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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #355554 > unrolled thread

Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters

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: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-02 18:51 -0500
    Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-02 18:42 -0700
      Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-04 18:29 -0700
        Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 08:21 -0500
        Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 18:15 -0700
        Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-09 18:08 -0700
          Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-09 18:25 -0700
            Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-09 18:45 -0700
              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-09 22:25 -0400
              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-09 19:30 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-11 04:49 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:47 -0700
                  Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-14 16:56 +0200
                    Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 18:59 -0700
                      Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 08:50 +0200
                        Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 23:54 -0700
                          Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 08:58 +0200
                            Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 00:09 -0700
                              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 00:26 -0700
                              Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-07-17 09:48 +0200
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-14 18:37 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-14 20:00 -0700
                  Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-15 03:13 -0700
                    Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-15 08:53 -0400
                    Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-15 21:09 -0700
                      Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 04:42 -0700
                        Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-16 19:04 -0700
                          Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:28 -0700
                            Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 14:55 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-07-14 23:58 -0700
                Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 00:59 -0700
                  Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-16 03:29 -0700
                  Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 04:48 -0700
                    Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 10:01 -0500
                  Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-16 10:26 -0500
                    Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-16 18:38 -0700
                  Re: Cretin towelhead Koobee Wublee weighs in Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 12:41 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#355554 — Re: Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters

On 6/27/15 6/27/15   1:58 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Experimental failure hailed as success by SR spin masters

Not really. This is just a figment of your fevered imagination.


> Michelson predicted a fringe shift in his interferometer experiments of 1881
> and 1887 to prove the existence of the aether. When the fringe shift did not
> eventuate he simply said the aether did not exist. It is same if I looked for
> gold, did not find it and tell everybody gold does not exist.

No, it is not at all "the same" -- that's just another figment of your 
imagination. It's just that YOU do not understand what science ACTUALLY is, or 
what Michelson ACTUALLY did.

Experiments are not "searching for the aether" or anything like that. 
Experiments are TESTING THEORIES.

Michelson used the then-prevalent aether theory to predict a non-zero fringe 
shift as his interferometer rotated. His failure to see such a shift refuted 
that theory.

Today we use SR, rather than any aether theory, and SR predicts no fringe shift. 
So SR is NOT refuted by Michelson's experiments; it is confirmed by them. Note 
that there are many related experiments with considerably better resolution than 
this ancient one, and they ALL confirm SR -- more importantly, NONE refute it 
(within its domain).

	And Michelson did NOT say "the aether did not exist". That
	is also a figment of your imagination.

You REALLY need to learn what science actually is, or you will continue to make 
stupid statements like this. Your imagination is NOT science.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#355564

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 7:51:18 AM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> 
> Michelson used the then-prevalent aether theory to predict a non-zero fringe 
> shift as his interferometer rotated. His failure to see such a shift refuted 
> that theory.
> 
> And Michelson did NOT say "the aether did not exist". 
>  
> Tom Roberts

Tom,
The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether 1881
by ALBERT A. MICHELSON. Master, U. S. Navy.

Introduction: "The undulatory theory of light assumes the existence of a medium called the ether, whose vibrations produce the phenomena of heat and light, and which is supposed to fill all space".
 
Conclusion: "The interpretation of these results (of Michelson's 1881 experiment) is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous".

Michelson repeated the experiment in 1887 and after the same failure concluded: "Lorentz then proposes a modification which combines some ideas of Stokes and Fresnel, and assumes the existence of a potential, together with Fresnel's coefficient. If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at rest with regard to the earth's surface, according to Lorentz there could not be a velocity potential, and his own (aether) theory also fails".

The truth is that Michelson believed his failure to meet his prediction of a fringe shift was due to the non-existence of the aether when in fact he made the error of assuming a difference of 0.00000022m in the light paths of the perpendicular and parallel arms of the interferometer. My right angle equation
2D(1+vv/cc) = D + sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)
shows there is no such difference.

Peter Riedt

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

#355780

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 11:20:55 PM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/2/15 7/2/15   8:42 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 7:51:18 AM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> And Michelson did NOT say "the aether did not exist".
> >
> > Tom, The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether 1881 by
> > ALBERT A. MICHELSON. Master, U. S. Navy.
> > [...]
> > Conclusion: "The interpretation of these results (of Michelson's 1881
> > experiment) is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The
> > result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect,
> > and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous".
> 
> I repeat: Michelson did NOT say "the aether did not exist". YOU claimed that he 
> said that.
> 
> Re-read that quote of his. Compare to what you said. Since it is clear that you 
> cannot distinguish between these two statements, it is also clear that your 
> reading comprehension is so poor that you have no hope whatsoever of 
> understanding anything as subtle as modern physics.
> 
> I suggest you find a hobby more suited to your abilities, which does not require 
> good reading comprehension. Such as basket weaving.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

You only know to defend SR by ad hom. Not credible. Your comprehension of the gist of a subject is nil. If Lorentz's aether hypothesis is erroneous does it mean the aether exists or doesn't exist? Many people including Einstein used MMX to discard the aether. If Michelson did not say the aether does not exist in those exact words what does his conclusion mean? Apart from ad hom you use English to confuse and distort, insisting on a subjective and strange interpretation of terms. 

peter Riedt

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

#356284

On 7/8/2015 1:48 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Tom, I take it that you think/believe/explain/know that LET is a viable theory and has not been refuted by MMX.

Peter, it has been widely known since the time of Lorentz that the MMX 
is completely consistent with LET.

This doesn't mean that LET is a viable theory, because that decision 
doesn't rest with just one experiment.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#356418

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:22:01 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/8/15, 3:09 PM, Rüdiger Nölke wrote:

> > I wonder how SR would apply in Strong and Weak Force region.

> Our best models of the strong and weak interactions, as well as our best
> models of the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions, are Lorentz
> invariant. That is, they obey SR (locally for gravitation).

Why not obeying Larmor's transform since no experiments so far are able to tell SR and LET apart?  <shrug>

> > Moreover, SR is gravity free.
> 
> Yes. But GR is not free of SR -- SR is inherent in its formulation and
> is its local limit everywhere and everywhen.

Although LET (Larmor's transform) and SR (Lorentz transform) are mathematically and drastically different at extreme boundaries, they indeed share the exact same mathematics for GR.  So, Tom's GR can also be derived from Larmor's transform which demands the very existence of the absolute frame of reference and thus the Aether.  <shrug>

> > I am totally confused.
>
> Yes.

Tom is totally mystified.  <shrug>

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

#356529

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:13:21 AM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/8/15 7/8/15 - 3:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 10:49:50 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> >> LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR,
> >
> > Given today's technology, both LET and SR are experimentally
> > indistinguishable.
> 
> Yes. They are indistinguishable given ANY POSSIBLE technology.
> 
> 
> >> and within their common domain is unrefuted.
> >
> > Only at observer's high absolute speed, LET and SR will start to diverge.
> 
> Not true. LET and SR will _NEVER_ "diverge". That's because they are both based 
> on Lorentz transforms, which form a group.
> 
> Yes, LET assumes a unique ether frame. But this frame and its ether are 
> COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNOBSERVABLE, and the predictions of the theory do not 
> depend on which frame one labels as "the ether frame".
> 
> 	This is a direct consequence of the fact that the Lorentz
> 	transforms form a group. Note that on basic physical grounds
> 	the transforms among inertial frames MUST form a group.
> 
> 
> > This is what the mathematics of LET (Larmor's transform) and SR (Lorentz
> > transform) tell us.
> 
> Well there's your error: LET is the Lorentz Ether Theory, and it uses the 
> LORENTZ transforms.
> 
> 	But then, the Larmor transform is algebraically identical
> 	to the Lorentz transform, so you attempt to make a
> 	distinction without a difference.
> 
> 
> >> But LET applies only to electrodynamics, while SR applies to the other
> >> three known forces of nature.
> >
> > This claim is absolutely nonsense.
> 
> No. it is manifestly true. You are VERY confused.
> 
> 	BTW SR applies to electrodynamics, too.
> 
> 
> >> the MMX refuted SOME aether theories, but not LET. And other experiments
> >> have refuted some additional aether theories, but not LET. This is not
> >> "inconsistent", because the properties of their respective aethers are
> >> DIFFERENT.
> >
> > In reality, there is only one Aether while there are several models of this
> > Aether.
> 
> You don't "know" that there is an Aether. You merely present you personal 
> fantasies and dreams as if they were fact.
> 
> 
>      Note to readers: Koobee Wublee is among the most persistent idiots
>      around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
>      without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
>      I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
>      not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
>      and unwilling to learn anything.
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts

Note to readers: Tom is unwilling to listen to logical arguments and defends the untenable theories of LET, SR and GR by ad hom, evasion, obfuscation and bullshit.

Peter Riedt

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

#356530

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:08:35 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 4:13:21 AM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> > On 7/8/15 7/8/15 - 3:05 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > >
> > > Given today's technology, both LET and SR are experimentally
> > > indistinguishable.
> > 
> > Yes. They are indistinguishable given ANY POSSIBLE technology.
> > 
> > > Only at observer's high absolute speed, LET and SR will start to diverge.
> > 
> > Not true. LET and SR will _NEVER_ "diverge". That's because they are both
> > based on Lorentz transforms, which form a group.
> > 
> > Yes, LET assumes a unique ether frame. But this frame and its ether are 
> > COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNOBSERVABLE, and the predictions of the theory
> > do not depend on which frame one labels as "the ether frame".
> > 
> > 	This is a direct consequence of the fact that the Lorentz
> > 	transforms form a group. Note that on basic physical grounds
> > 	the transforms among inertial frames MUST form a group.
> > 
> > > This is what the mathematics of LET (Larmor's transform) and SR (Lorentz
> > > transform) tell us.
> > 
> > Well there's your error: LET is the Lorentz Ether Theory, and it uses the 
> > LORENTZ transforms.
> > 
> > 	But then, the Larmor transform is algebraically identical
> > 	to the Lorentz transform, so you attempt to make a
> > 	distinction without a difference.
> > 
> > 	BTW SR applies to electrodynamics, too.
> > 
> > > In reality, there is only one Aether while there are several models
> > > of this Aether.
> > 
> > You don't "know" that there is an Aether. You merely present you personal 
> > fantasies and dreams as if they were fact.
> 
> Note to readers: Tom is unwilling to listen to logical arguments

How would you know that, Peter?  You have presented NO logical arguments.

> and defends the untenable theories of LET, SR and GR

You have no basis for asserting they are untenable.

> by ad hom, evasion, obfuscation and bullshit.
> 
> Peter Riedt

He has presented logical arguments, but you do not have a working logic chip
in your head.  Sorry if you take that as an ad hom, but YOU are the one
behaving that way.

Gary

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

#356531

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:25:13 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:08:35 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > 
> > Note to readers: Tom is unwilling to listen to logical arguments
> 
> How would you know that, Peter?  You have presented NO logical arguments.
> 
> > and defends the untenable theories of LET, SR and GR
> 
> You have no basis for asserting they are untenable.
> 
> > by ad hom, evasion, obfuscation and bullshit.
> > 
> > Peter Riedt
> 

Gary, I have presented the mathematical proof that Michelson incorrectly assumed a difference in the length of the light paths of the two arms of the interferometer. Logically if MMX is therefore invalid, Lorentz's transforms are also invalid. They were made on a non-existing situation which also extends into SR.

Peter Riedt 

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

#356534

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt
<riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:25:13 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:08:35 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> > 
>> > Note to readers: Tom is unwilling to listen to logical arguments
>> 
>> How would you know that, Peter?  You have presented NO logical arguments.
>> 
>> > and defends the untenable theories of LET, SR and GR
>> 
>> You have no basis for asserting they are untenable.
>> 
>> > by ad hom, evasion, obfuscation and bullshit.
>> > 
>> > Peter Riedt
>> 
>
>Gary, I have presented the mathematical proof that Michelson incorrectly assumed a difference in the length of the light paths of the two arms of the interferometer. Logically if MMX is therefore invalid, Lorentz's transforms are also invalid. They were made on a non-existing situation which also extends into SR.
>
>Peter Riedt 

        Peter, there is an epidemic of stupid going around,
you have it BAD.    But there is no medicine for it, too bad.

        The only way you can sort this out is to stop posting
in any newsgroup except sci.physics.research.

      

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

#356535

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:45:16 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:25:13 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:08:35 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > 
> > > Note to readers: Tom is unwilling to listen to logical arguments
> > 
> > How would you know that, Peter?  You have presented NO logical arguments.
> > 
> > > and defends the untenable theories of LET, SR and GR
> > 
> > You have no basis for asserting they are untenable.
> > 
> > > by ad hom, evasion, obfuscation and bullshit.
> > > 
> > > Peter Riedt
> > 
> 
> Gary, I have presented the mathematical proof that Michelson incorrectly
> assumed a difference in the length of the light paths of the two arms of
> the interferometer.

You have been told before that the MMX is irrelevant.  Your continuing
harping on it is irrational.

> Logically if MMX is therefore invalid, Lorentz's transforms are also
> invalid.

THIS is why everyone knows you have a broken logic chip.  The derivation
of the LT by Saint Albert does not depend on the MMX results in ANY way.

> They were made on a non-existing situation which also extends into SR.
> 
> Peter Riedt

Completely false analysis, Peter.  SR's derivation is completely independent
of the MMX.  You aren't helping to make the case that you have a good logic
chip.

Gary

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

#356707

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 1:45:56 AM UTC-6, underante wrote:
>
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 8:23:04 AM UTC+1, kefischer wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:47:56 +0200, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >        The 1887 experiment apparatus eliminated
> > all effects of gravity and vibration, the turn-table
> > was a huge, massive block of granite floating
> > on a tub of mercury.
> > 
> >       And once the interference pattern was
> > established, turning the turn-table did not
> > affect the pattern, if there was an aether,
> > the pattern should have changed.
> 
> only if there was a stationary ether thru which planet earth moved should
> there have been a pattern change. the null result was still compatible
> with an entrained ether.

Yes, and with Newton's ballistic theory, and with invariant light speed.
Many subsequent experiments refute entrained ether and ballistic light.
Also, Fizeau's flowing water experiment refuted a fully-entrained ether,
and that was also consistent with invariant light speed.

Today, we have overwhelming evidence for SR and only reality-deniers and
crackpots delude themselves into believing their vacuous opinions.  They
may be forgiven for this ONCE, but not when the evidence that refutes
their opinions has been presented to them.  THEN, they become dishonest
... or they have a broken logic chip.  Either way, they have no business
being in a discussion of physics.

Gary

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

#357047

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 9:02:56 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:ZuadnVDMSoRaTD7InZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
> On 7/11/15 7/11/15 - 1:47 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:4f2d99da-fde3-41ed-b392-42bb39bb3ae4@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> Yes. Moreover Riedt's claim is just plain wrong: Michelson was very 
> >> careful to
> >> make sure that his two arms had the same length. He made no such 
> >> assumption.
> >
> > |They *had* to be the same length since
> >
> > According to LET they had not. And you've never falsified LET.
> 
> |You know as little about LET as you do about SR. Given Michelson's setup, 
> LET
> |says the arms have equal lengths in his lab.
> 
> So,  there is no Lorentz's length contraction in LET?
> 
> |Your "approach" is HOPELESS. You need to STUDY before you can possibly
> |understand these theories.
> 
> Fuck off, poor idiot, and stop pretending a guru.
> You know almost nothing, and some of your mistakes
> are  really pathetic.

That's the sum total of your arguments.

--
Jan

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

#357083

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:22e78b7d-c481-46b7-a253-c11298539b68@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 9:02:56 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:ZuadnVDMSoRaTD7InZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> On 7/11/15 7/11/15 - 1:47 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:4f2d99da-fde3-41ed-b392-42bb39bb3ae4@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> Yes. Moreover Riedt's claim is just plain wrong: Michelson was very
> >> careful to
> >> make sure that his two arms had the same length. He made no such
> >> assumption.
> >
> > |They *had* to be the same length since
> >
> > According to LET they had not. And you've never falsified LET.
>
> |You know as little about LET as you do about SR. Given Michelson's setup,
> LET
> |says the arms have equal lengths in his lab.
>
> So,  there is no Lorentz's length contraction in LET?
>
> |Your "approach" is HOPELESS. You need to STUDY before you can possibly
> |understand these theories.
>
> Fuck off, poor idiot, and stop pretending a guru.
> You know almost nothing, and some of your mistakes
> are  really pathetic.

|That's the sum total of your arguments.

And they're still better, than yours. Or Tom's. Or anyone of
your moronic bunch.


--
Jan 

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

#357161

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 7:56:08 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:22e78b7d-c481-46b7-a253-c11298539b68@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 9:02:56 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:ZuadnVDMSoRaTD7InZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> > On 7/11/15 7/11/15 - 1:47 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "Ignorant Raving Crackpot"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:4f2d99da-fde3-41ed-b392-42bb39bb3ae4@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >> Yes. Moreover Riedt's claim is just plain wrong: Michelson was very
> > >> careful to
> > >> make sure that his two arms had the same length. He made no such
> > >> assumption.
> > >
> > > |They *had* to be the same length since
> > >
> > > According to LET they had not. And you've never falsified LET.
> >
> > |You know as little about LET as you do about SR. Given Michelson's setup,
> > LET
> > |says the arms have equal lengths in his lab.
> >
> > So,  there is no Lorentz's length contraction in LET?
> >
> > |Your "approach" is HOPELESS. You need to STUDY before you can possibly
> > |understand these theories.
> >
> > Fuck off, poor idiot, and stop pretending a guru.
> > You know almost nothing, and some of your mistakes
> > are  really pathetic.
> 
> |That's the sum total of your arguments.
> 
> And they're still better, than yours. Or Tom's. Or anyone of
> your moronic bunch.

That's all you say.

--
Jan

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

#357549

W dniu 2015-07-17 o 00:18, JanPB pisze:

>> While you, on the other hand, can shout "not even wrong".
>> Too bad you can't say where are you going to use your
>> piece-of-shit standard of clock, or how to measure your
>> piece-of-shit metric...
>
> Because I'm not the one who makes (idiotic) claims.

Yes, you are the one.


  You make
> the claim, you back it up. I am under no obligations to disprove
> the negative.

Well, you've just claimed, you are under no obligations to ...
You made a claim, so back it up.
I'm not going to count your screaming "you don't have clue!!!!!"
as backing up anything.


>Learn the rules of the game.

Are you claiming these are the rules of the game?
So, apply them and back up your claim about them.

I'm claiming, they are not. So  I don't have to
apply them.

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

#357551

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 11:50:37 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> W dniu 2015-07-17 o 00:18, JanPB pisze:
> 
> >> While you, on the other hand, can shout "not even wrong".
> >> Too bad you can't say where are you going to use your
> >> piece-of-shit standard of clock, or how to measure your
> >> piece-of-shit metric...
> >
> > Because I'm not the one who makes (idiotic) claims.
> 
> Yes, you are the one.
> 
> 
>   You make
> > the claim, you back it up. I am under no obligations to disprove
> > the negative.
> 
> Well, you've just claimed, you are under no obligations to ...
> You made a claim, so back it up.

You are being silly now. The rest of your post is not worth responding.

--
Jan

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

#357554

W dniu 2015-07-17 o 08:54, JanPB pisze:

>>    You make
>>> the claim, you back it up. I am under no obligations to disprove
>>> the negative.
>>
>> Well, you've just claimed, you are under no obligations to ...
>> You made a claim, so back it up.
>
> You are being silly now. The rest of your post is not worth responding.

You can't.
You can't only shout "stupid!!!","silly!!!!!" or "not even wrong!!!!"
As expected from a relativistic moron.

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

#357556

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 11:58:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> W dniu 2015-07-17 o 08:54, JanPB pisze:
> 
> >>    You make
> >>> the claim, you back it up. I am under no obligations to disprove
> >>> the negative.
> >>
> >> Well, you've just claimed, you are under no obligations to ...
> >> You made a claim, so back it up.
> >
> > You are being silly now. The rest of your post is not worth responding.
> 
> You can't.
> You can't only shout "stupid!!!","silly!!!!!" or "not even wrong!!!!"
> As expected from a relativistic moron.

That's all I can say after your posts. I really wish it wasn't so but
when a person is so unbelievably rude as you are, I take my warm and fuzzy
gloves off and it's strictly business. And as your posts for the most
part are rants which are not even wrong (if they have a content, which
is rare), I straight call them as such.

--
Jan

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

#357559

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 12:09:46 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 11:58:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> > You can't only shout "stupid!!!","silly!!!!!" or "not even wrong!!!!"
> > As expected from a relativistic moron.
> 
> That's all I can say after your posts. I really wish it wasn't so but
> when a person is so unbelievably rude as you are, I take my warm and fuzzy
> gloves off and it's strictly business. And as your posts for the most
> part are rants which are not even wrong (if they have a content, which
> is rare), I straight call them as such.

The problem with Jan the relativistic moron is that the buffoon is so fvcking shallow in its mind.  When dealing with subjects that it cannot understand, the first thing that came to its mind is “not even wrong” and hoped to end the argument by that (what it thought a superior response that offered no intelligence and productivity).  It is coming back to haunt this relativistic moron.  <shrug>

Ladies and gentlemen, the moral of the story is that when dealing with science, it is always fvcking better to be truthful.  Laying out the necessary mathematics is absolutely a necessity in dealing with science.  Science has no room for the buffoons like Jan and Tom the relativistic morons who know nothing about simple math.  These idiots represent detriments to the progress of science.  <shrug>

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

#357563

W dniu 2015-07-17 o 09:09, JanPB pisze:
> On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 11:58:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>> W dniu 2015-07-17 o 08:54, JanPB pisze:
>>
>>>>     You make
>>>>> the claim, you back it up. I am under no obligations to disprove
>>>>> the negative.
>>>>
>>>> Well, you've just claimed, you are under no obligations to ...
>>>> You made a claim, so back it up.
>>>
>>> You are being silly now. The rest of your post is not worth responding.
>>
>> You can't.
>> You can't only shout "stupid!!!","silly!!!!!" or "not even wrong!!!!"
>> As expected from a relativistic moron.
>
> That's all I can say after your posts.

That's all you're offering.
You have no knowledge, you have no intelligence,
you have no abilities, all you have is an
imagination of your incredible wisdom.

As expected from a relativistic moron.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web