Re: ROBERTS BACKS DOWN!

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:21:28 GMT

"sal" <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.14.20.19.48.454386@nospam.org...
| On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:40:46 +0000, Androcles wrote:
|
| >
| > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
| > news:EWt1d.1584$Qv5.1458@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
| > |
| > | In GR, SR holds _LOCALLY_ -- that is, in a small enough region
enclosing
| > | any given point in spacetime SR holds to arbitrarily-good accuracy
(the
| > | higher accuracy required, the smaller the region, in general). A
direct
| > | consequence of this is that in GR the speed of light is LOCALLY c, but
| > | over non-local distances it need not be c (and indeed it's easy to
find
| > | situations where a long-distance measurement obtains values other than
| > | c).
| >
| >
| > ROFLMAO!!!
| > Precious!
| > You did say LONG distance MEASUREMENT, right, Roberts?
|
| You know, if somebody said that to me, I think I'd ask them what they
| meant by "long distance measurement".

Yeah, well, If Roberts wants to be imprecise... After all, he's always using
capitals to stress his pov. See "_LOCALLY_ " above. What the hell does
'locally' mean? If he knew anything about metric spaces and the concept of
neighbourhood, he might give a precise definition.

|
| Measuring the 3-velocity of something over a "long distance" requires not
| only an unambiguous way to measure the length it traverses, but an
| unambiguous way to measure the time it took. So, really, you need to be
| able to say "when" a photon started, in the frame of reference of an
| observer at the point where it arrived, and you need to be able to tell
| how far it went, in the frame of reference of that same observer.

What's so tough about that? You can get the distance to a star from parallax
(at least the nearer ones), everybody agrees the velocity of light is the
emitted velocity (it's the same in all inertial frames of reference for a
relativist, constant with respect to the aether for an aetherialist; stars
don't move all that fast through the aether, and is an axiom for an
emissionist). We use lightyears to give the distance, c to give the speed
and years for the time. Who's arguing with that?
Seems to me that Roberts is agreeing that the velocity of light is c+v if he
dares to say "situations where a long-distance measurement obtains values
other than c".
What other situations are there?

| In the
| presence of mass, I don't know how you obtain unambiguous values for
| either of those items, nor do I know how you define a "frame of
| reference" in such a situation that is anything other than strictly local.

My frame of reference stretches to infinity. One metre locally is one metre
at the edge of the observable Universe. One second locally is one second 50
billion lightyears away. Your presence of mass is a _LOCAL_ phenomenon.
|
| So how can you say with certainty that the object -- be it paperclip,
| tachyon, or photon -- did or didn't travel at any particular speed?

Easy... speed is distance divided by time... In MY frame of reference...BY
DEFINITION. My frame doesn't shrink or stretch, the stars are just as far
way from the sun when I circle the sun moving toward them or away from them.
The star we move away from has a different speed of light (c-v) to the star
I move toward (c+v). I can tell from the different doppler shifts, I'm not a
stupid, idiotic relativist that swallows Einstein's tale of magical
shrinking rulers, unlike the preposterous Roberts, Ph.D. or Koks, Ph.D.
There are degrees obtainable from web sites. I earned mine.
See
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/KoksDoppler.htm
Oh, you did, didn't you? Then tried to argue that the distance was 4 light
years instead of 7. Typical bull*** obfuscation from a dumb relativist that
cannot reason. And you didn't even bother to reply to the post refuting your
dumbness, just like Roberts. I'll tell you something. You relativists are
SICK.
It doesn't bother me so much that you think you can pull the wool over my
eyes, you can't. What pisses me of is that the lot of you try to do it to
the rest of humanity in your own greedy self interest. You make me puke. You
disgust me. You have no fucking shame, the lot of you. You are no better
than moortel, poking fun at sensible thinkers, and the worst of it is, you
don't even know how dumb you are.
|
|
| > How about "It doesn't mean what you think it means?"
|
| But _what_ doesn't mean that?

It's a jibe at Roberts. His answer to me when he was totally unable to think
of anything else, so that he could walk way from the debate he lost.
|
|
| > Here's a long distance MEASUREMENT that obtains values other than c, in
| > UNCURVED spacetime.
|
| How do you know it's uncurved?

The same way I know bright green elephants lay eggs and leprechauns live at
the end of rainbows. They hide pots of gold there. Someone stole the gold
ahead of me, but I have the pot in my kitchen that proves it, just as
T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, "Test of the Second
Postulate of Relativity in the GeV Region'' Phys. Lett. 12 260-262 (1964);
proved the speed of light was independent of the motion of the source and a
constant c in a vacuum by measuring its speed emitted from a stationary
beryllium block.
In other words, because I say so. If it's good enough for Einstein it's good
enough for me. I don't need to defend it.

 Have you measured it? (And if so, how?)

I don't need to. It is enough for me to assert that light travels in
straight lines, and the rest of the world agrees with me. Any imaginary
curvature of "spacetime", otherwise known as aether (an aether by any other
name would stink as bad) is a _LOCAL_ phenomenon. (Excuse the Robertian
emphasis.)
Did Einstein measure his "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body"? No!
He just said so, right? That's all it takes to convince an idiot, so that's
all I need to convince you. You can't question it, you are relativist. Light
travels in straight lines. Prove otherwise.
|
| > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| --
| I can be contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
Ah yes, contacted, but anyone get through that thick skull of yours?
Not much point otherwise, is there?
Androcles

Loading