Re: Basics series proposed

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 10/27/04 

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:19:48 GMT

"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0410262359.198bf4a8@posting.google.com...
: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:<%2yfd.47623$i02.38960@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:3c4afb26.0410252249.4db91871@posting.google.com...
: > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > news:<eX9fd.45116$i02.18816@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > : > "Paul Draper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:74768d2d.0410250722.4ba80e9@posting.google.com...
: > : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > news:<jDSed.148683$BI5.112628@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
: > : > :
: > : >
: > :
: > : Entertaining and refreshing.
: > : Ignore the vegie throwers, and concentrate on clarity viz Paul
D.
: > : The former come from the same crowd who chucked crud at
: > Shakespeare's plays.
: > :
: > : Jim G
: > : c'=c+v
: >
: > I appreciate Paul's response. He's not your average relativist,
: > he can debate with reason, logic and intelligence.
: > I also thank you for your encouragement.
: > Emission theory has come a long way since I introduced it to this
: > newsgroup a few years ago, when the only challenge to relativity
: > was aetherialism. I've made a few blunders, some deliberate
: > and some not, I'll confess, but that is inevitable when one spends
: > as much time as I have on a subject so important.
: > I hope you can take up the salient points of my argument, Jim,
: > and, along with others, make use of them. I grow weary of dealing
: > with the veggie throwers and feel I deserve a rest. I can still
hurl
: > them back, but it bores me.
: > Androcles.
:
: Thank ***** I'm not a student! "Learn this mantra by heart, and here
: is the standard crap arguement in support- failure to repeat on due
: date will result in not obtaining a degree!"

I sailed through ok, putting down the 'right' answers. It wasn't that
difficult, SR was in the multiple-choice computer marked part of the
exam, as well as the continuous assessment part of the course.
The following year I studied pure math, I had no stomach for
relativity anymore.

: While I don't doubt your math arguement, myself being deficient in
: "mathemagics"
: I take the philosophical approach- I wont accept obvious falsehood
: just because someone says to!
: You know AE's gendanken about time dilation, where he has a
passenger
: on a train, and an observer on the platform? NEITHER of them collect
: any information about the flight of the photon involved! At what
point
: does the beam strike THEIR eye, which is the ONLY way said
information
: is transfered? So simply shown to be imaginary rubbish, but get a
DHR
: to explain the data transfer?
: not in a naked king's lifetime!
: I suggest it is a waste of time trying to convince your (my) DHR
: "opponents".

They are a total waste of time. A closed mind is not a target worth
shooting at.

: Time may be better spent contacting kids before they are corrupted
by
: the "fraternity". They may not carry on a long arguement, but still
: may take away the "truth" for use in the future.

Yes. If nothing else you can awaken curiousity. They are only
exposed to a one-sided viewpoint when they first encounter Einstein's
ranting. Planting the seeds of doubt is a beginning.

: I don't know what causes gravity myself-

Nor does anyone else. Each atom attracts other atoms. When
that process accumulates enough atoms we have bodies as large
as they are. Those atoms sure do stick together well, and they
have preferences too, like Hydrogen and Oxygen to form water
and Chlorine and Sodium to form table salt. But that's chemistry...
Galileo and Newton described what gravity does, not what it is.
Einstein forgot about sitting on a chair when he ranted on about
curvature of space. Pretty obviously a comet follows a curved
path, and whether you say it follows a curved path in straight
space or a straight path in curved space doesn't say what it is
either. As I sit at this desk, I'm not following any path at
all, but I can feel force on my ***.

: I just recognise the
: falsehood of AE Relativity theory, and its claims about time change
: and length change.
: Battle on! Our best bet for an incontravertible experiment to
disprove
: GR/SR would likely come from a billionaire amateure funding a REAL
: experiment.
:

It's already been done.
The theory says:
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions. "

A few fools (Roberts and Andersen to name but two) claim that
according to GR a clock in a stronger gravitational field (gravity is
curvature of spacetime) will run slower than a clock in a weaker one,
so one balances the other. What they forget is that there is more dirt
directly beneath the equatorial clock than there is beneath the polar
clock. The distance from pole to pole is less than the equatorial
diameter.
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions. "
GR adds to SR, so neither is correct.
It doesn't happen, and Roberts assures us the test has been carried
out
many times.
Androcles.

: Cheers
: Jim G
: c'=c+v

Quantcast