"hanson" wrote in message
news:Ejskj.1020$pC5.697@trnddc05...
| Tex aka "Don Stockbauer" wrote
| ...
| On Jan 19, 1:07 pm, "hanson" wrote:
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| news | Hanson! -- read this, it is hilarious.
|
| Martin Hogbin wrote in
| -------- Where physics went wrong --------
|
| John Kennaugh wrote
| A field was assumed to be a stress in the aether. If there is
| no aether then clearly a field cannot be a stress in the aether
| - but then in no experiment has a field been observed.
| [# ] Einstein described his second postulate as
| ..." only apparently irreconcilable" with his first
| |
| "Igor" wrote in message
| ...
| The modern notion of a field is more mathematical than physical.
| They're abstractions and cannot be directly observed. Only their
| effects are observable.
| Many modern relativists think the two postulates are redundant.
| |
| Martin Hogbin wrote:
| Why is that?
| |
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| ..
| Using just the Principle of Relativity [#] one can derive the Lorentz
| transform with an unknown parameter "c" (infinite yields the Galilean
| transform, imaginary yields an unphysical Euclidean-like transform [@]).
| The value of c is then an experimental issue, and it is found to be
| equal to the speed of light (in vacuum) to high accuracy.
| |
| [#] One also needs standard definitions of terms like "inertial
| frame", and basic assumptions like "clocks and rulers have no
| memory". Group theory is needed, but is inherent for the
| transformations to be self-consistent.
| |
| [@] Among the reasons it is unphysical is the fact that the
| composition of two velocities to the right can result in a
| velocity to the left. Another reason is that "time" acts
| just like "space". Neither of these are true in the world
| we inhabit.
| Tom Roberts
|
| "Androcles" wrote:
| Hanson! -- read this, it is hilarious.
|
| [hanson]
| It is not as much hilarious as it is a joyful cause for you to
| celebrate because your work from seeding and spreading
| doubt appears to show and take effect.
|
| That august and profound discussion above is NOT
| *** The Protocol of the Elders of Zion *** but it's close.
| It's its very influential Science advisory board, namely
|
| =*= The Protocol of the Elders of Einstein's Dingleberries =*=
|
| in whose minutes above one can see that they appear to
| begin to finally heed not only the echoes of your thunder but
| even the faint whispers from the grave of their Saint Albert
| who told them as early as ca. 1920:
| == "NOT search at the same, now well lit places, where he,
| Einstein, had been working". --- More here about Einstein's
| Anus Mirabilis (= Albert's sphincter where his EDs do worship):
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...824b27dab62a0d
|
| Einstein's conscience finally caught up with him, when he was
| fessing up about the con of REL, ... one year before he folded
| his tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket, bit the grass
| and puffed, ... when/where he said to Besso in 1954:
| ::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
| ::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
| ::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
| ::AE:: theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." . [ &
| ::AE::elsewhere] "why would anyone be interested in getting
| ::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|
| Saint Einstein shall bless
| =*= The Protocol of the Elders of Einstein's Dingleberries =*=
| by rotating ever slower in his grave, asymptotically approaching
| the state "from dust to dust" that his theories were to begin with
| for "Neither of these are true in the world we inhabit"... ahaha...
|
| Thanks for the laughs, Andro & guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
| [Tex]
| Boy, you guys are really going to get Einstein riled up at you.
|
| [hanson]
| ahahaha... Considering that he is no longer "Ein Stein", but just
| plain dust now, that is an utterly valid conclusion but ONLY from
| and for your perspective as you being an (in-?)-significant node
| in the "Global Brain" that you so often proselytize for. Issue & post
| more details about that school of thought then just your usual ref:
| http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
| Take care, Stocky.
| hanson
|
|


Rect-Al Schwartz**** wrote:

"Hey stupid:
1) Newton summing velocities, [V1 + V2] = V1 + V2
2) Special Relativity summing velocities, [V1 + V2] = (V1 + V2)/[1
+(V1)(V2)/c^2]
Aw jeez, SR given c=infinity *still* equals Newton.
If you don't like it, provide a mathematical counterdemonstration or
swallow your bile and shut up. "

Ref : http://tinyurl.com/2g2ukd

Any chance he'll swallow his bile and shut the **** up?