Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Mar 19, 2:29*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
PD stated:
Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the idea that
there are?

Strich smiles:
I like this one. *If as you claim the non-local effects travel no
faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with? *Ha
ha ha, the liar getting caught in his own web.

PD hallucinates:
I had no idea you spelled "nonlocal" s-u-b-l-u-m-i-n-a-l.

Strich replies:
Duh. *Where is 'subluminal' in my post?

Obviously PD only means to mislead from his error, replayed he

PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics."

Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
with?"

If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
them "equine" to begin with?

If you don't know what "nonlocal" means to a physicist, just say so,
and I'll give you a recommendation, completely with page numbers, for
something you can read to learn what it does mean.

PD

On Mar 19, 3:45*pm, PD wrote:
PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics."

Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
with?"

If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
them "equine" to begin with?


Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
tangentiality*.



__________________________
*Tangentiality - A disturbance in the associative thought process in
which one tends to digress readily from one topic under discussion to
other topics that arise in the course of associations; observed in
schizophrenia and certain types of organic brain disorders.

On Mar 19, 2:57*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:45*pm, PD wrote:

PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics."

Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
with?"

If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
them "equine" to begin with?

Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
tangentiality*.

Don't get it, do you? That's odd. I just pointed it out to someone
with an IQ of 120 and he got it. Yet you with an IQ of 200 don't.
Hmmm. Can you even COUNT to 200? I certain you can't. Prove me wrong.

Offer continues to be out the If you don't know what "nonlocal"
means to a physicist, just say so, and I'll give you a recommendation,
completely with page numbers, for something you can read to learn what
it does mean.


__________________________
*Tangentiality - A disturbance in the associative thought process in
which one tends to digress readily from one topic under discussion to
other topics that arise in the course of associations; observed in
schizophrenia and certain types of organic brain disorders.

On Mar 19, 4:02*pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:57*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:45*pm, PD wrote:

PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics."

Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
with?"

If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
them "equine" to begin with?

Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
tangentiality*.

Don't get it, do you? That's odd. I just pointed it out to someone
with an IQ of 120 and he got it. Yet you with an IQ of 200 don't.
Hmmm. Can you even COUNT to 200? I certain you can't. Prove me wrong.


This other person being your other personality? I don't think anybody
would equate 'non-local' to 'equine' unless they are as schizophrenic
as you are.

On Mar 19, 3:13*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 4:02*pm, PD wrote:



On Mar 19, 2:57*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:45*pm, PD wrote:

PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics."

Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
with?"

If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
them "equine" to begin with?

Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
tangentiality*.

Don't get it, do you? That's odd. I just pointed it out to someone
with an IQ of 120 and he got it. Yet you with an IQ of 200 don't.
Hmmm. Can you even COUNT to 200? I certain you can't. Prove me wrong.

This other person being your other personality? *I don't think anybody
would equate 'non-local' to 'equine' unless they are as schizophrenic
as you are.

If you don't know what "nonlocal" means to a physicist, just say so,
and I'll give you a recommendation, completely with page numbers, for
something you can read to learn what it does mean. Waddya say,
Strich9? Yes or no?

On Mar 19, 4:02*pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 19, 2:57*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:45*pm, PD wrote:

PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics."

Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
with?"

If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
them "equine" to begin with?

Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
tangentiality*.

Don't get it, do you? That's odd. I just pointed it out to someone
with an IQ of 120 and he got it. Yet you with an IQ of 200 don't.
Hmmm. Can you even COUNT to 200? I certain you can't. Prove me wrong.


This other person being your other personality? I don't think anybody
would equate 'non-local' to 'equine' unless they are as schizophrenic
as you are.

On Mar 19, 3:20*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 4:02*pm, PD wrote:



On Mar 19, 2:57*pm, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:45*pm, PD wrote:

PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics."

Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
with?"

If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
them "equine" to begin with?

Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
tangentiality*.

Don't get it, do you? That's odd. I just pointed it out to someone
with an IQ of 120 and he got it. Yet you with an IQ of 200 don't.
Hmmm. Can you even COUNT to 200? I certain you can't. Prove me wrong.

This other person being your other personality? *I don't think anybody
would equate 'non-local' to 'equine' unless they are as schizophrenic
as you are.

If you don't know what "nonlocal" means to a physicist, just say so,
and I'll give you a recommendation, completely with page numbers, for
something you can read to learn what it does mean. Waddya say,
Strich9? Yes or no?

On Mar 17, 11:46*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
GR was given birth by SR.

GR was not given birth by SR. GR was given birth by dual parentage --
SR *and* the Equivalence Principle. The latter is paradigm-independent
and applies universally across theory-space; e.g. there's a Galilean
variant, an Archimedean/Platonic variant, even a Biblical Creationist
variant of EP (such as any such thing could ever be defined). Hell,
there's even a Wizard of Oz variant of EP. The principle is orthogonal
to the *entirely independent* issue of what causal structure underlies
spacetime; and one can equally well state it in all these other
venues. In all cases, it underlies and leads to a geometrization of
gravity via the equivalence "free fall = inertial motion on a curved
spacetime background."

So, for instance, one would then have Newton-Cartan gravity (where g_
{mu nu} has signature (0,+,+,+) and g^{mu nu} the signature (-,
0,0,0)), or even Archimedean-Cartan gravity (where the respective
signatures are (0.+.+.+) and (-,0,0,0)); or even Outer Zone-Cartan
Gravity (where the evil queen controls O.Z.'s laws of Physics by use
of her emerald crystal).

But it is a complete misnomer to say that GR is *merely* an extension
of SR. The 4-dimensional and geometrical aspect are NOT extensions of
SR and have nothing at all to do with SR. (Not even when 4-D geometry
is used in SR does it have anything to do with SR. The 4-D'ism of
Maxwell's equations, for instance, have nothing to do with their being
"Lorentz-invariant" (in fact, the original versions of the equations
posed by Maxwell and later by Hertz (and even Lorentz c. 1895)) were
not Lorentz-invariant, but with the equations' "macroscopic" (D,H,B,E)
part being diffeomorphism-invariant).

This confusion of what goes with what is largely borne out of the red-
herringness of historical coincidence. Two or more things arose at the
same point in history so people have naturally come to identify them
with one another, when in fact their link is nothing but a red
herring. Another case in point of this phenomenon is the notion of
spin -- which first arose when people started grappling with how to
relativize quantum theory. Spin has absolutely nothing to do with
relativity, as is now well-known. Nor the Dirac equation (it, too, has
a perfectly sensible formulation that is largely signature-independent
and applies to Galilean spacetimes too, and even to *signature-
changing* spacetimes!) Nor even the "Dirac negative energy sea". In
fact, it was Maxwell who first brought up the issue of the vacuum
energy and the need to balance out the negative energy of matter with
a (HUGE) vacuum positive energy density for the electromagnetic field.
(This was in section 82 of his 1861 paper).

==========

"Tin-tan El Jefe es muerto, Jefe es muerto, Jefe es muerto; tin-tan El
Dictador es muerto!"

"Rock Brentwood" wrote in message
...
On Mar 17, 11:46 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
GR was given birth by SR.

GR was not given birth by SR. GR was given birth by dual parentage --
SR *and* the Equivalence Principle. The latter is paradigm-independent
and applies universally across theory-space; e.g. there's a Galilean
variant, an Archimedean/Platonic variant, even a Biblical Creationist
variant of EP (such as any such thing could ever be defined). Hell,
there's even a Wizard of Oz variant of EP. The principle is orthogonal
to the *entirely independent* issue of what causal structure underlies
spacetime; and one can equally well state it in all these other
venues. In all cases, it underlies and leads to a geometrization of
gravity via the equivalence "free fall = inertial motion on a curved
spacetime background."

So, for instance, one would then have Newton-Cartan gravity (where g_
{mu nu} has signature (0,+,+,+) and g^{mu nu} the signature (-,
0,0,0)), or even Archimedean-Cartan gravity (where the respective
signatures are (0.+.+.+) and (-,0,0,0)); or even Outer Zone-Cartan
Gravity (where the evil queen controls O.Z.'s laws of Physics by use
of her emerald crystal).

But it is a complete misnomer to say that GR is *merely* an extension
of SR. The 4-dimensional and geometrical aspect are NOT extensions of
SR and have nothing at all to do with SR. (Not even when 4-D geometry
is used in SR does it have anything to do with SR. The 4-D'ism of
Maxwell's equations, for instance, have nothing to do with their being
"Lorentz-invariant" (in fact, the original versions of the equations
posed by Maxwell and later by Hertz (and even Lorentz c. 1895)) were
not Lorentz-invariant, but with the equations' "macroscopic" (D,H,B,E)
part being diffeomorphism-invariant).

This confusion of what goes with what is largely borne out of the red-
herringness of historical coincidence. Two or more things arose at the
same point in history so people have naturally come to identify them
with one another, when in fact their link is nothing but a red
herring. Another case in point of this phenomenon is the notion of
spin -- which first arose when people started grappling with how to
relativize quantum theory. Spin has absolutely nothing to do with
relativity, as is now well-known. Nor the Dirac equation (it, too, has
a perfectly sensible formulation that is largely signature-independent
and applies to Galilean spacetimes too, and even to *signature-
changing* spacetimes!) Nor even the "Dirac negative energy sea". In
fact, it was Maxwell who first brought up the issue of the vacuum
energy and the need to balance out the negative energy of matter with
a (HUGE) vacuum positive energy density for the electromagnetic field.
(This was in section 82 of his 1861 paper).
================================================
Is there some purpose to this verbal diarrhea?

Here are more examples of PD's psychopathology at play:

================================================== =====

PD blusters: Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at
faster than light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the
idea that there are?

Strich smiles: If as you claim the non-local effects travel no faster
than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with?

================================================== =====

PD hallucinates: I had no idea you spelled "nonlocal" s-u-b-l-u-m-i-n-
a-l.

Strich replies: Duh. Where is 'subluminal' in my post?

================================================== =====

Here is another one in another thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...30c4d5f2fbb7d6

There are more, since he keeps refusing treatment.