Re: A silly fact about an atomic clock that relativist never want you to know.

On 18 jul, 10:00, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sue... wrote:

<snipped stupid ass change of inertia because of ignorance>

Here is a mechanism for "inertia", "true" or not.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6

It uses concepts unknown 'till 1930 when Fritz
London was working with Van der Walls forces.

Undiscovered particles and mystery fields is
about the only alternative even today.

It is at least a start in finding the "physical"
But not looking for the "physical" is not really
"physics" at all.

Aha!
There is his step into the "multiple standards of time" joke
and then of course, he needed to find his multiple standard
of distance and of course.. the math finally worked.
All because he refused to find the "physical" cause
of the change in the "true" inertial path.

We can do no better today except propose a straight
line, then admit that nature can't know what a straight
line is.

Admit nature can't "know" anything.
Why again do you give a non living "material gathering"
to "know" anything at all?

Nature does not "know" anything.
Nature just happens when forces occur.
Nature does not control the forces, the forces
control nature.
Nature does not even have a clue a planet is there,
until forces show up from the planet being there.
Why do you give Nature a knowledge factor at all?

Then you favour the force-free particle concept ?

A favor any theory that finds "physical" causes.
If they are not finding "physical" causes they should not be
in the "physics" category of science.
If they have math only, it belongs in the mathematics only
department and do not deserve the "term" physics at all.

Again, that is like saying light "knows" how to take
the curve it needs.

Let's keep light out of this until I can get my
laser pointer to recoil when I switch it on.

Turn it on in a space where there is no "resistance" you can
measure.
It will push backward.
If it does not, it is not making waves at all.
To make waves, one must "disturb" the ocean.
:)

Do you like this better?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral#Some_practical_applica...
(look at the volume sections)

When modified to include the finite speed of light
the conflict between SR's postulates vanishes.

...And so does SR. ;-)

Most of SR should be dropped.
Most of it is a multiple standards joke to science.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

It is most fortunate for us, relativists, that neither you or your
partner Sue are in any real position of changing anything about
nothing.
Since to do that, you have to have credibility and, for sure, that is
lacking on you and by a big margin.
Keep on trying though....in the mean time it is funny!

Miguel Rios
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields"
    ... You would be told that nature has been 'shown' to be so weird that it is beyond anything we can possibly imagine and therefore can only be described in mathematical terms. ... Science generally attempts to understand nature, ... I am quoting others description of physics. ... jem one might say:o). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields"
    ... You would be told that nature has been 'shown' to be so weird that it is beyond anything we can possibly imagine and therefore can only be described in mathematical terms. ... Science generally attempts to understand nature, ... I am quoting others description of physics. ... It is clear why the rules were changed from the history. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physics and the human condition
    ... the theoretical framework existing at the time of their construction. ... If "alternative physics" is also ... Which is more likely that nature is ... complementary methods and no such things as independent teams, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... It tries to determine the law that nature operates by, ... The only rules in physics are the methodologies by which those laws ... It is NOT a good practice to do this in science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields"
    ... You would be told that nature has been 'shown' to be so weird that it is beyond anything we can possibly imagine and therefore can only be described in mathematical terms. ... Science generally attempts to understand nature, ... I am quoting others description of physics. ... Gems of yours from the past - Gems from jem one might say:o). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)