Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"

On Mar 2, 4:56 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

I've noticed a very bizarre pattern that seems to hold for a large
number of anti-SR dissidents in this newsgroup:

The same nonsense can be said from one religious zealot describing
other religious zealots not worshipping the same religion. shrug

When they talk about Special Relativity, they have in mind a theory,
SR_dissident, that is clearly inconsistent. It is literally nonsense.

LOL. How can you argue against the mathematics where the mathematics
is the Lorentz transform that is totally mathemagics. shrug

Members of the pro-SR establishment explain to them: No, what
you are calling SR is not the actual theory, it's a distortion.

So, Einstein Dingleberries have their own descriptions of their god.
They would be offended when their god is described by others of
unfavorable traits. shrug

Notice there is only voodoo mathematics to justify a piece of **** as
a pile of gold. shrug

The real theory, SR_establishment, is perfectly consistent (and
it agrees with experiment, to the extent that the experiment takes
place in a small enough region of spacetime that the effects of
spacetime curvature are negligible).

In reality, no experiments have definitively supported SR. The one
thing that SR stands out as unique is the mutual time dilation of this
relative simultaneity crap. This mutual time dilation has never been
shown so in any experiment what’s so ever. shrug

The bizarre pattern is this: The dissidents do not respond
with: "Oh, now I see that I was mistaken about what SR says. It's
actually consistent if you do it right." Instead, they respond
with: "The theory you're talking about isn't really SR. I have
no interest in it. I'm only interested in the *true* SR, which
is an inconsistent theory."

Ahahaha. You really know how to distort the truth. Yours truly has
been saying “SR has faults that you can never think of shrouded in
mysticism.” shrug

The people that follow this pattern a Koobee, Androcles,
Ken Seto, Sue...there are probably others that I've left out.

Hmmm... hanson will be hurt after seeing his name not heroically
called out for. Mind you that each of us has very different agendas.
shrug

I find that completely bizarre...

Yours truly also find your whining bizarre. After being kicked around
so many times, you ought to hide in disgrace instead of showing
barbaric defiance here. shrug

On Mar 2, 11:07*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug

I still read this nutjob's posts but only to count shrugs. He's ended
ever paragraph he's written in this thread so far with a shrug. 100%!

Tourette's?


Marshall

What I'm bothered by is that Koobee added sci.math, sci.chem, etc.
to the list of Newsgroups. None of those groups could possibly
care. It's really about anti-relativity cranks, and the only
relevant newsgroup is sci.physics.relativity.

Trimming the list of newsgroups is really hard, because a post
quickly develops many different subthreads, and you have to
apply the trims to all of them.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Marshall says...

On Mar 2, 11:07=A0pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug
[...]shrug

I still read this nutjob's posts but only to count shrugs. He's ended
ever paragraph he's written in this thread so far with a shrug. 100%!

Tourette's?


Marshall

On Mar 3, 4:22 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Koobee Wublee says...


Yes, I know that you anti-relativity people claim that the nonsensical
version is the version that Einstein actually meant.

Who cares about what Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
meant?

That's a historical argument.

This issue is not an historical argument but a scientific one where
the mathematics does not lie. The central mathematical model is the
Lorentz transform in case if you are still clueless about what we are
talking about. shrug

I think you're wrong about that, but it really has no
*scientific* relevance.

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean. One example can be found in the flowing
post.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...f7ea4506?hl=en

Both the Galilean and the Lorentz transforms involve two observers and
one observed. The transform then relates how the observation of the
observed by one observer is related to the observation of the same
observed by the other observer. So, in the case of the Lorentz
transform described below,

** dt’ = (dt – v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dx’ = (dx – v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
** dy’ = dy
** dz’ = dz

The primed observer uses (x’, y’, z’, t’) to observe the observed, and
the unprimed observer uses (x, y, z, t) to observe the same observed.
In doing so, the speed between the primed and the unprimed observer is
v.

So, in this application the following is true since the observed is
light itself.

** (dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2 = c^2

Instead, you have misunderstood the above to be the following.

** (dx/dt)^2 + (dy/dt)^2 + (dz/dt)^2 = v^2

Any result coming out of your mathemagics can only be nonsense as had
been explained to you in the reply to your post.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9cefefcd?hl=en

What's scientifically relevant is the theory
*as it is understood* today.

Apparently, your version of scientific method includes the liberal
usage of mathemagics fudging each piece of equation with the other and
was hoping eventually your will come up with something to further
justify your religion belief. shrug

If you want to argue against that theory,
you have to start with understanding it. Which you haven't bothered to
do.

It looks like yours truly understands the Lorentz transform while you
don’t as you have shown so. How can you argue against the facts?

Finally on the subject of cross posting, yours truly is merely trying
to get my myth-busting posts to be read by as many Einstein
Dingleberries as possible. However, it might have consequences after
Google has imposed some kind of limit on that. It is probably wise to
drop a newsgroup among sci.math, sci.chem, and sci.astro. shrug

sci.chem was included for a professor’s benefit (a very die-hard
Einstein Dingleberry in fact). Other than that, there is not much
justification to do so. Thus, if no one objects, yours truly would
like to drop sci.chem from the postings after all this one has the
lowest activities among these three. shrug

Koobee Wublee says...

On Mar 3, 4:22 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Koobee Wublee says...


Yes, I know that you anti-relativity people claim that the nonsensical
version is the version that Einstein actually meant.

Who cares about what Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
meant?

I would say that you certainly do. You are invested in the claim
that Einstein was a "nitwit, plagiarist and liar". If you didn't
care about Einstein, then you wouldn't bring him up in the discussion.

Einstein is your obsession. He's your John Lennon and you're his
Mark Chapman.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?
As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

On Mar 3, 1:19*pm, mluttgens wrote:
On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:



Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?

I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
properties including mass.

I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
tied together.

As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

On 3 mar, 15:42, PD wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:19*pm, mluttgens wrote:





On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?

I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
properties including mass.

I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
tied together.



As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

Paul,

You want to forget the BH because of its unphysical singularity!
And btw, how do you demonstrate that the electron has zero volume?

Your mathematical modelling is no more than a tentative interpretation
of the physical world.

Marcel

On Mar 3, 2:27*pm, mluttgens wrote:
On 3 mar, 15:42, PD wrote:



On Mar 3, 1:19*pm, mluttgens wrote:

On 3 mar, 13:49, (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Koobee Wublee says...

Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
transform actually mean.

I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.

The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.

You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
anti-semitic idiot.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?

Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
properties?

I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
properties including mass.

I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
tied together.

As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.

Marcel Luttgens

Paul,

You want to forget the BH because of its unphysical singularity!

Not so. And it doesn't appear to be unphysical. I chose the electron
as something else to look at, because I doubt that you would claim
that any theory that involves electrons must be wrong.

And btw, how do you demonstrate that the electron has zero volume?

One measures its size. So far, there is no indication of any finite,
nonzero size.
This doesn't mean that its size has been *proven* to be zero. But that
wasn't my question to you. The question to you is why you assume that
anything that has mass must also have volume?


Your mathematical modelling is no more than a tentative interpretation
of the physical world.

The mathematical model, however, is successful, where success is based
on observation.
The question is put to you how it is your assertion that nonzero mass
necessarily implies nonzero volume is supported by any scientific
measure of success.


Marcel