Implications of Finding a Higgs Boson

On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16:07 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...



On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:37:20 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of

Medway wrote:

"Ben" wrote in message



...







I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible







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



You have a computer, what is two in binary?



0010



Ok, what is half of two in binary?



0001



Ok, what is half of one in binary?



0000.1



Ok, what is half of that in binary?



0000.01



Ok, what is half of that in binary?



0000.001



Ok, what is half of that in binary?



0000.0001



and so on ...



0000.0000000000000000000000000000001



Ok, but your computer only holds 32 bits.



What is half of that in binary?



0



Either go to double floating point precision or get a 64-bit computer.



If matter is infinitely divisible how many bits will your



computer need to record half the smallest divisible bit?







Clear Thoughts,







-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of



Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.



When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument

I



cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.



I've got a 64 bit computer and that illustrates the problem. From time to

time we build even larger, more cumbersome machinery to peer out farther or

down deeper. Eventually more powerful accelerators will be built to smash

down particles to ever smaller degrees. Then some savant from the local

university comes along and attaches a *name* to the result and the whole

shooting match degenerates into an exercise in nominalism.



Nominalism and mechanistic materialism have been hanging around together for

a couple of hundred years and it leaves me with a creepy feeling that

somehow we are on the wrong track. But maybe not. A 128 bit computer may

be in order.

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

If you don't give it a name it doesn't exist.

There's an awful lot of baggage here that can be traced back to the medieval universities; namely the conflict between *nominalism* and *realism* and the former won out hands down. But then precisely what is meant by the term "exist". This is where Heidegger started off in _Being_and_Time with a long quote from Plato's Sophists. The Greeks had two words for "I am", *hyparcho* and *eimi*. The former pertains to objects and the latter was used personally although they were also used interchangeably to some extent. Alas, Ontology recapitulates Philology.


If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must

have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. -- Einstein

xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.



K is the stationary frame to which x belongs.

k is the moving frame to which x' belongs.

What is the name of the other moving frame, different to k, to which xi

belongs?



Attempting to use mathematics to describe a physical world requires a

mathematician, not a prominent theoretical physicist idiot like Einstein.

All theories break down. Eventually relativity will be replaced by something else. (Jakob Brownowski) Though relativity seems to be on a roll right now I'm sure it too will be eventually replaced. But if xi has no real reference frame then it couldn't exist as a real construct. But what does this mean? The formula seems to be consistent with the rest but its a little like saying 0!=1.
(Which is also consistent.)


-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.

When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I

cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:49:28 AM UTC-4, Thad Floryan wrote:
On 3/14/2013 9:34 PM, Ben wrote:

I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible ...



http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120312.html



or



http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white

Yes, Thad I've posted the same link and I think it is a pretty piece of work. I'm still trying to get my head around "quantum foam" though.

"Ben" wrote in message
...

On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16:07 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...



On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:37:20 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of

Medway wrote:

"Ben" wrote in message



...







I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible







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



You have a computer, what is two in binary?



0010



Ok, what is half of two in binary?



0001



Ok, what is half of one in binary?



0000.1



Ok, what is half of that in binary?



0000.01



Ok, what is half of that in binary?



0000.001



Ok, what is half of that in binary?



0000.0001



and so on ...



0000.0000000000000000000000000000001



Ok, but your computer only holds 32 bits.



What is half of that in binary?



0



Either go to double floating point precision or get a 64-bit computer.



If matter is infinitely divisible how many bits will your



computer need to record half the smallest divisible bit?







Clear Thoughts,







-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of



Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.



When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an
argument

I



cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.



I've got a 64 bit computer and that illustrates the problem. From time to

time we build even larger, more cumbersome machinery to peer out farther
or

down deeper. Eventually more powerful accelerators will be built to smash

down particles to ever smaller degrees. Then some savant from the local

university comes along and attaches a *name* to the result and the whole

shooting match degenerates into an exercise in nominalism.



Nominalism and mechanistic materialism have been hanging around together
for

a couple of hundred years and it leaves me with a creepy feeling that

somehow we are on the wrong track. But maybe not. A 128 bit computer may

be in order.

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

If you don't give it a name it doesn't exist.

There's an awful lot of baggage here that can be traced back to the medieval
universities; namely the conflict between *nominalism* and *realism* and the
former won out hands down. But then precisely what is meant by the term
"exist". This is where Heidegger started off in _Being_and_Time with a long
quote from Plato's Sophists. The Greeks had two words for "I am",
*hyparcho* and *eimi*. The former pertains to objects and the latter was
used personally although they were also used interchangeably to some extent.
Alas, Ontology recapitulates Philology.


If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must

have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. -- Einstein

xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.



K is the stationary frame to which x belongs.

k is the moving frame to which x' belongs.

What is the name of the other moving frame, different to k, to which xi

belongs?



Attempting to use mathematics to describe a physical world requires a

mathematician, not a prominent theoretical physicist idiot like Einstein.

All theories break down. Eventually relativity will be replaced by
something else. (Jakob Brownowski) Though relativity seems to be on a roll
right now I'm sure it too will be eventually replaced. But if xi has no
real reference frame then it couldn't exist as a real construct. But what
does this mean? The formula seems to be consistent with the rest but its a
little like saying 0!=1.
(Which is also consistent.)

==========================================
Newtonian Mechanics didn't need to be replaced by relativity as it isn't
broken. Relativity was broken at the outset and no amount of fudging and
tweaking
is ever going to fix it. The LHC slams two hadrons together with a closing
speed of 2c and pretending that is less than c is ridiculous and serves no
useful purpose. If Hadron A is considered at rest then Hadron B has a
velocity of 2c and a relative energy of 1/2 m(2c)^2 = 1/2m4c^2 = 2mc^2
which is what is expected. KE = 1/2 mv^2, double the speed and get 4 times
the energy.
xi is greater than x' and the fools call it "Lorentz contraction".

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:14:59 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...



On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16:07 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of

Medway wrote:

"Ben" wrote in message



...







On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:37:20 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of



Medway wrote:



"Ben" wrote in message







...















I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible















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







You have a computer, what is two in binary?







0010







Ok, what is half of two in binary?







0001







Ok, what is half of one in binary?







0000.1







Ok, what is half of that in binary?







0000.01







Ok, what is half of that in binary?







0000.001







Ok, what is half of that in binary?







0000.0001







and so on ...







0000.0000000000000000000000000000001







Ok, but your computer only holds 32 bits.







What is half of that in binary?







0







Either go to double floating point precision or get a 64-bit computer.







If matter is infinitely divisible how many bits will your







computer need to record half the smallest divisible bit?















Clear Thoughts,















-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of







Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.







When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an

argument



I







cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.







I've got a 64 bit computer and that illustrates the problem. From time to



time we build even larger, more cumbersome machinery to peer out farther

or



down deeper. Eventually more powerful accelerators will be built to smash



down particles to ever smaller degrees. Then some savant from the local



university comes along and attaches a *name* to the result and the whole



shooting match degenerates into an exercise in nominalism.







Nominalism and mechanistic materialism have been hanging around together

for



a couple of hundred years and it leaves me with a creepy feeling that



somehow we are on the wrong track. But maybe not. A 128 bit computer may



be in order.



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



If you don't give it a name it doesn't exist.



There's an awful lot of baggage here that can be traced back to the medieval

universities; namely the conflict between *nominalism* and *realism* and the

former won out hands down. But then precisely what is meant by the term

"exist". This is where Heidegger started off in _Being_and_Time with a long

quote from Plato's Sophists. The Greeks had two words for "I am",

*hyparcho* and *eimi*. The former pertains to objects and the latter was

used personally although they were also used interchangeably to some extent.

Alas, Ontology recapitulates Philology.





If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must



have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. -- Einstein



xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.







K is the stationary frame to which x belongs.



k is the moving frame to which x' belongs.



What is the name of the other moving frame, different to k, to which xi



belongs?







Attempting to use mathematics to describe a physical world requires a



mathematician, not a prominent theoretical physicist idiot like Einstein.



All theories break down. Eventually relativity will be replaced by

something else. (Jakob Brownowski) Though relativity seems to be on a roll

right now I'm sure it too will be eventually replaced. But if xi has no

real reference frame then it couldn't exist as a real construct. But what

does this mean? The formula seems to be consistent with the rest but its a

little like saying 0!=1.

(Which is also consistent.)



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

Newtonian Mechanics didn't need to be replaced by relativity as it isn't

broken. Relativity was broken at the outset and no amount of fudging and

tweaking

is ever going to fix it. The LHC slams two hadrons together with a closing

speed of 2c and pretending that is less than c is ridiculous and serves no

useful purpose. If Hadron A is considered at rest then Hadron B has a

velocity of 2c and a relative energy of 1/2 m(2c)^2 = 1/2m4c^2 = 2mc^2

which is what is expected. KE = 1/2 mv^2, double the speed and get 4 times

the energy.

xi is greater than x' and the fools call it "Lorentz contraction".



-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.

When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I

cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General Relativity chalks up another on with the ESO. I wonder how much it has left in before serious cracks start appearing in its foundations.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/

Ben wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:14:59 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...



On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16:07 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of

Medway wrote:

"Ben" wrote in message



...







On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:37:20 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of



Medway wrote:



"Ben" wrote in message







...















I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible















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







You have a computer, what is two in binary?







0010







Ok, what is half of two in binary?







0001







Ok, what is half of one in binary?







0000.1







Ok, what is half of that in binary?







0000.01







Ok, what is half of that in binary?







0000.001







Ok, what is half of that in binary?







0000.0001







and so on ...







0000.0000000000000000000000000000001







Ok, but your computer only holds 32 bits.







What is half of that in binary?







0







Either go to double floating point precision or get a 64-bit computer.







If matter is infinitely divisible how many bits will your







computer need to record half the smallest divisible bit?















Clear Thoughts,















-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of







Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.







When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an

argument



I







cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.







I've got a 64 bit computer and that illustrates the problem. From time to



time we build even larger, more cumbersome machinery to peer out farther

or



down deeper. Eventually more powerful accelerators will be built to smash



down particles to ever smaller degrees. Then some savant from the local



university comes along and attaches a *name* to the result and the whole



shooting match degenerates into an exercise in nominalism.







Nominalism and mechanistic materialism have been hanging around together

for



a couple of hundred years and it leaves me with a creepy feeling that



somehow we are on the wrong track. But maybe not. A 128 bit computer may



be in order.



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



If you don't give it a name it doesn't exist.



There's an awful lot of baggage here that can be traced back to the medieval

universities; namely the conflict between *nominalism* and *realism* and the

former won out hands down. But then precisely what is meant by the term

"exist". This is where Heidegger started off in _Being_and_Time with a long

quote from Plato's Sophists. The Greeks had two words for "I am",

*hyparcho* and *eimi*. The former pertains to objects and the latter was

used personally although they were also used interchangeably to some extent.

Alas, Ontology recapitulates Philology.





If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must



have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. -- Einstein



xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.







K is the stationary frame to which x belongs.



k is the moving frame to which x' belongs.



What is the name of the other moving frame, different to k, to which xi



belongs?







Attempting to use mathematics to describe a physical world requires a



mathematician, not a prominent theoretical physicist idiot like Einstein.



All theories break down. Eventually relativity will be replaced by

something else. (Jakob Brownowski) Though relativity seems to be on a roll

right now I'm sure it too will be eventually replaced. But if xi has no

real reference frame then it couldn't exist as a real construct. But what

does this mean? The formula seems to be consistent with the rest but its a

little like saying 0!=1.

(Which is also consistent.)



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

Newtonian Mechanics didn't need to be replaced by relativity as it isn't

broken. Relativity was broken at the outset and no amount of fudging and

tweaking

is ever going to fix it. The LHC slams two hadrons together with a closing

speed of 2c and pretending that is less than c is ridiculous and serves no

useful purpose. If Hadron A is considered at rest then Hadron B has a

velocity of 2c and a relative energy of 1/2 m(2c)^2 = 1/2m4c^2 = 2mc^2

which is what is expected. KE = 1/2 mv^2, double the speed and get 4 times

the energy.

xi is greater than x' and the fools call it "Lorentz contraction".



-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.

When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I

cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General Relativity chalks up another on
with the ESO. I wonder how much it has left in before serious cracks
start appearing in its foundations.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/

Don't you read the links you post?

“Our radio observations were so precise that we have already been able to
measure a change in the orbital period of 8 millionths of a second per
year, exactly what Einstein’s theory predicts,� states Paulo Freire,
another team member.

"Ben" wrote in message
...
On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:14:59 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

...



On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16:07 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of

Medway wrote:

"Ben" wrote in message



...







On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:37:20 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl
of



Medway wrote:



"Ben" wrote in message







...















I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible















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







You have a computer, what is two in binary?







0010







Ok, what is half of two in binary?







0001







Ok, what is half of one in binary?







0000.1







Ok, what is half of that in binary?







0000.01







Ok, what is half of that in binary?







0000.001







Ok, what is half of that in binary?







0000.0001







and so on ...







0000.0000000000000000000000000000001







Ok, but your computer only holds 32 bits.







What is half of that in binary?







0







Either go to double floating point precision or get a 64-bit computer.







If matter is infinitely divisible how many bits will your







computer need to record half the smallest divisible bit?















Clear Thoughts,















-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of







Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.







When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an

argument



I







cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.







I've got a 64 bit computer and that illustrates the problem. From time
to



time we build even larger, more cumbersome machinery to peer out farther

or



down deeper. Eventually more powerful accelerators will be built to
smash



down particles to ever smaller degrees. Then some savant from the local



university comes along and attaches a *name* to the result and the whole



shooting match degenerates into an exercise in nominalism.







Nominalism and mechanistic materialism have been hanging around together

for



a couple of hundred years and it leaves me with a creepy feeling that



somehow we are on the wrong track. But maybe not. A 128 bit computer
may



be in order.



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



If you don't give it a name it doesn't exist.



There's an awful lot of baggage here that can be traced back to the
medieval

universities; namely the conflict between *nominalism* and *realism* and
the

former won out hands down. But then precisely what is meant by the term

"exist". This is where Heidegger started off in _Being_and_Time with a
long

quote from Plato's Sophists. The Greeks had two words for "I am",

*hyparcho* and *eimi*. The former pertains to objects and the latter was

used personally although they were also used interchangeably to some
extent.

Alas, Ontology recapitulates Philology.





If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must



have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. -- Einstein



xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.







K is the stationary frame to which x belongs.



k is the moving frame to which x' belongs.



What is the name of the other moving frame, different to k, to which xi



belongs?







Attempting to use mathematics to describe a physical world requires a



mathematician, not a prominent theoretical physicist idiot like
Einstein.



All theories break down. Eventually relativity will be replaced by

something else. (Jakob Brownowski) Though relativity seems to be on a
roll

right now I'm sure it too will be eventually replaced. But if xi has no

real reference frame then it couldn't exist as a real construct. But what

does this mean? The formula seems to be consistent with the rest but its
a

little like saying 0!=1.

(Which is also consistent.)



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

Newtonian Mechanics didn't need to be replaced by relativity as it isn't

broken. Relativity was broken at the outset and no amount of fudging and

tweaking

is ever going to fix it. The LHC slams two hadrons together with a closing

speed of 2c and pretending that is less than c is ridiculous and serves no

useful purpose. If Hadron A is considered at rest then Hadron B has a

velocity of 2c and a relative energy of 1/2 m(2c)^2 = 1/2m4c^2 = 2mc^2

which is what is expected. KE = 1/2 mv^2, double the speed and get 4 times

the energy.

xi is greater than x' and the fools call it "Lorentz contraction".



-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.

When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument
I

cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General Relativity chalks up another on with
the ESO. I wonder how much it has left in before serious cracks start
appearing in its foundations.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/
================================
That goobledegook has no equations, no empirical data and says nothing, you
stupid bigot.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:36:01 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
Ben wrote:

On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:14:59 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:

"Ben" wrote in message



...







On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16:07 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of



Medway wrote:



"Ben" wrote in message







...















On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:37:20 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of







Medway wrote:







"Ben" wrote in message















...































I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible































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















You have a computer, what is two in binary?















0010















Ok, what is half of two in binary?















0001















Ok, what is half of one in binary?















0000.1















Ok, what is half of that in binary?















0000.01















Ok, what is half of that in binary?















0000.001















Ok, what is half of that in binary?















0000.0001















and so on ...















0000.0000000000000000000000000000001















Ok, but your computer only holds 32 bits.















What is half of that in binary?















0















Either go to double floating point precision or get a 64-bit computer.

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:39:16 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message
...



On
Friday, March 15, 2013 3:14:59 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway
wrote:
"Ben"* wrote in message


...





On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16:07 AM UTC-4, Lord
Androcles,
Zeroth Earl of

Medway wrote:


"Ben"*
wrote in message




...









On
Friday, March 15, 2013 1:37:20 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl
of




Medway wrote:





"Ben"* wrote in message










...



















I'm still not convinced that matter is not
infinitely divisible




















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










You have a computer, what is two in binary?









0010










Ok, what is half of two in binary?









0001










Ok, what is half of one in binary?









0000.1








Ok, what is half of that in binary?










0000.01








Ok, what is half of that in
binary?








0000.001









Ok, what is half
of
that in binary?








0000.0001









and so
on
...








0000.0000000000000000000000000000001










Ok, but your computer only holds 32 bits.










What is half of that in binary?








0










Either go to double floating point precision or get a 64-bit
computer.










If matter is infinitely divisible how many bits will your










computer need to record half the smallest divisible bit?



















Clear Thoughts,




















-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of










Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.









When the
fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an



argument



I










cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.









I've got a 64 bit
computer and that illustrates the problem.* From time to





time we build even larger, more cumbersome
machinery
to peer out farther

or




down deeper.* Eventually more powerful accelerators will
be
built to smash



down particles to
ever smaller degrees.* Then some savant from the local




university comes along and attaches a *name* to
the
result and the whole



shooting
match
degenerates into an exercise in nominalism.








Nominalism and
mechanistic materialism have been hanging around together



for



a couple of hundred years
and it
leaves me with a creepy feeling that





somehow we are on the wrong track.* But maybe not.* A 128 bit
computer
may



be in order.





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




If you don't give it a name it doesn't
exist.



There's an awful lot of baggage
here
that can be traced back to the medieval

universities;
namely
the conflict between *nominalism* and *realism* and the


former
won out hands down.* But then precisely what is meant by the term



"exist".* This is where Heidegger started off in
_Being_and_Time
with a long

quote from Plato's Sophists.* The Greeks
had
two words for "I am",

*hyparcho* and *eimi*.* The
former
pertains to objects and the latter was

used personally
although they were also used interchangeably to some extent.



Alas, Ontology recapitulates Philology.







If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at
rest
in the system k must



have a
system
of values x', y, z, independent of time. -- Einstein




xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.










K is the stationary frame to which x belongs.




k is the moving frame to which x' belongs.




What is the name of the other moving frame,
different
to k, to which xi




belongs?










Attempting to use mathematics to describe a physical world requires
a




mathematician, not a prominent
theoretical
physicist idiot like Einstein.




** All theories break down.* Eventually relativity
will
be replaced by

something else. (Jakob Brownowski)*
Though
relativity seems to be on a roll

right now I'm sure it too
will be eventually replaced.* But if xi has no

real
reference frame then it couldn't exist as a real construct.* But what


does this mean?* The formula seems to be consistent
with
the rest but its a

little like saying 0!=1.



(Which is also consistent.)




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

Newtonian
Mechanics
didn't need to be replaced by relativity as it isn't


broken.
Relativity was broken at the outset and no amount of fudging and


tweaking

is ever going to fix it. The LHC slams
two
hadrons together with a closing

speed of 2c and pretending
that is less than c is ridiculous and serves no

useful
purpose. If Hadron A is considered at rest then Hadron B has a



velocity of 2c and a relative energy of 1/2 m(2c)^2* = 1/2m4c^2 = 2mc^2


which is what is expected. KE = 1/2 mv^2, double the speed
and
get 4 times

the energy.

xi is greater
than x'
and the fools call it "Lorentz contraction".





-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

Lord
Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.

When the fools chicken
farmer
Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I

cannot
laugh at
I'll retire from usenet.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General
Relativity
chalks up another on with the ESO.* I wonder how much it has left in
before
serious cracks start appearing in its
foundations.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/

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

That goobledegook has no equations, no empirical data
and
says nothing, you stupid bigot.

*

--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles,
Zeroth
Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot
present an argument I cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

I understand that. I would really like to see the data, you pompous fop.

Ben wrote:
On Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:36:01 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
Ben wrote:

On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:14:59 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:

"Ben" wrote in message



...







On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16:07 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of



Medway wrote:



"Ben" wrote in message







...















On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:37:20 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of







Medway wrote:







"Ben" wrote in message















...































I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible































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














You have a computer, what is two in binary?















0010















Ok, what is half of two in binary?















0001















Ok, what is half of one in binary?















0000.1















Ok, what is half of that in binary?















0000.01















Ok, what is half of that in binary?















0000.001















Ok, what is half of that in binary?















0000.0001















and so on ...















0000.0000000000000000000000000000001















Ok, but your computer only holds 32 bits.















What is half of that in binary?















0















Either go to double floating point precision or get a 64-bit computer.















If matter is infinitely divisible how many bits will your















computer need to record half the smallest divisible bit?































Clear Thoughts,































-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of















Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.















When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an



argument







I















cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.















I've got a 64 bit computer and that illustrates the problem. From time to







time we build even larger, more cumbersome machinery to peer out farther



or







down deeper. Eventually more powerful accelerators will be built to smash







down particles to ever smaller degrees. Then some savant from the local







university comes along and attaches a *name* to the result and the whole







shooting match degenerates into an exercise in nominalism.















Nominalism and mechanistic materialism have been hanging around together



for







a couple of hundred years and it leaves me with a creepy feeling that







somehow we are on the wrong track. But maybe not. A 128 bit computer may







be in order.







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






If you don't give it a name it doesn't exist.







There's an awful lot of baggage here that can be traced back to the medieval



universities; namely the conflict between *nominalism* and *realism* and the



former won out hands down. But then precisely what is meant by the term



"exist". This is where Heidegger started off in _Being_and_Time with a long



quote from Plato's Sophists. The Greeks had two words for "I am",



*hyparcho* and *eimi*. The former pertains to objects and the latter was



used personally although they were also used interchangeably to some extent.



Alas, Ontology recapitulates Philology.











If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must







have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. -- Einstein







xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.















K is the stationary frame to which x belongs.







k is the moving frame to which x' belongs.







What is the name of the other moving frame, different to k, to which xi







belongs?















Attempting to use mathematics to describe a physical world requires a







mathematician, not a prominent theoretical physicist idiot like Einstein.







All theories break down. Eventually relativity will be replaced by



something else. (Jakob Brownowski) Though relativity seems to be on a roll



right now I'm sure it too will be eventually replaced. But if xi has no



real reference frame then it couldn't exist as a real construct. But what



does this mean? The formula seems to be consistent with the rest but its a



little like saying 0!=1.



(Which is also consistent.)







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


Newtonian Mechanics didn't need to be replaced by relativity as it isn't



broken. Relativity was broken at the outset and no amount of fudging and



tweaking



is ever going to fix it. The LHC slams two hadrons together with a closing



speed of 2c and pretending that is less than c is ridiculous and serves no



useful purpose. If Hadron A is considered at rest then Hadron B has a



velocity of 2c and a relative energy of 1/2 m(2c)^2 = 1/2m4c^2 = 2mc^2



which is what is expected. KE = 1/2 mv^2, double the speed and get 4 times



the energy.



xi is greater than x' and the fools call it "Lorentz contraction".







-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of



Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.



When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I



cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.



Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General Relativity chalks up another on

with the ESO. I wonder how much it has left in before serious cracks

start appearing in its foundations.

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/



Don't you read the links you post?



Our radio observations were so precise that we have already been able to

measure a change in the orbital period of 8 millionths of a second per

year, exactly what Einsteins theory predicts, states Paulo Freire,

another team member.

Of course I do. I read this one also:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/...204701641.html

Which also points out that no serious cracks have appeared.

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:53:33 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
Ben wrote:

On Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:36:01 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Ben wrote:



On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:14:59 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:



"Ben" wrote in message







...















On Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16:07 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of







Medway wrote:







"Ben" wrote in message















...































On Friday, March 15, 2013 1:37:20 AM UTC-4, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of















Medway wrote:















"Ben" wrote in message































...































































I'm still not convinced that matter is not infinitely divisible































































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





























You have a computer, what is two in binary?































0010































Ok, what is half of two in binary?































0001































Ok, what is half of one in binary?































0000.1































Ok, what is half of that in binary?































0000.01































Ok, what is half of that in binary?































0000.001































Ok, what is half of that in binary?































0000.0001































and so on ...































0000.0000000000000000000000000000001































Ok, but your computer only holds 32 bits.































What is half of that in binary?































0































Either go to double floating point precision or get a 64-bit computer.































If matter is infinitely divisible how many bits will your































computer need to record half the smallest divisible bit?































































Clear Thoughts,































































-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of































Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.































When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an







argument















I































cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.































I've got a 64 bit computer and that illustrates the problem. From time to















time we build even larger, more cumbersome machinery to peer out farther







or















down deeper. Eventually more powerful accelerators will be built to smash















down particles to ever smaller degrees. Then some savant from the local















university comes along and attaches a *name* to the result and the whole















shooting match degenerates into an exercise in nominalism.































Nominalism and mechanistic materialism have been hanging around together







for















a couple of hundred years and it leaves me with a creepy feeling that















somehow we are on the wrong track. But maybe not. A 128 bit computer may















be in order.















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













If you don't give it a name it doesn't exist.















There's an awful lot of baggage here that can be traced back to the medieval







universities; namely the conflict between *nominalism* and *realism* and the







former won out hands down. But then precisely what is meant by the term







"exist". This is where Heidegger started off in _Being_and_Time with a long







quote from Plato's Sophists. The Greeks had two words for "I am",







*hyparcho* and *eimi*. The former pertains to objects and the latter was







used personally although they were also used interchangeably to some extent.







Alas, Ontology recapitulates Philology.























If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must















have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. -- Einstein















xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.































K is the stationary frame to which x belongs.















k is the moving frame to which x' belongs.















What is the name of the other moving frame, different to k, to which xi















belongs?































Attempting to use mathematics to describe a physical world requires a















mathematician, not a prominent theoretical physicist idiot like Einstein.















All theories break down. Eventually relativity will be replaced by







something else. (Jakob Brownowski) Though relativity seems to be on a roll







right now I'm sure it too will be eventually replaced. But if xi has no







real reference frame then it couldn't exist as a real construct. But what







does this mean? The formula seems to be consistent with the rest but its a







little like saying 0!=1.







(Which is also consistent.)















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





Newtonian Mechanics didn't need to be replaced by relativity as it isn't







broken. Relativity was broken at the outset and no amount of fudging and







tweaking







is ever going to fix it. The LHC slams two hadrons together with a closing







speed of 2c and pretending that is less than c is ridiculous and serves no







useful purpose. If Hadron A is considered at rest then Hadron B has a







velocity of 2c and a relative energy of 1/2 m(2c)^2 = 1/2m4c^2 = 2mc^2







which is what is expected. KE = 1/2 mv^2, double the speed and get 4 times







the energy.







xi is greater than x' and the fools call it "Lorentz contraction".















-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of







Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.







When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I







cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.







Meanwhile, back at the ranch, General Relativity chalks up another on



with the ESO. I wonder how much it has left in before serious cracks



start appearing in its foundations.



http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1319/







Don't you read the links you post?







Our radio observations were so precise that we have already been able to



measure a change in the orbital period of 8 millionths of a second per



year, exactly what Einsteins theory predicts, states Paulo Freire,



another team member.



Of course I do. I read this one also:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/...204701641.html



Which also points out that no serious cracks have appeared.

Well that was my point. Sorry if you misunderstood my jargon there. It's really quite amazing accuracy if the study holds up under replication.