| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Hundreds of SR tests - and all wrong. |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Schoenfeld |
 Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
Instead of posting your usual screed, why don't you articulate your
argument in few sentences? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Schoenfeld |
| Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
A review of current and historical posts and their headers reveals that
Androcles and Mike are the same poster. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Steven B. Harris |
| Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:09 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 1696
Location: California
|
Well, there is, actually. Shoot the moon with a laser from the ISS
and
pick up the reflection with HST, using the GPS to know where they
are.
Maybe we could do it with SpaceshipOne, that's pissed all over NASA's
stupidity anyway, bless 'em.
COMMENT
The GPS satellites can be used directly for this, as has been pointed
out to you. You've ignored it. A GPS satellite at the horizon is moving
radially toward or away from the observer at a speed greater than 460
m/sec, whereas one overhead is not moving radially at all. This would
introduce an error of more than 1 part in 10^7 in GPS timing, if
velocities of signals added or subtracted from c. But since GPS locates
objects in the horizontal plane to 20 m (1 part in 10^8 of the distance
to the satellites) obviously this velocity addition or substaction
effect does not happen. QED
SBH
SBH |
_________________
You can email me at sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom. Find the synonym. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles |
| Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107303158.890323.179260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[quote:b170db942d]
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
A review of current and historical posts and their headers reveals
that
Androcles and Mike are the same poster.
[/quote:b170db942d]
ROFLMAO!
What do you reckon, Mike? I've been posting here since 1999, and not
even
Dinky van der mumble has made that connection!
Androcles |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Schoenfeld |
| Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Androcles wrote:
[quote:a8f4e42e8c]Oh, I dunno [remove obsolete text]
[/quote:a8f4e42e8c]
Your privilege of my review has been reduced to a 3 word budget from
which examination of the first word reveals such an innumerable
incompetence that effort in examining the remaining two words need not
be expended. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles |
| Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:1107306557.799042.187240@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, there is, actually. Shoot the moon with a laser from the ISS
and
pick up the reflection with HST, using the GPS to know where they
are.
Maybe we could do it with SpaceshipOne, that's pissed all over NASA's
stupidity anyway, bless 'em.
COMMENT
The GPS satellites can be used directly for this, as has been pointed
out to you. You've ignored it.
Oh piss off, I suggested using the GPS to locate the ISS and HST.
A GPS satellite at the horizon is moving
radially toward or away from the observer at a speed greater than 460
m/sec, whereas one overhead is not moving radially at all. This would
introduce an error of more than 1 part in 10^7 in GPS timing, if
velocities of signals added or subtracted from c. But since GPS locates
objects in the horizontal plane to 20 m (1 part in 10^8 of the distance
to the satellites) obviously this velocity addition or substaction
effect does not happen. QED
You've ignored the speed of light in air, and there is a lot of air at
the horizon.
Red sunsets mean anything to you?
Androcles
SBH
SBH |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Colquhoun |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:5c3c4a53ab]Suppose some matter simply disappears, as in the mutual annihilation
[/quote:5c3c4a53ab]
What about disappearing light?
It happens from an infinite gravitational redshift at the
event horizon.
Infinite redshift?
Light of infinite wavelength?
How large does it get before it disappears?
Energyless light predicted in Einstein shift?
Its the end of Black Hole's and there horizons.
But Its the begining of finite gravity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Colquhoun |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 06:40:02 GMT, Paul Colquhoun <postmaster@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
| On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:51:54 GMT, Androcles <Androcles@MyPlace.org> wrote:
||
|| Since when were you interested in facts?
|| "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
|
|
| Care to give the source for this quote?
|
|
|| Here's a fact for you, "no such difference has been measured for the
|| speed of light."
|| http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
||
|| Androcles.
|
|
| That is data on the change in brightness of a variable star, not the
| speed of light changing with direction.
OK, I've read more of your web site, and see where this ties in with the
variable speed of light thing.
I see that you are big on picking faults with Special & General Relativity,
but didn't see what you want to replace them with. Do you propose we go
back to straigt Newtonian physics, or do you have some other theory?
And to make it clear in my head where you stand, is this a good summary:
No fixed speed of light,
No time dilation,
No Lorentz contraction,
No relativistic mass gain,
Simple addition of velocities,
No maximum speed for physical travel.
Is that an accurate summary?
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Paul Colquhoun" <postmaster@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote in message
news:slrnd00t87.l70.postmaster@andor.dropbear.id.au...
[quote:6d527a3124]On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:51:54 GMT, Androcles <Androcles@MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
| Since when were you interested in facts?
| "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert
Einstein
Care to give the source for this quote?
[/quote:6d527a3124]
Just google "Einstein quotes" if your comprehensive abilites extend to
using a search engine. Otherwise, Einstein said it, but he didn't say
"-- Albert Einstein" at the end.
[quote:6d527a3124]
| Here's a fact for you, "no such difference has been measured for the
| speed of light."
| http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
|
| Androcles.
That is data on the change in brightness of a variable star, not the
speed of light changing with direction.
[/quote:6d527a3124]
Yes, I do understand you have comprehension difficulties. I can't
understand it for you.
Here's another quote from Einstein. Let's see if you can grasp the
meaning.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
In this context, I admit my prejudice.
You, in attempting to be facetious, and by your remark "Once again,
thank you for your honesty in admitting your prejudice. Personally, I
prefer to make my judgements *after* hearing the facts, not *before*."
have admitted to having no common sense.
Such an admission was unnecessary, since it was perfectly obvious from
the start.
Androcles.
[quote:6d527a3124]
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro[/quote:6d527a3124] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Androcles wrote:
[quote:336a683121]"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107303158.890323.179260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
A review of current and historical posts and their headers reveals
that
Androcles and Mike are the same poster.
ROFLMAO!
What do you reckon, Mike? I've been posting here since 1999, and not
even
Dinky van der mumble has made that connection!
Androcles
[/quote:336a683121]
Ha ha ha ha ha
A review of current and historical posts and their headers reveals that
Schoenfeld and Newton are NOT the same poster. This is obvious since
the former cannot differentiate.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/messages/92d84e95ac2bb07e,36d742cf266aff74,2a9828f780d7cc25,f76934de7ad86811,1d675f9ac17498f0,a19e26bce102776a,3f6cda04ca19dc6b,608b8e35f9ad25a1,4df27c625d2d9464,bbc9554adedfb5a6?thread_id=81ccf87c504396b2&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=Schoenfeld+laws+of+motion#doc_92d84e95ac2bb07e
SCHOENFELDS 1ST LAW: same as Newtons 1st law.
SCHOENFELDS 2ND LAW:
F = (m + dm/dv)a (PROOF AT END OF POST)
SCHOENFELDS 3rd LAW: same as Newtons 3rd law.
SCHOENFELDS GENERALIZED MASS FORMULA:
m(v) = sum[i=0, n] (m^i(0) v^i) / i!
where
m^x(0) = is x'th derivative of the rest mass function
n = such that m^(n+1)(v) = 0.
SCHOENFELDS GENERALIZED MOMENTUM FORMULA:
p = m(v) v
= v sum[i=0, n] (m^i(0) v^i) / i!
Ha ha ha ha ha
What an idiot. Loco cavesa hombre
Mike |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| G=EMC^2 Glazier |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike The photons that fall into a black hole have two things that
happen to them. 1 their particles can be packed together,and 2 their
waves do not vibrate any more. A wave that does not vibrate is no longer
a wave. Bert |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1107352188.687457.216640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote:7388a3a697]
Androcles wrote:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:1107303158.890323.179260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
A review of current and historical posts and their headers reveals
that
Androcles and Mike are the same poster.
ROFLMAO!
What do you reckon, Mike? I've been posting here since 1999, and not
even
Dinky van der mumble has made that connection!
Androcles
Ha ha ha ha ha
A review of current and historical posts and their headers reveals
that
Schoenfeld and Newton are NOT the same poster. This is obvious since
the former cannot differentiate.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics/messages/92d84e95ac2bb07e,36d742cf266aff74,2a9828f780d7cc25,f76934de7ad86811,1d675f9ac17498f0,a19e26bce102776a,3f6cda04ca19dc6b,608b8e35f9ad25a1,4df27c625d2d9464,bbc9554adedfb5a6?thread_id=81ccf87c504396b2&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=Schoenfeld+laws+of+motion#doc_92d84e95ac2bb07e
SCHOENFELDS 1ST LAW: same as Newtons 1st law.
SCHOENFELDS 2ND LAW:
F = (m + dm/dv)a (PROOF AT END OF POST)
SCHOENFELDS 3rd LAW: same as Newtons 3rd law.
SCHOENFELDS GENERALIZED MASS FORMULA:
m(v) = sum[i=0, n] (m^i(0) v^i) / i!
where
m^x(0) = is x'th derivative of the rest mass function
n = such that m^(n+1)(v) = 0.
SCHOENFELDS GENERALIZED MOMENTUM FORMULA:
p = m(v) v
= v sum[i=0, n] (m^i(0) v^i) / i!
Ha ha ha ha ha
What an idiot. Loco cavesa hombre
Mike
Which is the worse, the imbeciles that know they have no talent and just[/quote:7388a3a697]
want a pissing contest, or the morons that feign competence because they
can quote from a text book or web page?
Androcles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
[quote:9bf8054756]Mike The photons that fall into a black hole have two things that
happen to them. 1 their particles can be packed together,and 2 their
waves do not vibrate any more. A wave that does not vibrate is no
longer
a wave. Bert
[/quote:9bf8054756]
It make sense. Ha ha ha aha. Actually, I just verified that by
experiment. I got a big black hole in a lab next door. NO, it's not
what you think, no, no, I no pervert...
Mike |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Randy Poe |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
[quote:3c9af8040f]On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 04:51:54 GMT, Androcles <Androcles@MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
| Since when were you interested in facts?
| "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert
Einstein
Care to give the source for this quote?
[/quote:3c9af8040f]
It's widely attributed to Einstein on the internet, but
never with a source. As most sane people know, lots of
quotes on the internet are attributed to lots of people
who never said them.
In this case, this is the closest I came to an attribution:
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) (Alice Calaprice puts this
in "The Expanded Quotable Einstein" in the section
"Probably not by Einstein")
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/9_2.html, near
the bottom)
For Androcles, apparently no source is needed other than
"I saw it on the internet". More evidence if any was
needed that whatever he did before retiring, it wasn't
science-related.
- Randy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:59 am
|
|