer-reviewed literature where your sloppiness is condoned. Jerry > > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message : > > SNIP [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Please provide links to current papers in the peer-reviewed literature > where your sloppiness is condoned. You must be joking. 1. I didn't suggest that it's my word choice -- this sloppiness is yours, don't shoot the messenger! 2. It's your claim (for you to prove) that it's sloppiness of those who choose "velocity", and not a difference of convention. 3. Apparently you had a quick look and noticed many Arxiv articles, and that's why you now changed your demand... and you try to trick me in doing the work for you, and next you'll say that it's only a few and/or the journals are not very reputable, depending on the result. Sorry, you can do that yourself (you'll find at least one). Anyway, as a result I encountered many interesting papers. :) Harald > > Please provide links to current papers in the peer-reviewed literature > > where your sloppiness is condoned. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 2. It's your claim (for you to prove) that it's sloppiness of those who > choose "velocity", and not a difference of convention. Do you have any examples of a peer-reviewed paper where another convention is observed? - Randy >> > Please provide links to current papers in the peer-reviewed literature >> > where your sloppiness is condoned. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you have any examples of a peer-reviewed paper where another > convention is observed? In agreement with experience we further assume you are another stupid bastard that thinks peer-review has any meaning, because in agreement with experience "assume" has passed peer review, the moron Einstein wrote it. Yes, the other "convention" in measuring velocity is to ASSUME that the velocity of a ray of light to go from A to A is c. "2AB/(t'A-tA) = c " -- peer-reviewed idiot Einstein. Ref http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Only a peer-reviewed abject moron like you would fail to realize c = a peer-reviewed assumed zero. Androcles. > > > Please provide links to current papers in the peer-reviewed literature > > > where your sloppiness is condoned. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Randy Hi Randy, there are too many examples in old physics literature (to which I originally referred), such as the ones that this thread started with. But it seems to be rare in new papers, in 10 min. search I stumbled on only one of 5 years ago (in the "Modern Physics Letters" about neutrino oscillations) that apparently (for that's not my piece of cake) still used "velocity" for v as in the LT. Maybe it was a glitch. ;-) Harald > > > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message : > > > SNIP [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Anyway, as a result I encountered many interesting papers. :) Sorry, the onus is on you to back up your ridiculous statements and to justify your insults. YOU were the person who wrote: "velocity is often used as synonym for speed" YOU were the person who wrote "Just check with Google Scholar (I now did). You will readily spot some." How many of those Google Scholar references were to peer reviewed papers in the current physics literature? Jerry > > > > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message : > > > > SNIP [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > YOU were the person who wrote: > "velocity is often used as synonym for speed" Yes. I referred to papers on physics as can be found in existing literature, such as the ones that this thread started with. Obviously you just jumped in with complete disregard for the context - ridiculous indeed! > YOU were the person who wrote > "Just check with Google Scholar (I now did). You will readily spot some." And? How many articles did you find? Harald >> > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message : >> > SNIP [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Harald LOL! Well said, Harald. "Peer reviewed literature"... what a load of road apples left by a team of Clydesdales that is! Science by popular vote. "In agreement with experience we further assume 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c" got past peer review, the phuckwits are still swallowing it today, and the stupid bitch is whining about sloppiness! ROFLMAO! Androcles. > > > Don't worry, Dirk can't be a scientist: he shows to have the mental > level of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Lorentz's 1904 paper, which Tom yesterday cited again, or simply the Lorentz > transformations: "v" stands for "velocity". CURRENT physics literature? Physics nomenclature has evolved since the turn of the century....or haven't you noticed? Jerry > > >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:03:18 GMT, the following appeared in > > >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > pretends not to know that velocity is often used as synonym for speed, but > his argument is even logically defective. We both perfectly know the difference between speed and velocity. The thing is that you don't seem to know the diffference between an obnoxious troll like Valev and an religious ether engineer like yourself. That is of course the primary reason of your always ending up defending the most obvious idiots of these newsgroups and making the most irrelevant and misplaced remarks to those who kick the trolls around. > And he's too dumb to know that he > himself has the most primitive agenda that exists. Part of my agenda is to expose phoneys with a transparent agenda like yours. From a physics point of view, that is rather primitive indeed. No argument there. Dirk Vdm SNIP > > > >>>Harry, we *all* know that engineers with an ether agenda don't > > > >>>understand the difference between speed and velocity. You don't > > > >>>have to remind us. SNIP > > Don't worry, Dirk can't be a scientist: he shows to have the mental level of > > a 4 year old and keeps reminding us of that -- here again he not only [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > irrelevant and misplaced remarks to those who kick the trolls > around. You still don't understand that you joined an anti-ether witch hunt (or do you?). While you made anti-ether campaining either your pastime or your religion, you claim (even here above in this link) that Valev "doesnt know the difference between science and religion" -- but that's one of the few things that he got right. > > And he's too dumb to know that he > > himself has the most primitive agenda that exists. > > Part of my agenda is to expose phoneys with a transparent > agenda like yours. From a physics point of view, that is > rather primitive indeed. No argument there. It's much more primitive. You're a Jekyll and Hyde. Your first agenda is to show of, and that's not harmful, most people appreciate you for that and because of that I first thought that you're a nice guy. Your second agenda however is similar to those bullies at secondary schools who kick other pupils because they dare to be or think "different" in some way or another. Possibly that raises some hormone levels. Harald > SNIP > > > > >>>Harry, we *all* know that engineers with an ether agenda don't [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the difference between science and religion" -- but that's one of the few > things that he got right. Harry Harald - defender of obnoxious idiots at work again. > > > And he's too dumb to know that he > > > himself has the most primitive agenda that exists. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pupils because they dare to be or think "different" in some way or another. > Possibly that raises some hormone levels. You've got it all wrong - as always. I have no problem with people who think differently, quite on the contrary. I make fun of those who think differently and who at the same time bully those who "don't think differently". I also make fun of those who, like you, think differently but pretend to do it with an "open mind". Your mind is so open that you probably don't understand this. But don't worry, I can live with that. Dirk Vdm SNIP > > It's much more primitive. You're a Jekyll and Hyde. Your first agenda is to > > show of, and that's not harmful, most people appreciate you for that and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Dirk Vdm My mind is so open that in a few years I changed my opinion from thinking that everything is likely some kind of particles to everything is likely some kind of waves, and I'm also open to as yet unheard of alternatives. How open is your mind? Harald > SNIP >> > > >>>Harry, we *all* know that engineers with an ether agenda don't [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Harald Hmm... I'm beginning to think you are more sensible than you first gave me an impression of. Spermless Van de merde is all you say he is. Nice guy he is not. Bully he is. He gets into difficulties with definitions. For example, every real number has two square roots, but moortel thinks sqrt(x) is only the positive root, the negative root has to be written -sqrt(x). Yet x can be negative. <shrug> You'll find his difficulties displayed in what he calls "fumbles" by other people, mistakenly thinking they are in error when they point out exceptions to the generalized rule. Such people pass examinations when the pass mark is 40%, never realizing they were 60% wrong for the rest of their lives. Its called "stupidity". You have another example with the "peer-review" crowd, exemplified by Blind Poe: Einstein: ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) Reference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?" -- Blind Poe. and Uncle Al "BTW, you f.ck-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it." -- Uncle Al. and Jerry whom you've just encountered. Stephen Hawking's papers passed peer-review, but he admitted he was wrong after 30 years (unlike Einstein, who never once admitted his 1905 paper was the nonsense that became SR). They are all the typical learn-by-rote parrots, unable to think for themselves. Do not expect them to admit they are in error. Another is Bielawski. Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > To make you waste yours. > It is called "to troll" ;-) To me it's interesting - what are the limits of withstanding blatant contradictions (infinite, apparently). -- Jan Bielawski According to Bielawski, Relativity works because "An error in Relativity "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or something equally trivial." -- Bielawski. "It's WAY too simple-minded."-- Bielawski. "would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer." -- Bielawski. Bielawski ran away with his tail between his legs, he found his capability to withstand blatant contradiction wasn't infinite. Uncle Al has gone, spitting venom. I goofed the other day. I referred to the Welsh language as "Cymru" (which is the nation) instead of "Cymraeg". "Mea culpa" as soon as it was pointed out. That is SO easy. Why dig a hole for yourself when you know you are wrong? The OP is going to grind you into the dust if you do that, and you learn nothing except further embarrassment. Van de merde is too stupid to be embarrassed. Androcles. "An educated fool is more foolish than an ignorant one." -- Molière "There are well-dressed foolish ideas, just as there are well-dressed fools."--Nicolas Chamfort "No creature smarts so little as a fool." -- Alexander Pope > > SNIP > >> > > >>>Harry, we *all* know that engineers with an ether agenda don't [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > the positive root, the negative root has to be written -sqrt(x). > Yet x can be negative. <shrug> Androcles and square roots: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Humour.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html > You'll find his difficulties displayed in what he calls "fumbles" > by other people, mistakenly thinking they are in error when > they point out exceptions to the generalized rule. Such people > pass examinations when the pass mark is 40%, never realizing > they were 60% wrong for the rest of their lives. Its called "stupidity" and it is collected in http://www.google.com/search?q=site:users%2Epandora%2Ebe+androcles Androcles: 151 and counting Dirk Vdm > You have another example with the "peer-review" crowd, exemplified > by Blind Poe: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?" -- Blind Poe. > and Uncle Al Androcles has been attaching this quote to the above equation for so long I'd forgotten what the actual context was where I said it. Needless to say, that wasn't the equation. Here's the original context: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/20626b1b979f1b91?hl=en& And "that equation" was this: x'/(c-v) = t. But five minutes of reading Androcles-the-terminally-confused will reveal his penchant for taking quotes from one place and dropping them into other places. Witness the mess he's made of [Einstein, 1905] by this trick. He's now got a whole stew of equation X attached to the explication of equation Y which has become his standard cut-and-paste template. - Randy Androcles wrote: > You have another example with the "peer-review" crowd, exemplified > by Blind Poe: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?" -- Blind Poe. > and Uncle Al [Blind Poe] Androcles has been attaching this quote to the above equation for so long I'd forgotten what the actual context was where I said it. Needless to say, that wasn't the equation. Here's the original context: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/20626b1b979f1b91?hl=en& And "that equation" was this: x'/(c-v) = t. [Androcles] Once again demonstrating just how blind Poe really is. Needless to say, ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) IS the equation that contains c+v , nor could it. But, water under the bridge. Hey Blind Poe! You there? Anyone home? The equation ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) contains c+v, Poe! Nor could it, Blind Poe. Not anywhere in the paper, Blind Poe. Can you see it, Blind Poe ? Or are you STILL f.cking blind, Blind Poe? [Blind Poe] But five minutes of reading Androcles-the-terminally-confused will reveal his penchant for taking quotes from one place and dropping them into other places. [Androcles] The only thing that confuses me is how f.cking idiots like you and Uncle Al ever survive crossing the street, nor could it. Where on the street did that steamroller come from? [Blind Poe] Witness the mess he's made of [Einstein, 1905] by this trick. He's now got a whole stew of equation X attached to the explication of equation Y which has become his standard cut-and-paste template. [Androcles] Blind Poe cannot see that term Y is embedded in equation X. What a hopeless moron Blind Poe is, and now the buffoon is trying to cover his arse, digging his grave error ever deeper. Carry on, Blind Poe. Make yourself look a bigger fool than you already are. I'm sure other people can see it, Blind Poe. I will continue to cite you, Blind Poe, for the moron you are. Protest and you'll give me another opportunity like this one to deride you yet again. The safest thing to do, Blind Poe, is to quit trying to delude yourself that you know any physics or mathematics, and f.ck OFF like Auntie Alice. That c.nt is still babbling in sci.chem. Show his face around here and I'll be on him like flies on sh.t. As of right now, you are the sh.t. Androcles. > Androcles wrote: > > You have another example with the "peer-review" crowd, exemplified [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > contains c+v, Poe! Nor could it, Blind Poe. Not anywhere in the paper, Blind > Poe. Androcles, the "electronic engineer, professionally", having a go at equations: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html Dirk Vdm > > You have another example with the "peer-review" crowd, exemplified > > by Blind Poe: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Randy Androcles was much more entertaining when he would reply to my messages. He still does on occasion, but he refuses to discuss what hes misunderstanding. *sigh*, I really don't see how he can sustain the whining about trolls and "not doing physics" while contributing nothing himself. On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:12:18 +0100, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch>: >> >> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:03:18 GMT, the following appeared in >> >> sci.skeptic, posted by "Dirk Van de moortel" [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >a 4 year old and keeps reminding us of that -- here again he not only >pretends not to know that velocity is often used as synonym for speed Not in any science text I used. >, but >his argument is even logically defective. And he's too dumb to know that he >himself has the most primitive agenda that exists. Uh-huh... -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:12:18 +0100, the following appeared > in sci.skeptic, posted by "Harry" [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Not in any science text I used. Then you never used any original text on relativity, such as the ones this thread was about. Harald >> Poncho Valev does not know the differences between >> - speed and velocity, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Harald So you don't see the difference between a doctor measuring your pulse, fever, etc, and a vodoo priest exorcising your bad soul? For you it is the same, or at least similar? w. SignatureThank God that I am an Atheist! Gottseidank bin ich ein Atheist! > >> Poncho Valev does not know the differences between > >> - speed and velocity, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pulse, fever, etc, and a vodoo priest exorcising your bad soul? > For you it is the same, or at least similar? No, not at all. Their is a similarity though: both may believe that they are working to heal the patient. But similarities between Western and African health care is a completely different subject. Harald >> So you don't see the difference between a doctor measuring your >> pulse, fever, etc, and a vodoo priest exorcising your bad soul? >> For you it is the same, or at least similar? > >No, not at all. Their is a similarity though: both may believe that they are >working to heal the patient. Yep, even fundamentally different things may look similar. There are citerions of external pressure which force people to vote by their feet. Assume 2 doors, door A is labelled "science", door B "faith", healthy people will choose one or the other, depending on their mood, but most sick people will prefer door A. When they feel the pain, they do know right or wrong. Which means, knowledge hurts, while faith never does. w. > >> So you don't see the difference between a doctor measuring your > >> pulse, fever, etc, and a vodoo priest exorcising your bad soul? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > their mood, but most sick people will prefer door A. > When they feel the pain, they do know right or wrong. You're much too optimistic. > Which means, knowledge hurts, while faith never does. That's right. Harald Assume 2 doors, door A is labelled "science", door B "faith", > healthy people will choose one or the other....... *************** What about just having faith in science? >> "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1132901420.099476.156830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Harald Van de motherf..ker isn't a child, he's a fuckwit troll. Androcles. On Fri, brian a m stuckless <bastuck@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote [snip previous messages > Duh.. The most intelligent thing I have read today in this group > $ NEW SI GUESS iSS CODATA LaGrangian L > L = h*fL = nL*h*c / wl = nA*{mph}*ls*c^2 / rA = m1*c^2 = [mph]*c^ > = E - eM - eV = eK - eV = eM - eF = [(m1*v1^2 / 2)*(m1/M1 + 1)] .! > > You'll NEED, essentially, iN THEORY, a *well-defined* LaGrangian.! > (Question: Why'd dimwits ALL stick to lunatic-Tivity LaGrangians.? Isn't there some way you can accentuate the things you thin are important? I just found the site for TraxMath, but it is code fo 800 x 600 resolution, now watch for some idiot ask me "don't tell m you use 640 x 480?" > LiGHT velocity c is NOW a MATHEMATiCAL constant ..just as is, pi.! That sounds like a good idea, thanks for letting us know > LiGHT velocity v VARiEs, inversely, WiTH the path-PARTiCLE-COUNT.! > o o o [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > o o > o o ..ANY actual PATH I thought you said it is a constant, can comstants vary gosh > GUESS *SPEED* is CLEARLY (..ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON.! "Speed" is what the observer measures, too bad all observer are hopelessly fixated on Euclidean and Newtonian concepts > VELOCiTY = (Any measured or imagined VECTOR) / DURATiON.! "Imagined" is a good word for anything measured > CLEARLY ..POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point, ON the PATH.! Isn't that the path where I saw some snake yesterday > Any OTHER two POiNTs on *SAME path*, a DiFFERENT VECTOR.! > > brian a m stuckles What an enlightening newsgroup this has become, 44 nut and about 6 sane posters. Joe Fische |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message