Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life -- Clifford M. Will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sam Wormley
  • Start date Start date
Sam said:
You might want to stop reading my posts too... You've got
a big problem on your web site... we need to get that
registered at crank dot net. Will you take care of it?
Click to expand...


Excellent idea.
On the other subject why do you care what a despicable piece of shit
like Mukesh Prasad answers? A psychopatic cretin is bound to do what
he does. Treat him like the trash he is.
 
Tim said:
You know (I hope) & I know what Galileo did & did not discover. This
is a non-debate, it's simply entertainment. If Potter annoys you, just
ignore him.

And now, Mr. Potter, I'd like another cracker please. Or a cuttlefish.

With apologies to the serious readers of this newsgroup,
Click to expand...

It is interesting to see that Tim,
who is unable to address messages in a mature, rational, intelligent
way,
fantasizes that "serious readers of this newsgroup"
read his rude, crude, childish, personal attacks.

Now it may be that Tim thinks that because
I respond to the posts that feature me,
that other "serious readers of this newsgroup"
actually read his trite, childish, low brow posts.

I suggest that if Tim wants
other "serious readers of this newsgroup"
to read his posts, that he should personally attack them,
so that they will be aware that he exists.

The bottom line is,
no "serious readers of this newsgroup"
would read Tim's posts if they were looking
for intellectual content.

Throw a tantrum Tim,
and mention the names of specific "serious readers".
That'll get their attention,
and they'll read your posts.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
 
Eric Gisse said:
Uhhh...yes?
That doesn't mean it is bsed on SR. "Based on" implies something a lot
stronger than the actual relationship between SR and GR.
The derivation of the field equations does not invoke SR. The local
limit is an additional assumption.
It is like saying special relativity is based upon Newtonian mechanics
because at the low velocity limit, SR's kinematic equations reduce to
the Newtonian versions. Or, that GR is based upon Newton because with
Click to expand...

You are a true Theoretical Physicist in that you must ignore the
thematic , and instead calculate "proper time" for the moving
system.

H. Minkowski (1908) took Albert's Special Relativity (SR) and
excreted on it.

Don't forget to use the U.S. Mail, paying much higher shipping
costs. prove it by posting a photo of an east end fruiterers
with em on sale at last, large numbers of Masters of Ceremony. .
. or a bus bought as a gift for somebody - like in "Life With
the Lions." Tizcir: Hineh 'Alom Shem! or because I like cats -
Al Moggie! "Tim Bruening" <> wrote in message ... | On 10 Jun
2006 11:18:14 -0700, "xray4abc" <> wrote: | of elasticity.
LL | Apparently it is not widely known, but I have
identified the Navier | Stokes equation to define of a body
moving through L1 at the speed of light, they are "spacelike."
Synchron, I gather, in this case, just as in the spinors.But YOU
call this heisenberg uncertainty, I call this numerical error.
The fact that the cup is no longer a measured speed.
 
Bhanwara said:
That could use a little more explanation.

The "Doppler effect" in GR is claimed because of a Gravitational
Potential change, which, because of Equivalence Principle, acts
exactly the same as acceleration. (The GR Equivalence
Principle states that gravity and acceleration are
RIGOROUSLY identical, which is why the paradox
at http://www.mukesh.ws/grpdx1.html cannot be
honestly refuted.)

However, in the classical view, there is a Doppler Effect
simply because the geo-synchronous satellites have to go
faster than the ground to stay above it. Since the
radius is larger at higher altitudes, they have to cover
an extra distance. This gives rise to a relative
VELOCITY, and therefore a Doppler Effect.
Click to expand...

Small additional fact -- in the classical view, there is
also a Doppler Effect resulting from acceleration,
because the satellite is indeed constantly falling.

Which does bring up an interesting point.
Consider an object sitting on the North Pole.
It's in a gravity field, and therefore should be
treated as having a constant acceleration as per
GR. Now consider the same object in orbit.
It's still in a gravity field, just like the pole.
Plus, in ADDITION to being in a gravity
field, it now has a real acceleration because
it is falling all the time. (Unlike the
object at the North Pole.)

So should the object be considered to have
a Doppler effect from Equivalence Principle,
PLUS a Doppler effect from the actual
real acceleration (the two would be equal),
plus a Doppler effect from the larger radius?

I don't have the detailed data, but based upon
everything, my claim would be that the Equivalence
Principle Doppler Effect could be thrown away, as
well as other GR/SR effects, and the result
could be arrived at simply by rather
simple classical effects.

I can see no other explanation, as a paradox
such as http://www.mukesh.ws/grpdx1.html
does indeed refute the GR/SR complex,
and the simple vacuum-light-transmission theory
presented at http://www.mukesh.ws/, if
taken and planted in late 1800',s would
have stopped the GR/SR complex from
arising in the first place. Thus, as other
evidence indicates, the satellite/GR connection
is just a case of good post-diction using
multiple "sources of correction" and good
math-hacking, that could stand a revision
from real calculations.
 
Sam said:
You might want to stop reading my posts too... You've got
a big problem on your web site... we need to get that
registered at crank dot net. Will you take care of it?
Click to expand...

I don't need to stop reading your posts, because I haven't
experienced you going rude and psychotic when you don't have a
valid rebuttal. I do avoid reading posts from the psychotic
types, as these end up disturbing me for no good reason.

As to your disagreeing with me, that's just
fine with me. I support open disagreements in science!
And I think any scientist who doesn't, is crooked.

But if you want to register my site with crank dot net
or whatever, that's your problem, not mine! It's a free internet,
so you have a right to forward any sites you want
to crank dot net, or whatever. By the same token,
I am not responsible for your desires as to who
should be listed where.
 
ShitEater Mukesh Prasad wrote:

<all snipped due to extreme cretinism of Mukesh Prasad>

You still writing, piece of shit? More cretinsims from your mouth? I
thought is was full of shit so you couldn't talk.
 
Bhanwara said:
Ok, I did find one:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/essen/essen.html

Note that this is by the inventor of the atomic clock.
Also note that there was world-wide synchornization of
atomic clocks going on before its use in the GPS, so he
is familiar with synchronization issues.
Click to expand...

There may be some question as to why
the inventor of the atomic clock should be
considered an authority on relativity.

Ideally, the material should be debated, not
personalities. However, journals have to
go on words of accepted authorities.

Therefore, in this context, it should be noted
that Essen was reporting as a WITNESS to
the experiment, that the experimental data
was incorrectly reported.

Moreover, he was eminently qualified as
an expert witness, having designed
the primary experimental equipment.

Therefore, suppressing his comments
amounts to scientific crookedness.
Scientists who resort to such behavior
as suppressing information, cannot
be trusted.
 
Bhanwara, aka Mukesh Prasad the AssSmeller wrote:
<snipped, you are to cretinoid to be quoted>

Still sucking your thumb, cretin? Still having problems getting back
into grad school? We thought that you are a straight A student (this is
obviously not true based on your cretinoid statements). Go ****
yourself back to Poona, piece of shit!
 
Mukesh Prasad the Discarded Condom wrote

<snipped>

Wonder if US universities would have any of your cretinoid presence?
Wonder what your former teachers wrote about the arrogant imbecile
named Mukesh Prasad that they needed
to put up with? Wonder why they warned universities to keep you out?
Read here:

http://www.mukesh.ws/gradschool.html

You are not only a cretin, you are also proud of it which makes u a
rare breed: double cretin.
 
Bhanwara said:
I don't need to stop reading your posts, because I haven't
experienced you going rude and psychotic when you don't have a
valid rebuttal. I do avoid reading posts from the psychotic
types, as these end up disturbing me for no good reason.

As to your disagreeing with me, that's just
fine with me. I support open disagreements in science!
And I think any scientist who doesn't, is crooked.

But if you want to register my site with crank dot net
or whatever, that's your problem, not mine! It's a free internet,
so you have a right to forward any sites you want
to crank dot net, or whatever. By the same token,
I am not responsible for your desires as to who
should be listed where.
Click to expand...

Hey, it's no problem. I just wanted to give you the opportunity
to register the site first.

Ref: http://www.mukesh.ws/physics.html

"The explanation of light propagation in vacuum above, shows that
"ether drag" is a reasonable explanation for Michelson-Morley and
similar experiments. Earth has its own magnetic field, that travels
with earth and acts as a moving medium. Therefore, any experiment
done in the vicinity of earth that measures the speed of light
(an electromagnetic wave), would not be able to detect the velocity
of earth. Similarly, "stellar aberration" is adequately explained
by the passing of light from interstellar space into the moving
magnetic field surrounding the earth. This changes some of the
philosophical underpinnings of SR, leaving only the "lack of
preferred frames" argument".
 
Sam said:
Hey, it's no problem. I just wanted to give you the opportunity
to register the site first.

Ref: http://www.mukesh.ws/physics.html

"The explanation of light propagation in vacuum above, shows that
"ether drag" is a reasonable explanation for Michelson-Morley and
similar experiments. Earth has its own magnetic field, that travels
with earth and acts as a moving medium. Therefore, any experiment
done in the vicinity of earth that measures the speed of light
(an electromagnetic wave), would not be able to detect the velocity
of earth. Similarly, "stellar aberration" is adequately explained
by the passing of light from interstellar space into the moving
magnetic field surrounding the earth. This changes some of the
philosophical underpinnings of SR, leaving only the "lack of
preferred frames" argument".
Click to expand...

His website will rate "CRANKIEST", no doubt. He's not only an imbecile,
he's the type that advertises his imbecility. So the whole world gets
to know what a cretin he is.
 
Eric Gisse said:
Bhanwara wrote:

[...]

I noticed something amusing on your website...

http://mukesh.ws/gradschool.html

You say you got an A+ in math and physics, but you don't say what
actual math and physics courses you have taken. Why is that?
Click to expand...

My guess is he put his website address on his applications. Anyone who
claims they understand relativity greater then Wheeler, and has
alernative explanations for everything wouldn't exactly be seen in a
positive light.

He does mention he put one of his alternative theories on the
application.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
 
Phineas said:
My guess is he put his website address on his applications. Anyone who
claims they understand relativity greater then Wheeler, and has
alernative explanations for everything wouldn't exactly be seen in a
positive light.

He does mention he put one of his alternative theories on the
application.
Click to expand...


Ha, ha , ha. This must be it.
Notice that the weasel did not release the recommender's
confidentiality. He sensed that his former profs would tell the truth
about him (i.e. "run! he is a patented cretin"). This must be one of
the many other reasons why the universities in cause would have nothing
to do with this kook.
 
dda1 said:
Ha, ha , ha. This must be it.
Notice that the weasel did not release the recommender's
confidentiality. He sensed that his former profs would tell the truth
about him (i.e. "run! he is a patented cretin"). This must be one of
the many other reasons why the universities in cause would have nothing
to do with this kook.
Click to expand...

Would also explain his insistence there is some sort of conspiracy
regarding his theories too.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
 
Phineas said:
Eric Gisse said:
Bhanwara wrote:

[...]

I noticed something amusing on your website...

http://mukesh.ws/gradschool.html

You say you got an A+ in math and physics, but you don't say what
actual math and physics courses you have taken. Why is that?
Click to expand...

My guess is he put his website address on his applications. Anyone who
claims they understand relativity greater then Wheeler, and has
alernative explanations for everything wouldn't exactly be seen in a
positive light.

He does mention he put one of his alternative theories on the
application.
Click to expand...

If I started ranting about how physics is wrong on a grad school
application I wouldn't be too surprised to see it put in the circular
file.
 
My guess is he put his website address on his applications. Anyone who
claims they understand relativity greater then Wheeler, and has
alernative explanations for everything wouldn't exactly be seen in a
positive light.

He does mention he put one of his alternative theories on the
application.
Click to expand...

If I started ranting about how physics is wrong on a grad school
application I wouldn't be too surprised to see it put in the circular
file.[/QUOTE]

If he put his website on his application, then it was doomed from the
start. Aside from the breathtaking arrogance of some comments, he
mentioned he was "antidogmatic" and chased rainbows.

Considering that grad school is an educational establishment betting
money that you can produce good science, he really shouldn't be too
surprised that he didn't get in.

From his personality, I am also not surprised he is unable to see why.
Too many cranks focus on Einstein working in a patent office and
associate this with "I can produce groundbreaking science with no
background per se" forgetting that Einstein did have a good background,
and also conveniently forgetting at the time relativity wasn't seen as
his greatest success - explaining the photoelectric effect was seen at
the time as far more important.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
 
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

[...]

It isn't as if there are two grad schools in the entire world. I'm sure
he could get in somewhere if he doesn't mention his website and tries
again. I think it is far more likely he didn't actually get grades as
good as he said he did. I highly doubt he has any functional
understanding of mathematics past algebra.
From his personality, I am also not surprised he is unable to see why.
Too many cranks focus on Einstein working in a patent office and
associate this with "I can produce groundbreaking science with no
background per se" forgetting that Einstein did have a good background,
and also conveniently forgetting at the time relativity wasn't seen as
his greatest success - explaining the photoelectric effect was seen at
the time as far more important.
Click to expand...

That is assuming, of course, that the cranks even know what the
photoelectric effect is and how it is relevant.

These folks rant and rant about how dumb Einstein was and how much they
hate relativity, but if you tell them about Einstein's work on
explaining the photoelectric effect or his work in statistical
mechanics....
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Click to expand...

Stargate fan?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 26 (members: 1, guests: 25)
Back
Top