Re: Comments on my FAQ page


Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> kirjoitti
viestissä:1157400660.421613.223870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Barry wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

Isn't it cute how you simply ignore what he said? I find this is handy
since folks LOOOOOVE to talk about the H&K experiment without even
looking at it. I have a scanned copy of the H&K experiment on my
website here: http://jowr.us/physics/

Here's an interesting analysis of the experiment:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

I was wondering how long it would take for that paper to appear.



You will find, if you actually read the paper that is but two mouse
clicks away from being on your screen, that the GR effects are anything
other than negligible.

It would be an interesting exercise to find the flaws, if any, in the
analysis I've referenced.

This has been done to death in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity.
Check the google groups archive to see the discussion about it because
there is no way I can explain it better than it already has.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7899109b1399ddea?dmode=source

That one is fairly good.

The post comes from this thread, which is interesting in of itself.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/b81f030dc93224fe

The validity of relativity does not depend on Hafele and Keating. There
exist much more stringent tests of the theory. People love to harp on
H&K because it is low hanging fruit. Assaulting stuff like high energy
physics and GPS is much harder because a larger degree of understanding
is required. (EG)

No, there isn't any. Start reading books. Or read 'falling space', a packed
information of the subject.

Lets see...I'm chugging along to a physics and mathematics degree.
....and you think 'start reading books' is a valid suggestion?


http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Worthless.


Henry Haapalainen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quantum Leaps and Zenos Paradox
    ... Try discussing the physics. ... paradoxes are by no means logical fallacies? ... Babble on, Barry. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Frequency and invariance, some trivialities.
    ... Barry wrote: ... Do you really think that two ends of a stationary rod can't both exist ... Once you understand the fundamentals you can begin making stuff up for ... Learn some physics and stop snipping the URLs ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Three Relativistic Reasons That We cant go FTL
    ... Barry wrote: ... last, say 40, years of physics. ... Statements such as this indicate you are quite unfamiliar with the last, ... To which Gisse responded with the non sequitur ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: much slower than light
    ... but I do enjoy reading books on theoretical ... at times as a particle and at other times as a wave. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Three Relativistic Reasons That We cant go FTL
    ... Barry wrote: ... Statements such as this indicate you are quite unfamiliar with the last, say 400, years of physics. ... To which Gisse responded with the non sequitur ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast