What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:12:00 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Sep 10, 3:19Â*pm, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth









wrote:
On Sep 10, 2:07Â*pm, Aetherist wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

Â* How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
Â* QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
Â* etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
Â* domains.

Â* Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

Â* Â*Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
Â* Â*QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
Â* Â*etc...

IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'...

I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak
louder than words...

You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get
unified.

If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several
million highly compensated individuals have left to do?

Of course, it couldn't possibly be that scientists haven't figured
everything out because figuring everything out is a lot harder
than posting insane, retarded horse**** on Usenet. Â*Nope, if a
poor little delusional, semi-literate Guthball can't understand
it, it must be a conspiracy.

--
Bill Snyder Â*[This space unintentionally left blank]

Your ZNR redneck FUD-master mindset of preventing or withholding
technology advancements, allowing global wealth disparity to flourish,
plus depopulation and WW3 to happen, is noted.

Your barking insanity is noted, for about the millionth time.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

On Sep 11, 3:21*pm, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:12:00 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth









wrote:
On Sep 10, 3:19*pm, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Sep 10, 2:07*pm, Aetherist wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

* How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
* QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
* etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
* domains.

* Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

* *Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
* *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
* *etc...

IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'....

I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak
louder than words...

You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get
unified.

If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several
million highly compensated individuals have left to do?

Of course, it couldn't possibly be that scientists haven't figured
everything out because figuring everything out is a lot harder
than posting insane, retarded horse**** on Usenet. *Nope, if a
poor little delusional, semi-literate Guthball can't understand
it, it must be a conspiracy.

--
Bill Snyder *[This space unintentionally left blank]

Your ZNR redneck FUD-master mindset of preventing or withholding
technology advancements, allowing global wealth disparity to flourish,
plus depopulation and WW3 to happen, is noted.

Your barking insanity is noted, for about the millionth time.

--
Bill Snyder *[This space unintentionally left blank]

Double ditto, right back at you.

On Sep 11, 10:36*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 11, 3:21*pm, Bill Snyder wrote:





On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:12:00 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Sep 10, 3:19*pm, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:
On Sep 10, 2:07*pm, Aetherist wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

* How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
* QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
* etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
* domains.

* Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

* *Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
* *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
* *etc...

IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'...

I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak
louder than words...

You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get
unified.

If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several
million highly compensated individuals have left to do?

Of course, it couldn't possibly be that scientists haven't figured
everything out because figuring everything out is a lot harder
than posting insane, retarded horse**** on Usenet. *Nope, if a
poor little delusional, semi-literate Guthball can't understand
it, it must be a conspiracy.

--
Bill Snyder *[This space unintentionally left blank]

Your ZNR redneck FUD-master mindset of preventing or withholding
technology advancements, allowing global wealth disparity to flourish,
plus depopulation and WW3 to happen, is noted.

Your barking insanity is noted, for about the millionth time.

--
Bill Snyder *[This space unintentionally left blank]

Double ditto, right back at you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My, what a clever riposte!

On 9/11/2011 7:24 AM, GSS wrote:

On Sep 10, 9:46 am, wrote:
On 9/9/2011 11:42 AM, GSS wrote:
...

Kindly specify a reference frame which can be physically established,
(like BCRF) in which you think the clocks synchronized to UTC will not
remain synchronized.

Sure. Take a reference frame in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.

Sure?
Take a reference frame K' in which a distant galaxy tagged here on
earth with a high redshift z, is at rest.
If two clocks, C1 and C2, synchronized to UTC are now viewed by you as
an observer from the K' frame, do you expect the two clocks to be no
longer synchronized to UTC?

They are synchronized to UTC, but they do not exhibit the behavior you
would expect for synchronized clocks in this frame K'. That is, if you
mark a time on C1, send a signal to C2, mark the time of arrival at C2,
send a signal with the same speed back to C1, mark the time of arrival,
synchronized clocks would show equal delays in time between the two
trips in this frame K'. These clocks do not do that.

This poses an interesting problem.



2. If you do measure physical processes in a reference frame in which
the origin of the UTC system is moving and yet use time driven by UTC
clocks, you will discover that none of the laws of physics are the same
as they are on Earth. This is considered generally A Bad Thing.

This is utter bull****!
Laws of physics cannot be influenced by the man-made reference frames.
For example, all particle interactions within the solar system will be
completely 'immune' to whatever reference frames you create to
represent the relevant parameters of such interacting particles.

That's simply not true.
Do you know how, for example, the laws of physics change in a rotation
reference frame? Is this all new to you?

Basically all laws of Nature will remain valid and operative
independent of reference frames. However, in physics we quantify the
laws of Nature, so as to represent them through certain mathematical
equations involving dimensional physical parameters. We need the
structure of coordinate systems and reference frames to quantify the
physical parameters of relative positions, velocities, accelerations,
force, momentum and kinetic energy of various interacting particles or
groups of particles. Whereas the laws of Nature remain independent of
the reference frames, the form of mathematical equation representing
any law of physics may change with change in reference frame. We need
to distinguish between the *laws of Nature* which cannot be influenced
by the man-made constructs of reference frames and the *form of
mathematical equations* that represent such laws in the selected
reference frame.

I would be grateful if you can formulate Newton's 2nd law in such a
manner that its expression is not bound to constructs of reference frame.

"Uncle Ben" wrote in message
...
| On Sept.3, 2011 GSS wrote about Special Relativity (among other
| theories in physics),
| ...
| However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
| erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
| uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
| of many intellectuals?
|
| Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.
|
| ...
|
| The obvious answer is that these "mistaken beliefs," etc., are shown
| to be confirmed in every particle accelerator on earth, of which there
| are hundreds, if not thousands. Those who operate these accelerators
| verify every day that your "mistaken beliefs" predict what they
| observe better than any competing theory.
|
| Accelerators are only the most obvious means to demonstrate the truth
| of SR. There are many others.
|
| Do not deny the existence of elephants without visiting Africa!
|
| Uncle Ben
|
According to special relativity, Bonehead wouldn't live for five minutes
if he were at rest, but because he takes the dog walkies he's lived to be
over 80 years old, thus proving time dilation and confirming special
relativity.
Particle accelerators always check the health and age of particles at rest
before accelerating them. Muons that live for 64 usec when moving
would, according to special relativity, only live for 2.2 usec when at
rest. So if a muon lives for 64 usec when moving at 0.99999999999c *,
that confirms special relativity.
There are many other ways to be a total ****head as Bonehead will
ably demonstrate.

Do not deny the existence of Santa Claus without visiting the North Pole!

* select as many 9s as needed to make gamma fit exactly.

In article om, says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...
So what is the relevance of it fool?

The example you showed that supposedly refuted time dilation was simply an
example of Doppler effect

It's all constant.

It doesn't matter because your whole argument against time dilation by
giving and example of Doppler effect is nonsense.


Ok then, so you're on the record as saying light does not reach us any faster from something getting closer.

Rightio then.


You dagos need to get some new tricks.
All the deflection and reputation attacks are pathetic.

No deflection. And you have no reputation, other than as a moron .. and I'm
not attacking that.


I really am getting up you aren't I?

In article , says...

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
domains.

Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.


Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at rest.

We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to rest again alongside the other (a3).

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can be as long as we wish so as to make the effects
of a1, a2 and a3 (all constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be that the other slowed down - ridiculous.

All TD experiments are clear frauds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

Einstein's attempt to patch this up with gravitational TD in 1907 is farcical. He was a liar!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox

"Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration. Einstein, Born and Møller invoked gravitational time
dilation to explain the aging based upon the effects of acceleration.[3] Both gravitational time dilation and special
relativity can be used to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment on time dilation using precise measurements of clocks
flown in airplanes."


LIARS!

Byron Forbes wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics,
Optics, etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in
their respective domains.

Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.


Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together
at rest.

We will now accelerate one away (a1), back (a2) and then slow it to
rest again alongside the other (a3).

In between a1-a2 and a2-a3 we have 2 periods of constant v that can
be as long as we wish so as to make the effects of a1, a2 and a3 (all
constant in magnitude and duration) insignificant.

So whatever clock we stay with, the result predicted by SR should be
that the other slowed down - ridiculous.

No.
See http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html
where "in between a1-a2" is the path between events [E] and [A],
and "in between a2-a3" is the path between events [A] and [R],
If you stay with the accelerated clock (from [E] to [R] via [A]),
you cannot stay in one inertial frame, whereas you stay with the
other clock (directly from [E] to [R]), you do stay in one inertial
frame. The result is what SR predicts, and what experiments
confirm.

All TD experiments are clear frauds.

Unless you are dumb, your ignorance can be cured.

Dirk Vdm

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

In article om,
says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...
So what is the relevance of it fool?

The example you showed that supposedly refuted time dilation was simply
an
example of Doppler effect

It's all constant.

It doesn't matter because your whole argument against time dilation by
giving and example of Doppler effect is nonsense.


Ok then, so you're on the record as saying light does not reach us any
faster from something getting closer.

1) That has nothing to do with your argument that time dilation is refuted
by an example of Doppler shift.

2) I didn't say above anything like what you claim I am 'on the record' as
saying.

You really are a moron .. you can't read and comprehend the simplest of
statement.

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
domains.

Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.


Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together at
rest.

You've posted this before .. why post it again .. its still wrong

[snip repeated lies from Byron]