Hanson! -- read this, it is hilarious.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Martin Hogbin wrote:
| "Igor" wrote in message
...
| Many modern relativists think the two postulates are redundant.
| Why is that?
|
| 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 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

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.physics/msg/9e824b27dab62a0d

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

Boy, you guys are really going to get Einstein riled up at you.

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

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:07:18 GMT, "hanson" wrote:

"Androcles" wrote in message
news Hanson! -- read this, it is hilarious.

(snip crap)




Thanks for the laughs, Andro & guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson

Nothing funny, nothing to laugh,
Andro and hanson, you both are getting more and more ... boring.

Just boring.

Yawn.

w.

"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?

"Androcles" wrote in message
news

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Martin Hogbin wrote:
| "Igor" wrote in message
...
| Many modern relativists think the two postulates are redundant.
| Why is that?
|
| 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.

That you think that is somehow funny just shows further your ignorance.

All Tom is saying is the PoR has effectively two solutions for how frames
are related .. one with velocities being unbounded (that gives Galilean
transforms) and one where there is a finite bound (the gives Lorentz
transforms).

Both are equally mathematically valid and derivable from the PoR. But only
one corresponds to our reality.

To see which one is 'correct', one needs more information (eg experimental
results). Those confirm that the Lorentz Transforms are the better model.