Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #601931 > unrolled thread

Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Foos Research <cusanusnicolas@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 01:54 -0800
    Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-22 16:03 +0100
    Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-22 11:13 -0600
      Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 09:19 -0800
        Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-22 20:41 +0100
          Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 01:30 -0800
            Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 05:47 -0800
              Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 06:09 -0800
                Re: Crank Richard Hertz perseveres Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 07:44 -0800
                  Re: Crank Richard Hertz perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 07:47 -0800
                    Re: Crank Richard Hertz perseveres Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 08:05 -0800
                      Re: Crank Richard Hertz comes to the realization he's a bitch "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 08:54 -0800
            Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 06:07 -0800
            Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-01 11:21 -0800
              Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-01 22:54 -0600
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-01 21:10 -0800
                  Claim that SR has been "refuted" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-02 12:52 -0600
                    Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 11:00 -0800
                    Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 11:31 -0800
                      Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 15:15 -0500
                        Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 12:32 -0800
                          Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 20:49 -0500
                          Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 13:50 -0600
                            Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 11:53 -0800
                        Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 14:49 -0600
                          Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 21:26 -0800
                            Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 12:40 -0500
                              Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 09:48 -0800
                                Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-03-05 04:12 +0100
                                  Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 22:45 -0800
                              Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 19:38 +0100
                          Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 12:27 -0500
                            Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 09:35 -0800
                            Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 09:40 -0800
                              Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-05 01:22 -0500
                                Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 22:44 -0800
                      Re: Claim that SR has been "refuted" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 13:49 -0600
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 22:12 -0800
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-01 22:31 -0800
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-02 10:37 +0100
                  Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 02:23 -0800
                  Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 03:53 -0800
                  Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 04:33 -0800
                    Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 05:03 -0800
                  Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 15:26 -0500
                    Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 12:34 -0800
                      Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-02 22:01 -0500
                        Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 22:21 -0800
                          Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 12:43 -0500
                            Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 09:49 -0800
                              Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-04 22:34 -0500
                                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-04 22:43 -0800
                        Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 10:25 +0100
                          Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-03 12:02 +0100
                            Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 17:55 +0100
                    Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-02 22:21 +0100
                      Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-02 13:34 -0800
                      Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 14:28 -0600
                        Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 12:46 -0800
                        Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-03 22:24 +0100
                          Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 21:27 -0800
                  Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-03 13:58 -0600
                    Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-03 12:06 -0800
                    Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-03 21:22 +0100
                    Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2023-03-03 22:32 +0000
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-02 08:40 -0800
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-02 08:54 -0800
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-02 09:00 -0800
      Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 13:07 -0800
        Crank Richard Hertz comes to terms with the fact he's the village clown "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-02-22 14:09 -0800
        Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 16:07 -0800
        Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 22:15 -0800
          Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-23 23:30 -0800
            Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-24 12:19 -0500
              Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 19:27 +0100
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 10:59 -0800
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 11:00 -0800
                Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 22:27 -0800
              Re: Pound-Rebka 1960 paper: "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS" Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 22:26 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#602674

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 10:37:50 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
> 
> > On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity. 
> > 
> > Then why has nobody been able to do so? 
> > 
> > I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven 
> > to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real 
> > analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect 
> > of General Relativity. 
> > 
> > The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has 
> > done so.
> Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment. 

Of course. He is an idiot physicist.

> The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory 
> that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one. 

You greatly overestimate the power of beauty.
And in the meantime in the real world,  forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper GPS and TAI
keep measuring  forbidden by your bunch of idiots 
improper t'=t in  forbidden by your bunch of idiots 
improper seconds.

> Experimenters cannot really measure anything 
> until told what it is that they should be measuring. 

And when told to measure time dilation idiocy - they 
measure time dilation idiocy. You're right.
But, somehow, they are still unable to measure your
interval idiocy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602675

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 10:37:50 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
> 
> > On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity. 
> > 
> > Then why has nobody been able to do so? 
> > 
> > I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven 
> > to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real 
> > analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect 
> > of General Relativity. 
> > 
> > The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has 
> > done so.
> Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment. 
> The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory 
> that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one. 

That's EXACTLY the cryterium of Hachel, Seto and others,
BTW. You're no way different. Neither your fellow idiots are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602676

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:37:50 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
> 
> > On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity. 
> > 
> > Then why has nobody been able to do so? 
> > 
> > I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven 
> > to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real 
> > analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect 
> > of General Relativity. 
> > 
> > The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has 
> > done so.
> Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment. 
> The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory 
> that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one. 
> 
> Experiments will follow. 
> And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise? 
> 
> Experimenters cannot really measure anything 
> until told what it is that they should be measuring. 
> Conversely, if they just happen to measure something somehow 
> no one will understand what it means, until told. 
> 
> In other words, just follow the example set in 1915 by Einstein, 

Wozniak didn't understand your tongue in cheek. Who else?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602677

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 13:33:29 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:37:50 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
> > 
> > > On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity. 
> > > 
> > > Then why has nobody been able to do so? 
> > > 
> > > I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven 
> > > to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real 
> > > analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect 
> > > of General Relativity. 
> > > 
> > > The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has 
> > > done so. 
> > Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment. 
> > The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory 
> > that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one. 
> > 
> > Experiments will follow. 
> > And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise? 
> > 
> > Experimenters cannot really measure anything 
> > until told what it is that they should be measuring. 
> > Conversely, if they just happen to measure something somehow 
> > no one will understand what it means, until told. 
> > 
> > In other words, just follow the example set in 1915 by Einstein,
> Wozniak didn't understand your tongue in cheek. Who else?

A baseless lie, as expected from relativistic trash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602703

On 3/2/2023 4:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.
>>
>> Then why has nobody been able to do so?
>>
>> I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
>> to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
>> analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect
>> of General Relativity.
>>
>> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
>> done so.
> 
> Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.
> The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory
> that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one.
> 
> Experiments will follow.
> And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise?

Sort of. What is needed is an overarching theory with some sort of 
limiting case, which describes SR/GR. SR/GR is correct within this 
limit. So far every experiment is within the limit so SR/GR are seen as 
completely true.

This is analogous to Newtonian mechanics and SR. Newtonian mechanics 
work just fine -- as long as it's used within its limit of speeds which 
are slow relative to c. Of course SR works fine at such slow speeds as 
well. When the speeds involved are a significant percentage of c, 
Newtonian mechanics breaks down but SR works fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602707

On Thursday, 2 March 2023 at 21:26:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/2/2023 4:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity. 
> >> 
> >> Then why has nobody been able to do so? 
> >> 
> >> I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven 
> >> to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real 
> >> analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect 
> >> of General Relativity. 
> >> 
> >> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has 
> >> done so. 
> > 
> > Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment. 
> > The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory 
> > that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one. 
> > 
> > Experiments will follow. 
> > And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise?
> Sort of. What is needed is an overarching theory with some sort of 
> limiting case, which describes SR/GR. SR/GR is correct within this 
> limit. So far every experiment is within the limit so SR/GR are seen as 
> completely true. 

Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world, 
forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring 
forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your 
bunch of idiots old seconds.
Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602737

On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
> forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
> forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
> bunch of idiots old seconds.
> Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.

You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you 
should be able to parrot it perfectly, but that's babbling nonsense.

What's the matter, Russian vodka is no longer available so you've been 
drinking rubbing alcohol or something? Don't do it; get drunk on your 
native Polish vodka or Finnish vodka, they're as good as the Russian 
vodka you crave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602746

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 04:01:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> 
> > Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world, 
> > forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring 
> > forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your 
> > bunch of idiots old seconds. 
> > Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you 

See, stupid Mike - I'm one of the best logicians
the humanity ever had, and you're just a fanatic
religious maniac of the third sort. Of course you 
can't  discuss against me - you can only bark,
spit and slander. But you'll do what you can for
The Shit you love.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602881

On 3/3/2023 1:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 04:01:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

>> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
> 
> I'm one of the worst logicians the humanity ever had,
There. I corrected your mistake. Don't complain that you didn't write 
that, instead be thankful your mistake was corrected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602884

On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 18:43:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/3/2023 1:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 04:01:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote: 
> 
> >> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you 
> >
> > I'm one of the worst logicians the humanity ever had, 

No, I didn't write it. Stupid Mike is lying, as
expected from relativistic trash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602945

On 3/4/2023 12:49 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 18:43:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/3/2023 1:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 04:01:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>
>>>> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
>>>
>>> I'm one of the worst logicians the humanity ever had,
> 
> No, I didn't write it. Stupid Mike is lying, as
> expected from relativistic trash.

You deliberately snipped where I said I was fixing your mistake, and you 
did what I said not to do.

>> There. I corrected your mistake. Don't complain that you didn't write that, instead be thankful your mistake was corrected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602961

On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 04:34:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/4/2023 12:49 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 18:43:21 UTC+1, Volney wrote: 
> >> On 3/3/2023 1:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> >>> On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 04:01:14 UTC+1, Volney wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you 
> >>> 
> >>> I'm one of the worst logicians the humanity ever had, 
> > 
> > No, I didn't write it. Stupid Mike is lying, as 
> > expected from relativistic trash.
> You deliberately snipped where I said I was fixing your mistake

It doesn't change the fact that I didn't write
and you lied, as expected  from relativistic
trash.

what you e
>, and you 
> did what I said not to do.

And why would I do what a stupid Mike
told me to do, stupid Mike?


> >> There. I corrected your mistake.

No, stupid Mike, you lied. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602752

On 2023-03-03 03:01:14 +0000, Volney said:

> On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> 
>> Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
>> bunch of idiots old seconds.
>> Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
> 
> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you 
> should be able to parrot it perfectly, but that's babbling nonsense.

If I wanted to post the same thing 627 times I wouldn't try to remember 
the exact words. I'd trust my computer to do that. Until the garbled 
versions we've seen lately I had assumed that that was what our Polish 
genius did.

> What's the matter, Russian vodka is no longer available so you've been 
> drinking rubbing alcohol or something? Don't do it; get drunk on your 
> native Polish vodka or Finnish vodka, they're as good as the Russian 
> vodka you crave.

We have Russian vodka at home, but we bought it before Putin sent his 
tanks into Ukraine. I understand that Polish vodka is good, better even.

-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602753

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-03-03 03:01:14 +0000, Volney said:
> 
> > On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > 
> >> Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
> >> forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
> >> forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
> >> bunch of idiots old seconds.
> >> Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
> > 
> > You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
> > should be able to parrot it perfectly, but that's babbling nonsense.
> 
> If I wanted to post the same thing 627 times I wouldn't try to remember
> the exact words. I'd trust my computer to do that. Until the garbled 
> versions we've seen lately I had assumed that that was what our Polish
> genius did
> 
> > What's the matter, Russian vodka is no longer available so you've been
> > drinking rubbing alcohol or something? Don't do it; get drunk on your
> > native Polish vodka or Finnish vodka, they're as good as the Russian
> > vodka you crave.
> 
> We have Russian vodka at home, but we bought it before Putin sent his
> tanks into Ukraine. I understand that Polish vodka is good, better even.

Vodka/Wodka is a generic term, 'anyone' can make it.
(and 'everyone' does) You can even find French vodka.

As for taste, vodka is much overrated.
Most drinkers won't be able to distinghuish a Vodka
from appropriately diluted chemically pure alcohol,
in a double-blind test.
I guess those Russians drink so much of it
because they cannot afford anything better,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602773

On 2023-03-03 11:02:07 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2023-03-03 03:01:14 +0000, Volney said:
>> 
>>> On 3/2/2023 3:34 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately - in the meantime in the real world,
>>>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots clocks keep measuring
>>>> forbidden by your bunch of idiots t'=t in forbidden by your
>>>> bunch of idiots old seconds.
>>>> Common sense was warning your bunch of idiots.
>>> 
>>> You're drunk again, Maciej. You parrot that garbage so often that you
>>> should be able to parrot it perfectly, but that's babbling nonsense.
>> 
>> If I wanted to post the same thing 627 times I wouldn't try to remember
>> the exact words. I'd trust my computer to do that. Until the garbled
>> versions we've seen lately I had assumed that that was what our Polish
>> genius did
>> 
>>> What's the matter, Russian vodka is no longer available so you've been
>>> drinking rubbing alcohol or something? Don't do it; get drunk on your
>>> native Polish vodka or Finnish vodka, they're as good as the Russian
>>> vodka you crave.
>> 
>> We have Russian vodka at home, but we bought it before Putin sent his
>> tanks into Ukraine. I understand that Polish vodka is good, better even.
> 
> Vodka/Wodka is a generic term, 'anyone' can make it.
> (and 'everyone' does) You can even find French vodka.
> 
> As for taste, vodka is much overrated.

I agree. That's why the bottle we bought before the invasion of Ukraine 
still has plenty of vodka in it.

> Most drinkers won't be able to distinghuish a Vodka
> from appropriately diluted chemically pure alcohol,
> in a double-blind test.
> I guess those Russians drink so much of it
> because they cannot afford anything better,
> 
> Jan


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602708

Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/2/2023 4:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 3/1/23 1:21 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>> It doesn't take more than High School algebra to refute relativity.
> >>
> >> Then why has nobody been able to do so?
> >>
> >> I remind you that the math underlying Special Relativity has been proven
> >> to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is real
> >> analysis. That goes FAR beyond "high school algebra", as does any aspect
> >> of General Relativity.
> >>
> >> The only way to refute SR or GR is via an experiment. To date nobody has
> >> done so.
> > 
> > Not really. You greatly overestimate the power of experiment.
> > The right way beyond GR is to invent an overarching theory
> > that is so beautiful that it is obviously the right one.
> > 
> > Experiments will follow.
> > And prove it right of course, how could it possibly be otherwise?
> 
> Sort of. What is needed is an overarching theory with some sort of 
> limiting case, which describes SR/GR. SR/GR is correct within this 
> limit. So far every experiment is within the limit so SR/GR are seen as
> completely true.

You shouldn't lump SR and GR,
because they are quite different in character.
SR is kinematics only, and it cannot be falsified by experiment.
GR otoh is a physical theory of gravity.
It can be replaced by a better one, preferably combined with QM.

> This is analogous to Newtonian mechanics and SR. Newtonian mechanics 
> work just fine -- as long as it's used within its limit of speeds which
> are slow relative to c. Of course SR works fine at such slow speeds as
> well. When the speeds involved are a significant percentage of c, 
> Newtonian mechanics breaks down but SR works fine.

Note that Newton's creation of his theory of gravity
and Einstein's creation of GR have much in common.
(despite Newton's pretence to the contrary)
Both were postulated rather than derived from experiment.
Both predicted a lot of new phenomena, and retrodicted old ones.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602711

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:21:33 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> Note that Newton's creation of his theory of gravity 
> and Einstein's creation of GR have much in common. 
> (despite Newton's pretence to the contrary) 

This paragraph, alone, is a complete and absolute proof of YOUR MENTAL INSANITY.

You are a mentally sick and VERY STUPID PERSON.  Figure out why, fucking relativist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602816

On 3/2/23 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> SR is kinematics only, and it cannot be falsified by experiment.

This is just plain wrong. SR makes many predictions that can be directly
tested by experiment. A few are:
   * the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to
     every locally inertial frame.
   * a high-energy pion beam, traveling with speed
     indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), can travel
     1 km in the lab with less than 10% losses due to decays.
   * The detailed balance of momenta in high-energy collisions
     and interactions of elementary particles.
   * ... lots more

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602817

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 21:28:54 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/2/23 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: 
> > SR is kinematics only, and it cannot be falsified by experiment.
> This is just plain wrong. SR makes many predictions that can be directly 
> tested by experiment. 

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks
keep measuring forbidden by your bunch of 
idiots improper t'=t in forbidden by your bunch 
of idiots improper old seconds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602820

Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 3/2/23 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > SR is kinematics only, and it cannot be falsified by experiment.
> 
> This is just plain wrong. SR makes many predictions that can be directly
> tested by experiment.

There you go again.
You seemed to agree with the point after a previous posting.

> A few are:
>    * the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to
>      every locally inertial frame.
>    * a high-energy pion beam, traveling with speed
>      indistinguishable from c (relative to the lab), can travel
>      1 km in the lab with less than 10% losses due to decays.
>    * The detailed balance of momenta in high-energy collisions
>      and interactions of elementary particles.
>    * ... lots more

All those experiments test -Lorentz-invariant theories-,
not Lorentz invariance itself. (only theories can be tested)

That the results of such test agree with Lorentz invariance
is totally unsurprising, for all of those theories
are Lorentz invariant to begin with, by construction.

Typical example: all those thought experiments
with trains, flashlights, conductors and so on
that you find in popular relativity books
have heuristic and explanatory value only.

What they would test, if they were actually done,
is that Maxwell's equations correctly predict
the behaviour of light beams.
(which of course they do, because, by construction,
 they cannot possibly predict anything else)

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web