Re: The Einstein Cult Index

On Jul 11, 3:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:WTqdk.246778$yE1.92648@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Tom Potter wrote:
Sammy, what you try to con folks into believing is "disparaging"
are just stating old, honest, verifiable FACTS
about things that waste enormous amounts
of time, money and minds.

  You know, Potter, it's interesting that special relativity
  has been around for more than a hundred years--it is as much
  of a "law" of physics an any other law. It has been confirmed
  by literally, thousands of experiments and observations, and
  is essential in the designs of advanced technology, such as
  particle accelerators and navigation systems.

  Why are you in denial Potter? I thought you claimed to be
  knowledgeable about technical things. You don't know ***, do
  you?

  Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
   http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments..html

  Einsteins original 1905 papers are accessible... give'm a read.
   http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
   http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

Sammy! Sammy! Sammy!
Here you are desparately trying
to create a strawman.

Where did I ever criticize "special relativity".

   Then shall I make the assumption that you embrace special relativity,
   Potter?



As I have pointed out for many years,
velocity is a tangent function,
and the addition of velocities in "special relativity"
is just an expression of the addition of tangents.

   Oops, I have to conclude you DO NOT understand special relativity,
   Potter.

   Physics FAQ: How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
     http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/veloci...
     http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html



And as can be seen,
I have never asserted that the addition of tangents
is wrong.

Wake up man!

   :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Sam: After months of trying, you admitted that if the concept of
M-M: That the velocity of light can be changed by ether in the small
dimensions of that experiment, is true, that light would be totally
slowed in traveling a great enough distance. Since the light from the
Sun 'gets here', then the concept behind M-M was wrong. But I never
could get you to say the words: NoEinstein has disproved SR. And
since the Lorentz part of SR is in GR, too, then I have also disproved
GR.

What you did was to stop bugging me with your "teacher physics". I
appreciate that. But now you are peddling your defense of Einstein
away from where I happen to be commenting. You can't 'acknowledge'
that ether doesn't drag light, on the one hand, AND continue to
believe that SR and GR are valid. As for Tom's “tangent additions” ,
there is no need for 'tricky' physics. With the ether pushed aside,
spacecrafts can travel c + c + c... without anything but simple
numeric addition being needed to know the total velocity! —
NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
.

Quantcast