THREE FRAUDS THAT KILLED PHYSICS

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:26:27 +0200, "q-bit"
wrote:

"Jeckyl" wrote
"Androcles" wrote
"q-bit" wrote

: It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.
: IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize or another Grand Prize
: for helping rescuing physics from the hands of Einstein charlatans.

Oh, do come on... Bryant missed the most obvious flaw there is,
you don't any equations to see it. He'd have to share the prize
with hundreds of others if that idea had any merit. The guy that
actually proved Einstein wrong was Georges Sagnac in 1913.

Nonsense .. sagnac is consistent with and explained by SR ..
it doesn't disprove it

Why do you lie?

Why do you think you are capable of understanding relativity?



'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

You do love him, don't you

"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

"q-bit" wrote in message
...
: "Jeckyl" wrote
: "Androcles" wrote
: "q-bit" wrote
:
: : It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.
: : IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize or another
Grand
Prize
: : for helping rescuing physics from the hands of Einstein
charlatans.
:
: Oh, do come on... Bryant missed the most obvious flaw there is,
: you don't any equations to see it. He'd have to share the prize
: with hundreds of others if that idea had any merit. The guy that
: actually proved Einstein wrong was Georges Sagnac in 1913.
:
: Nonsense .. sagnac is consistent with and explained by SR ..
: it doesn't disprove it
:
: Why do you lie?


Because he's an idiot. Killfile the moron.

I think you're talking about yourself.

So .. you two are both under the delusion the sagnac somehow refutes SR are
you?

"Jeckyl" wrote
"Androcles" wrote
"q-bit" wrote
: "Jeckyl" wrote
: "Androcles" wrote
: "q-bit" wrote
:
: : It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.
: : IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize
: : or another Grand Prize for helping rescuing physics
: : from the hands of Einstein charlatans.
:
: Oh, do come on... Bryant missed the most obvious flaw there is,
: you don't any equations to see it. He'd have to share the prize
: with hundreds of others if that idea had any merit. The guy that
: actually proved Einstein wrong was Georges Sagnac in 1913.
:
: Nonsense .. sagnac is consistent with and explained by SR ..
: it doesn't disprove it
:
: Why do you lie?

Because he's an idiot. Killfile the moron.

I think you're talking about yourself.

So .. you two are both under the delusion the sagnac somehow refutes SR are you?

SR cannot be used if there is any gravitation or accelleration/deceleration.
On Earth both gravitation and rotation is present.
And a rotating body of course means angular accelleration.
Ergo: SR is useless on Earth.
It certainly is not exact on Earth, it is just an approximation.

On Aug 29, 3:19 am, "q-bit" wrote:
"Jeckyl" wrote



"Androcles" wrote
"q-bit" wrote
: "Jeckyl" wrote
: "Androcles" wrote
: "q-bit" wrote
:
: : It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.
: : IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize
: : or another Grand Prize for helping rescuing physics
: : from the hands of Einstein charlatans.
:
: Oh, do come on... Bryant missed the most obvious flaw there is,
: you don't any equations to see it. He'd have to share the prize
: with hundreds of others if that idea had any merit. The guy that
: actually proved Einstein wrong was Georges Sagnac in 1913.
:
: Nonsense .. sagnac is consistent with and explained by SR ..
: it doesn't disprove it
:
: Why do you lie?

Because he's an idiot. Killfile the moron.

I think you're talking about yourself.

So .. you two are both under the delusion the sagnac somehow refutes SR are you?

SR cannot be used if there is any gravitation or accelleration/deceleration.

SR handles acceleration fine.

On Earth both gravitation and rotation is present.

Negligible.

And a rotating body of course means angular accelleration.

The critique would be more sharp if you had not just learned in the
last few weeks that rotation means acceleration and if you understood
the concept of "sufficiently local".

Ergo: SR is useless on Earth.
It certainly is not exact on Earth, it is just an approximation.

A guy with a high school education has JUST discovered the flaw in
modern physics that has completely evaded professionals who literally
spend years studying physics!

Or not.

What makes you think anything you said is unknown to folks who study
physics through textbooks and universities as opposed to folks like
you who pick bits and pieces off of Wikipedia and through what the
professionals tell them?

On Aug 29, 7:19 am, "q-bit" wrote:
"Jeckyl" wrote



"Androcles" wrote
"q-bit" wrote
: "Jeckyl" wrote
: "Androcles" wrote
: "q-bit" wrote
:
: : It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.
: : IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize
: : or another Grand Prize for helping rescuing physics
: : from the hands of Einstein charlatans.
:
: Oh, do come on... Bryant missed the most obvious flaw there is,
: you don't any equations to see it. He'd have to share the prize
: with hundreds of others if that idea had any merit. The guy that
: actually proved Einstein wrong was Georges Sagnac in 1913.
:
: Nonsense .. sagnac is consistent with and explained by SR ..
: it doesn't disprove it
:
: Why do you lie?

Because he's an idiot. Killfile the moron.

I think you're talking about yourself.

So .. you two are both under the delusion the sagnac somehow refutes SR are you?

SR cannot be used if there is any gravitation or accelleration/deceleration.

Incorrect. SR may have errors, but it can still be used.
Newton's laws may have errors, but they can still be used.

On Earth both gravitation and rotation is present.

And the corrections due to those things might be negligible
or might be significant, depending on the application.

Guess what "negligible error" means? It means that the
theory can be used just fine.

And a rotating body of course means angular accelleration.
Ergo: SR is useless on Earth.

Incorrect.

It certainly is not exact on Earth, it is just an approximation.

So are Newton's laws and virtually every other equation in
physics or engineering that is used on a daily basis.
So what? All we care about is whether the error in the
approximation is less than the precision needed. When
we need more precision, we use a better approximation.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Aug 29, 7:19 am, "q-bit" wrote:
: "Jeckyl" wrote
:
:
:
: "Androcles" wrote
: "q-bit" wrote
: : "Jeckyl" wrote
: : "Androcles" wrote
: : "q-bit" wrote
: :
: : : It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.
: : : IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize
: : : or another Grand Prize for helping rescuing physics
: : : from the hands of Einstein charlatans.
: :
: : Oh, do come on... Bryant missed the most obvious flaw there
is,
: : you don't any equations to see it. He'd have to share the
prize
: : with hundreds of others if that idea had any merit. The guy
that
: : actually proved Einstein wrong was Georges Sagnac in 1913.
: :
: : Nonsense .. sagnac is consistent with and explained by SR ..
: : it doesn't disprove it
: :
: : Why do you lie?
:
: Because he's an idiot. Killfile the moron.
:
: I think you're talking about yourself.
:
: So .. you two are both under the delusion the sagnac somehow refutes
SR are you?
:
: SR cannot be used if there is any gravitation or
accelleration/deceleration.
:
: Incorrect. SR may have errors, but it can still be used.
: Newton's laws may have errors, but they can still be used.


Incorrect. Newton's laws may have no errors, but you cannot use then
correctly,
troll.

On Aug 29, 4:19 am, "q-bit" wrote:
SR cannot be used if there is any gravitation

Correct

or accelleration/deceleration.

Incorrect, ****bit

Try getting into college (good luck with that, piece of ****), you
will find out that there are classes that teach you how to use SR in
accelerated frames.


On Earth both gravitation and rotation is present.
And a rotating body of course means angular accelleration.

You're an idiot. The Earth rotates with a constant angular speed
meaning that there is no "angular acceleration", little ****.


Ergo: SR is useless on Earth.

q****,

you got the things wrong again. Now, go away.

On Aug 29, 4:19 am, "q-bit" wrote:
SR cannot be used if there is any gravitation

Correct

or accelleration/deceleration.

Incorrect, ****bit

Try getting into college (good luck with that, piece of ****), you
will find out that there are classes that teach you how to use SR in
accelerated frames.


On Earth both gravitation and rotation is present.
And a rotating body of course means angular accelleration.

You're an idiot. The Earth rotates with a constant angular speed
meaning that there is no "angular acceleration", little ****.


Ergo: SR is useless on Earth.

q****,

you got the things wrong again. Now, go away.

Well, Pentcho, like all other big loud mouth, talk to much and
cannot say it all right. Actually, the more they talk the more
they show they don't know what they are talking about.


Then he needs to study to become a general systems thinker.

"q-bit" wrote in message
...
"Jeckyl" wrote
"Androcles" wrote
"q-bit" wrote
: "Jeckyl" wrote
: "Androcles" wrote
: "q-bit" wrote
:
: : It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.
: : IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize
: : or another Grand Prize for helping rescuing physics
: : from the hands of Einstein charlatans.
:
: Oh, do come on... Bryant missed the most obvious flaw there is,
: you don't any equations to see it. He'd have to share the prize
: with hundreds of others if that idea had any merit. The guy that
: actually proved Einstein wrong was Georges Sagnac in 1913.
:
: Nonsense .. sagnac is consistent with and explained by SR ..
: it doesn't disprove it
:
: Why do you lie?

Because he's an idiot. Killfile the moron.

I think you're talking about yourself.

So .. you two are both under the delusion the sagnac somehow refutes SR
are you?

SR cannot be used if there is any gravitation or
accelleration/deceleration.

SR handles acceleration OK when used correctly. And it's fine for Sagnac .

On Earth both gravitation and rotation is present.

SR gives a good approximation

And a rotating body of course means angular accelleration.
Ergo: SR is useless on Earth.

No .. is not .. not any more than saying newtonian physcis is of no user in
day to day life. its a good enough approximation that we can't measure the
difference

It certainly is not exact on Earth, it is just an approximation.

Yes .. that's fine when the difference are so small.