| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"fellow" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2004 01:12:57 PM |
| Object: |
Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the statement that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Is it the fact that the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is constant
for all matter which is "remarkable", unlke, say the ratio of electric
charge to inertial mass which varies as in the case of the electron, proton
and neutron etc?
Thanks,
Fellow
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 01:03:13 PM |
|
|
"fellow" <Jameson@god.com> wrote in message
news:cqho2l$9c5$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the statement
that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Let me remark that a greater force is applied to a larger mass, and the
larger mass has a greater inertia. Consequently the larger mass
accelerates
the same as the lesser. This breaks down when very large masses are
involved, however.
Consider a small mass W, the moon and the Earth.
M ----------E-----------W
The moon is falling toward the Earth, the mass is falling toward both
moon and Earth. From the same starting position and zero velocity,
the mass collides with the Earth before the moon.
Androcles.
Is it the fact that the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is
constant
for all matter which is "remarkable", unlke, say the ratio of electric
charge to inertial mass which varies as in the case of the electron,
proton
and neutron etc?
Thanks,
Fellow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 04:13:09 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:RJZyd.47742$ef5.14640@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"fellow" <Jameson@god.com> wrote in message
news:cqho2l$9c5$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the
statement
that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Let me remark that a greater force is applied to a larger mass, and
the
larger mass has a greater inertia. Consequently the larger mass
accelerates
the same as the lesser. This breaks down when very large masses
are
involved, however.
Consider a small mass W, the moon and the Earth.
M ----------E-----------W
The moon is falling toward the Earth, the mass is falling toward
both
moon and Earth. From the same starting position and zero velocity,
the mass collides with the Earth before the moon.
I really did not think it was possible to be as stupid as that.
Have you been overdoing the boozing on Christmas eve?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fellow" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
26 Dec 2004 11:10:51 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:RJZyd.47742$ef5.14640@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"fellow" <Jameson@god.com> wrote in message
news:cqho2l$9c5$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the statement
that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Let me remark that a greater force is applied to a larger mass, and the
larger mass has a greater inertia. Consequently the larger mass
accelerates
the same as the lesser.
Yes, and the ratio of graviational to inertial mass still has to remain the
same for the acceleration to remain constant, as you probably know. You only
have to think of, say, an electron in an electric field. A mass consisting
of two electrons will accelerate the same as a mass consisting of one
electron because it's inertial mass increases linearly to compensate for the
linear increase in charge and so greater electric force. Add a proton
instead and it's acceleration is smaller because of it's greater inertial
mass compared to the addition of an electron, even though the increase in
charge, analagous to gravitational mass, has increased by the same amount as
the addition of an electron.
This breaks down when very large masses are
involved, however.
Consider a small mass W, the moon and the Earth.
M ----------E-----------W
The moon is falling toward the Earth, the mass is falling toward both
moon and Earth. From the same starting position and zero velocity,
the mass collides with the Earth before the moon.
Yes. The smaller mass is influenced by the field of the moon as well, the
moon mainly by the earth's so the smaller mass will collide first.
"Breaks down" is a bit inflammatory and perhaps why Uncle Al over-reacted a
bit. You certainly didn't come across as someone who was promoting his own
crank theory in the face of falsifying evidence.
Fellow
Androcles.
Is it the fact that the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is
constant
for all matter which is "remarkable", unlke, say the ratio of electric
charge to inertial mass which varies as in the case of the electron,
proton
and neutron etc?
Thanks,
Fellow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
26 Dec 2004 11:01:42 AM |
|
|
"fellow" <Jameson@god.com> wrote in message
news:cqmplo$vj0$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:RJZyd.47742$ef5.14640@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"fellow" <Jameson@god.com> wrote in message
news:cqho2l$9c5$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the
statement
that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Let me remark that a greater force is applied to a larger mass, and
the
larger mass has a greater inertia. Consequently the larger mass
accelerates
the same as the lesser.
Yes, and the ratio of graviational to inertial mass still has to
remain the
same for the acceleration to remain constant, as you probably know.
You only
have to think of, say, an electron in an electric field. A mass
consisting
of two electrons will accelerate the same as a mass consisting of one
electron because it's inertial mass increases linearly to compensate
for the
linear increase in charge and so greater electric force. Add a proton
instead and it's acceleration is smaller because of it's greater
inertial
mass compared to the addition of an electron, even though the increase
in
charge, analagous to gravitational mass, has increased by the same
amount as
the addition of an electron.
Not quite the same, the proton has opposite charge to an electron, but I
do agree with the principle you are offering.
This breaks down when very large masses are
involved, however.
Consider a small mass W, the moon and the Earth.
M ----------E-----------W
The moon is falling toward the Earth, the mass is falling toward both
moon and Earth. From the same starting position and zero velocity,
the mass collides with the Earth before the moon.
Yes. The smaller mass is influenced by the field of the moon as well,
the
moon mainly by the earth's so the smaller mass will collide first.
"Breaks down" is a bit inflammatory and perhaps why Uncle Al
over-reacted a
bit. You certainly didn't come across as someone who was promoting his
own
crank theory in the face of falsifying evidence.
Fellow
I have no theory of my own to offer, crank or otherwise.
Schwartz is miffed because I have pointed out that a ball
bounced in a train (or a flash of light reflected in a mirror in a
train),
when analysed from the tracksided, has three distinct
points of emission, reflection and reception.
t0: A>----------------------
t1: A--------------------->B
t2: A'<-------------------B
At t0 the light is turned on (or the ball is thrown) at position A.
At t1 the light is reflected at B, which has moved while the ball is in
flight.
At t2 the light (or the ball) returns to A' which has moved from
position A.
Is it the fact that the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is
constant
for all matter which is "remarkable", unlke, say the ratio of
electric
charge to inertial mass which varies as in the case of the
electron,
proton
and neutron etc?
I have no evidence to support the notion that inertial mass can vary.
Androcles.
Thanks,
Fellow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
26 Dec 2004 04:47:31 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely
demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
26 Dec 2004 08:07:56 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CF3F83.E3DB4BFB@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe,
"You know what? I'm going to go with your reading here also...OK, point
Androcles. "- Randy Poe, 24-Dec-04.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
25 Dec 2004 06:50:07 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:RJZyd.47742$ef5.14640@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"fellow" <Jameson@god.com> wrote in message
news:cqho2l$9c5$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the statement
that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Let me remark that a greater force is applied to a larger mass, and the
larger mass has a greater inertia. Consequently the larger mass
accelerates
the same as the lesser. This breaks down when very large masses are
involved, however.
Consider a small mass W, the moon and the Earth.
M ----------E-----------W
The moon is falling toward the Earth, the mass is falling toward both
moon and Earth. From the same starting position and zero velocity,
the mass collides with the Earth before the moon.
Androcles.
"Newton for beginners"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewtonBegin.html
[Thanks to Franz Heymann for pointing me to this one]
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 01:57:45 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"fellow" <Jameson@god.com> wrote in message
news:cqho2l$9c5$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the statement
that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Let me remark that a greater force is applied to a larger mass, and the
larger mass has a greater inertia. Consequently the larger mass
accelerates
the same as the lesser. This breaks down when very large masses are
involved, however.
[snip lies]
Fucking imbecile Androcles,
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 02:23:52 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC74B9.DD33EF2E@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by it.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 03:25:17 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC74B9.DD33EF2E@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by it.
Empirical fucking imbecile Androcles - where are your citations,
idiot? Your math isn't worth a rat's *****.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 03:38:26 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC893D.9966E3EE@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC74B9.DD33EF2E@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by
it.
Empirical fucking imbecile Androcles - where are your citations,
idiot? Your math isn't worth a rat's *****.
Agreed, Einstein's math is not worth a rat's arse, empirical fucking
imbecile Schwartz, so up yours.
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 04:55:58 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC893D.9966E3EE@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC74B9.DD33EF2E@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by
it.
Empirical fucking imbecile Androcles - where are your citations,
idiot? Your math isn't worth a rat's *****.
Agreed, Einstein's math is not worth a rat's arse, empirical fucking
imbecile Schwartz, so up yours.
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Androcles.
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely
demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical obserbation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles,
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 09:02:56 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC9E7E.47E2FD51@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC893D.9966E3EE@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC74B9.DD33EF2E@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in
by
it.
Empirical fucking imbecile Androcles - where are your citations,
idiot? Your math isn't worth a rat's *****.
Agreed, Einstein's math is not worth a rat's arse, empirical fucking
imbecile Schwartz, so up yours.
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Androcles.
[snip crap]
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count.
Yes. I agee.
[snip crap]
Where are your literature references, idiot Androcles?
LOL! Being the first to thoroughly analyze Einstein's paper,
there are none.
Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles?
For a gedanken? You cannot read, idiot Schwartz. The observational
support is on the page.
You drown in explicit empirical falsfification, idiot Androcles,
You cannot spell, imbecile Schwartzfification, let alone understand
that three points are required in the experiment, emission, reflection
and reception, and they are necessarily different in the stationary
frame,
being (0,0,0), (x',0,0) and (0-vt, 0,0) because the origin of k is
moving,
imbecile Schwartzfification. You are not even capable of counting
to three, imbecile Schwartz, let alone be granted a doctorate.
The only thing you've got right is Einstein's "math isn't worth a rat's
*****.", empirical winter at apogee.
[snip crap]
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
25 Dec 2004 10:06:12 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC9E7E.47E2FD51@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC893D.9966E3EE@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC74B9.DD33EF2E@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in
by
it.
Empirical fucking imbecile Androcles - where are your citations,
idiot? Your math isn't worth a rat's *****.
Agreed, Einstein's math is not worth a rat's arse, empirical fucking
imbecile Schwartz, so up yours.
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Androcles.
[snip crap]
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count.
Yes. I agee.
[snip crap]
Where are your literature references, idiot Androcles?
LOL! Being the first to thoroughly analyze Einstein's paper,
there are none.
Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles?
For a gedanken? You cannot read, idiot Schwartz. The observational
support is on the page.
You drown in explicit empirical falsfification, idiot Androcles,
You cannot spell, imbecile Schwartzfification, let alone understand
that three points are required in the experiment, emission, reflection
and reception, and they are necessarily different in the stationary
frame,
being (0,0,0), (x',0,0) and (0-vt, 0,0) because the origin of k is
moving,
imbecile Schwartzfification. You are not even capable of counting
to three, imbecile Schwartz, let alone be granted a doctorate.
The only thing you've got right is Einstein's "math isn't worth a rat's
*****.", empirical winter at apogee.
[snip crap]
Androcles.
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely
demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
25 Dec 2004 04:56:03 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CD8FF4.659411@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC9E7E.47E2FD51@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC893D.9966E3EE@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC74B9.DD33EF2E@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING
mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL
FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken
in
by
it.
Empirical fucking imbecile Androcles - where are your citations,
idiot? Your math isn't worth a rat's *****.
Agreed, Einstein's math is not worth a rat's arse, empirical
fucking
imbecile Schwartz, so up yours.
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Androcles.
[snip crap]
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count.
Yes. I agee.
[snip crap]
Where are your literature references, idiot Androcles?
LOL! Being the first to thoroughly analyze Einstein's paper,
there are none.
Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles?
For a gedanken? You cannot read, idiot Schwartz. The observational
support is on the page.
You drown in explicit empirical falsfification, idiot Androcles,
You cannot spell, imbecile Schwartzfification, let alone understand
that three points are required in the experiment, emission,
reflection
and reception, and they are necessarily different in the stationary
frame,
being (0,0,0), (x',0,0) and (0-vt, 0,0) because the origin of k is
moving,
imbecile Schwartzfification. You are not even capable of counting
to three, imbecile Schwartz, let alone be granted a doctorate.
The only thing you've got right is Einstein's "math isn't worth a
rat's
*****.", empirical winter at apogee.
[snip crap]
Androcles.
[snip crap]
You cannot spell, imbecile Schwartzfification
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
25 Dec 2004 06:02:12 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely
demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
25 Dec 2004 10:54:38 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CDFF84.7EA88B3F@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
I agreed with you that
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
isn't worth a rat's *****, and neither are you, coward.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
26 Dec 2004 04:46:21 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CDFF84.7EA88B3F@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
I agreed with you that
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
isn't worth a rat's *****, and neither are you, coward.
Androcles.
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely
demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 01:56:08 PM |
|
|
fellow wrote:
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the statement that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
The Equivalence Principle is a *postulate* (not a prediction)
validated by 400+ years of experimental challenge, said measurement
now being routinely sensitive to one part in ten trillion
difference/average,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
Is it the fact that the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is constant
for all matter which is "remarkable", unlke, say the ratio of electric
charge to inertial mass which varies as in the case of the electron, proton
and neutron etc?
It is not clear that the Equivalence Principle (EP) is true because it
is not needed and because one case has not been examined, (3c).
1) Metric gravitation (geodesics and spacetime curvature; Einstein)
postulates the EP, affine gravitation (autoparallels and spacetime
torsion; Weitzenboek) ignores the EP. Predicted phenomena are
absolutely identical qualitatively and quantitatively. The theories
cannot both be correct.
2) If you find two lumps that reproducibly locally differentially
free fall in vacuum or pursue non-parallel local free fall paths in
vacuum (violate the EP either way), Einstein was wrong. All the
validation in the world is only supportive; falsification is absolute
nonrecoverable disproof.
3) Three classes of object may violate the EP, metric vs. affine
gravitation:
a) Physically spinning bodies. Gravity Probe-B has two pairs
of anti-parallel 10,000 rpm solid gyro balls in an effectively
stationary housing, all of it fabricated from fused silica. No
anomalies.
b) Electromagnetically polarized bodies (magnets). Adelberger,
Ni, and Ritter independently detected no EP violation in standard
Eotvos balances.
c) Opposite geometric parity bodies - does a left hand fall
identically to a right hand? The two hemiparity experiments (each
hand of quartz vs. amorphous fused silica) and the full parity Eotvos
experiment (left- vs. right-handed quartz) are serially in progress.
Unless somebody comes up with a new class of EP challenge, the matter
is pretty much decided by end of 2005. Things can be fundamentally
different only in an inescapably small number of ways,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 02:24:09 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC7458.DA22E4BA@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by it.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 03:35:15 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC7458.DA22E4BA@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by it.
Androcles.
Hey stooopid and ineducable Androcles:
1) Michelson-Morely in 1887, then
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
2) Kennedy-Thorndike experiments
3) Ives-Stilwell experiments
4) Hughes-Drever experiments
5) <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment
Hey idiot Androcles - you'd have to get educated to quailify as being
merely stooopid. Where is the empirical support for your idiot math?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 04:02:39 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC8B93.92BA9A77@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC7458.DA22E4BA@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by
it.
Androcles.
Hey empirically stooopid and ineducable Schwartz. Get you head out of
your arse and read the above.
You'll find the equation that you've declared worthless at
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein said "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part,
physically, of an infinitely great velocity." you fucking wanker.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 04:56:14 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC8B93.92BA9A77@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC7458.DA22E4BA@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by
it.
Androcles.
Hey empirically stooopid and ineducable Schwartz. Get you head out of
your arse and read the above.
You'll find the equation that you've declared worthless at
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein said "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part,
physically, of an infinitely great velocity." you fucking wanker.
Androcles
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely
demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical obserbation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles,
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 09:05:54 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC9E8E.EAF93BB5@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC8B93.92BA9A77@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC7458.DA22E4BA@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in
by
it.
Androcles.
[snip crap]
Einstein's math isn't worth a rat's *****, and winter is at apogee -
Schwartz.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
25 Dec 2004 10:06:26 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC9E8E.EAF93BB5@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC8B93.92BA9A77@hate.spam.net...
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC7458.DA22E4BA@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in
by
it.
Androcles.
[snip crap]
Einstein's math isn't worth a rat's *****, and winter is at apogee -
Schwartz.
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely
demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical observation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles. Your ignorance, incompetence, and
psychosis are not of interest to the world at large. Quite the
contrary. You are not even an interesting laughingstock.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 01:16:38 PM |
|
|
fellow wrote:
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the statement
that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Is it the fact that the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is
constant
for all matter which is "remarkable", unlke, say the ratio of
electric
charge to inertial mass which varies as in the case of the electron,
proton
and neutron etc?
It's not just that the ratio of inertial/gravitational mass of a body
is constant. It's that the ratio = 1/1: they are exactly equal. In
Einstein's day this was an empirical fact, but it was a total mystery
and it was way too much to be just a happy coincidence. He found
gravity by GR remarkable because it made inertial & gravitational mass
one & the same thing. A body simply possesses mass. Mass curves space,
and space directs the motion of masses. An Einsteinianly perfect
package if ever there was one.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Todd" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 02:10:50 PM |
|
|
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103915798.275415.152090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
fellow wrote:
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the statement
that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Is it the fact that the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is
constant
for all matter which is "remarkable", unlke, say the ratio of
electric
charge to inertial mass which varies as in the case of the electron,
proton
and neutron etc?
It's not just that the ratio of inertial/gravitational mass of a body
is constant. It's that the ratio = 1/1: they are exactly equal.
What experimental evidence is there for concluding that the ratio is in fact
1/1 rather than, say, 2/1?
Todd
In Einstein's day this was an empirical fact, but it was a total mystery
and it was way too much to be just a happy coincidence. He found
gravity by GR remarkable because it made inertial & gravitational mass
one & the same thing. A body simply possesses mass. Mass curves space,
and space directs the motion of masses. An Einsteinianly perfect
package if ever there was one.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 03:27:49 PM |
|
|
Todd wrote:
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103915798.275415.152090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
fellow wrote:
In $2 Of Einstein's General Relativity paper, he makes the statement
that
the Gravitational field is remarkable because it imparts the same
acceleration to all bodies independently of mass.
Is it the fact that the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass is
constant
for all matter which is "remarkable", unlke, say the ratio of
electric
charge to inertial mass which varies as in the case of the electron,
proton
and neutron etc?
It's not just that the ratio of inertial/gravitational mass of a body
is constant. It's that the ratio = 1/1: they are exactly equal.
What experimental evidence is there for concluding that the ratio is in fact
1/1 rather than, say, 2/1?
Pushing a car in neutral gives the same apparent inertial mass as
lifting it measures gravitational mass. Isn't that rather obvious?
If you want more decimal places, like 13 of them, then Eotvos
experiments.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 03:39:15 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC89D5.129AC581@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by it.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravitational field "remarkable"? |
24 Dec 2004 04:56:03 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41CC89D5.129AC581@hate.spam.net...
[snip crap]
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
The ray travels from the MOVING origin of k to the MOVING mirror
at x' and returns to where the MOVING origin of k IS STILL FIXED,
fucking imbecile Einstein and fucking imbecile Schwartz taken in by it.
Androcles.
Hey idiot Androcles, reposting the same idiot drool that has been so
thoroughly, utterly publicly discredited by those who can do math
(e.g., Randy Poe, in disgustingly punctilious counterpoint) merely
demonstrates what an intractible idiot you are.
Empirical physical reality casts the only votes that count. Your
idiot spew is falsified by trivial empirical obserbation. You are a
psychotic ineducable idiot.
Where are your citations, idiot Androcles? Where are your literature
references, idiot Androcles? Where is your empirical observational
support, idiot Androcles? You drown in explicit empirical
falsfification, idiot Androcles,
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating experiment. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity. You are fucked,
idiot Androcles.
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries. You are fucked, idiot
Androcles.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation. You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
You are fucked, idiot Androcles.
Idiot Androcles is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a butt-fucked psychotic idiot spewing
in a science newsgroup.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
