| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"gravman" |
| Date: |
23 Jun 2007 03:08:52 PM |
| Object: |
The Relativity Cult |
Cult of Relativity:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
"
The Cult of Relativity is a religion that asserts that Einstein was never
wrong, that rulers and clocks expand and contract, and that 0/0 = c. The
cult had regular meetings on the Usenet group sci.physics.relativity, in
which they chastised the "small brains" of unbelievers, and sang songs such
as "Divine Einstein" [2]. High priests in Einstein's cult are known as professors
(by cult members) or hypnotists (by critics), and followers are known as
students or zombies, respectively.
According to the 1995 census, the membership in this cult has fallen off
drastically since its foundation in 1905. In fact, there appears to have
been only one member, who lived in Pentuska Bay, Arizona and died in 1957
by impaling himself on a ladder while running at .9 c into a barn.
Prestigious scientists such as Feynman who appeared to believe in the cult
were probably just pretending to believe in order to obtain government grant money.
In any case, in the eyes of the original cultists, the shiftless, think-nothing
Einstein zombies that inhabit sci.physics.relativity today would probably
be considered to be non-practicing.
.... " <see the website for the rest of the text>
.
|
|
| User: "harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 04:41:01 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
[...]
Some parts are really funny!
"According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
meters north, a contradiction."
:)))
.
|
|
|
| User: "harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
25 Jun 2007 03:27:15 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 11:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
[...]
Some parts are really funny!
"According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
meters north, a contradiction."
:)))
Clarification for those who are unware of what "uncyclopedia" intends
to be:
"Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter
lies."
- http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:About
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
26 Jun 2007 12:26:51 AM |
|
|
"harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1182803235.140473.229050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 23, 11:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
: > On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
: >
: > > Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
: >
: > [...]
: >
: > Some parts are really funny!
: >
: > "According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
: > meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
: > meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
: > meters north, a contradiction."
: >
: > :)))
:
: Clarification for those who are unware of what "uncyclopedia" intends
: to be:
:
: "Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter
: lies."
: - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:About
:
: Harald
That's right, and relativity is an utter lie so it belongs in the
Uncyclopedia
where the truth about relativity is told.
Now you are faced with the Liar's Paradox.
Bertrand Russell formulated the liar paradox in terms of set theory. He
discovered this form of the paradox, known as Russell's paradox, in 1901.
First, he conceived of a set that included other sets. An example of this is
the set of all sets. By definition, all sets, including this set, are
members of the set of all sets. He then conceived of the set of all sets
that do not include themselves. He pondered if this set included itself, and
realized that it does if it does not, and it does not if it does.
Four years later the plagiarist Einstein wrote:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which is member of the set of
velocities of light that are NOT c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
26 Jun 2007 12:30:18 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:vs1gi.28446$aS5.4371@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1182803235.140473.229050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 23, 11:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
: > On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
: >
: > > Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
: >
: > [...]
: >
: > Some parts are really funny!
: >
: > "According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
: > meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
: > meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
: > meters north, a contradiction."
: >
: > :)))
:
: Clarification for those who are unware of what "uncyclopedia" intends
: to be:
:
: "Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter
: lies."
: - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:About
:
: Harald
That's right, and relativity is an utter lie so it belongs in the
Uncyclopedia
where the truth about relativity is told.
Now you are faced with the Liar's Paradox.
Bertrand Russell formulated the liar paradox in terms of set theory. He
discovered this form of the paradox, known as Russell's paradox, in 1901.
First, he conceived of a set that included other sets. An example of this
is
the set of all sets. By definition, all sets, including this set, are
members of the set of all sets. He then conceived of the set of all sets
that do not include themselves. He pondered if this set included itself,
and
realized that it does if it does not, and it does not if it does.
Yeup .. nice little paradox that
Four years later the plagiarist Einstein wrote:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which is member of the set
of
velocities of light that are NOT c.
Just by putting the word 'set' in there does not make it related to the
paradox you mentioned.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
27 Jun 2007 11:34:20 AM |
|
|
On Jun 26, 1:26 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> >
That's right, and relativity is an utter lie so it belongs in the
Uncyclopedia
where the truth about relativity is told.
Now you are faced with the Liar's Paradox.
Bertrand Russell formulated the liar paradox in terms of set theory. He
discovered this form of the paradox, known as Russell's paradox, in 1901.
First, he conceived of a set that included other sets. An example of this is
the set of all sets. By definition, all sets, including this set, are
members of the set of all sets. He then conceived of the set of all sets
that do not include themselves. He pondered if this set included itself, and
realized that it does if it does not, and it does not if it does.
Four years later the plagiarist Einstein wrote:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which is member of the set of
velocities of light that are NOT c.
Androcles, this is astonishingly moronic even by your usual
standards. What imaginable plagarism are you hallucinating here?
There is no connection between Russel's paradox and Einstein's usage
of the word set.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
27 Jun 2007 02:10:16 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1182962060.717453.236080@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 26, 1:26 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> >
: > That's right, and relativity is an utter lie so it belongs in the
: > Uncyclopedia
: > where the truth about relativity is told.
: > Now you are faced with the Liar's Paradox.
: >
: > Bertrand Russell formulated the liar paradox in terms of set theory. He
: > discovered this form of the paradox, known as Russell's paradox, in
1901.
: > First, he conceived of a set that included other sets. An example of
this is
: > the set of all sets. By definition, all sets, including this set, are
: > members of the set of all sets. He then conceived of the set of all sets
: > that do not include themselves. He pondered if this set included itself,
and
: > realized that it does if it does not, and it does not if it does.
: >
: > Four years later the plagiarist Einstein wrote:
: >
: > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in
: > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which is member of the set
of
: > velocities of light that are NOT c.
:
: Androcles, this is astonishingly moronic even by your usual
: standards.
Are you claiming Einstein did not say that, then?
: What imaginable plagarism are you hallucinating here?
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
That's an open admission of plagiarism. Unlike you I do not hallucinate,
astonished fuckhead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
27 Jun 2007 09:48:13 PM |
|
|
On Jun 27, 3:10 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1182962060.717453.236080@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 26, 1:26 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> >
: > That's right, and relativity is an utter lie so it belongs in the
: > Uncyclopedia
: > where the truth about relativity is told.
: > Now you are faced with the Liar's Paradox.
: >
: > Bertrand Russell formulated the liar paradox in terms of set theory. He
: > discovered this form of the paradox, known as Russell's paradox, in
1901.
: > First, he conceived of a set that included other sets. An example of
this is
: > the set of all sets. By definition, all sets, including this set, are
: > members of the set of all sets. He then conceived of the set of all sets
: > that do not include themselves. He pondered if this set included itself,
and
: > realized that it does if it does not, and it does not if it does.
: >
: > Four years later the plagiarist Einstein wrote:
: >
: > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in
: > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which is member of the set
of
: > velocities of light that are NOT c.
:
: Androcles, this is astonishingly moronic even by your usual
: standards.
Are you claiming Einstein did not say that, then?
: What imaginable plagarism are you hallucinating here?
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
That's an open admission of plagiarism. Unlike you I do not hallucinate,
astonished fuckhead.
Dear extraordinary arsehole,
Since English is obviously not your native language and since your
IQ is smaller than your ***** size measured in centimeters, you are
unaware that the word "set" is an ancient English word that far
predates any mathematical usage. Thus if anyone, say Einstein, refers
to a set of tupperware containers, or a set of whatever, it is not
logical to say that he is plagarizing Russel. Hope this clarifies
things for your tiny mind. By the way, Faraday's equation still
requires curl E rather than E for a correct statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
28 Jun 2007 07:12:21 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1182998893.774119.70690@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 27, 3:10 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1182962060.717453.236080@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Jun 26, 1:26 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> >
: > : > That's right, and relativity is an utter lie so it belongs in the
: > : > Uncyclopedia
: > : > where the truth about relativity is told.
: > : > Now you are faced with the Liar's Paradox.
: > : >
: > : > Bertrand Russell formulated the liar paradox in terms of set theory.
He
: > : > discovered this form of the paradox, known as Russell's paradox, in
: > 1901.
: > : > First, he conceived of a set that included other sets. An example of
: > this is
: > : > the set of all sets. By definition, all sets, including this set,
are
: > : > members of the set of all sets. He then conceived of the set of all
sets
: > : > that do not include themselves. He pondered if this set included
itself,
: > and
: > : > realized that it does if it does not, and it does not if it does.
: > : >
: > : > Four years later the plagiarist Einstein wrote:
: > : >
: > : > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured
: > in
: > : > the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which is member of the
set
: > of
: > : > velocities of light that are NOT c.
: > :
: > : Androcles, this is astonishingly moronic even by your usual
: > : standards.
: >
: > Are you claiming Einstein did not say that, then?
: >
: > : What imaginable plagarism are you hallucinating here?
: >
: > "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your
sources." --Einstein
: >
: > That's an open admission of plagiarism. Unlike you I do not hallucinate,
: > astonished fuckhead.
:
: Dear extraordinary arsehole,
:
: Since English is obviously not your native language and since your
: IQ is smaller than your ***** size measured in centimeters, you are
: unaware that the word "set" is an ancient English word that far
: predates any mathematical usage. Thus if anyone, say Einstein, refers
: to a set of tupperware containers, or a set of whatever, it is not
: logical to say that he is plagarizing Russel. Hope this clarifies
: things for your tiny mind. By the way, Faraday's equation still
: requires curl E rather than E for a correct statement.
Measure it with a voltmeter, let me know how much curl there is
from a standard car alternator revolving at 5000 RPM, astonished fuckhead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
28 Jun 2007 08:27:44 AM |
|
|
Relativity makes good sense in the macro realm. Count me in as one of
its staunch cult members. bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "H. Wabnig .... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
26 Jun 2007 01:45:06 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:26:51 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1182803235.140473.229050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 23, 11:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
: > On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
: >
: > > Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
: >
: > [...]
: >
: > Some parts are really funny!
: >
: > "According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
: > meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
: > meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
: > meters north, a contradiction."
: >
: > :)))
:
: Clarification for those who are unware of what "uncyclopedia" intends
: to be:
:
: "Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter
: lies."
: - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:About
:
: Harald
That's right, and relativity is an utter lie so it belongs in the
Uncyclopedia
where the truth about relativity is told.
Now you are faced with the Liar's Paradox.
Bertrand Russell formulated the liar paradox in terms of set theory. He
discovered this form of the paradox, known as Russell's paradox, in 1901.
First, he conceived of a set that included other sets. An example of this is
the set of all sets. By definition, all sets, including this set, are
members of the set of all sets. He then conceived of the set of all sets
that do not include themselves. He pondered if this set included itself, and
realized that it does if it does not, and it does not if it does.
Four years later the plagiarist Einstein wrote:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which is member of the set of
velocities of light that are NOT c.
A QUESTION FOR ANDROCLES:
What is the GPS Satellite clock frequency?
[ ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)
[ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)
WHAT IS - Y.O.U.R. - ANSWER, ANDROCLES?
Come on, it is that simple, just put an x in there.
Pentcho Valev, the liar, refuses to answer that question.
How about you, Andro?
Of course you are free to play the ball back,
to return with another question.
SIMULATED ANDROCLES ANSWER:
[x ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)
[ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)
END SIMULATION
The point is, nobody can prove you wrong.
At least not easily.
There are zillions of references on WWW,
but can we trust them? No, of course not.
WWW can be all wrong, partially wrong,
more-than-average wrong, absolutely wrong,
unbelievably false, full-with-lies.
The question remains unresolved, IMHO.
WHAT IS - Y.O.U.R. - ANSWER, ANDROCLES?
w.
--
soc.culture.austria answering service
proposals and complaints to:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
27 Jun 2007 05:16:33 AM |
|
|
"H. Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wrote in
message news:30d1831ntrmd17fc4fm2qtft087v9v9em0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:26:51 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1182803235.140473.229050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 23, 11:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
: > On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
: >
: > > Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
: >
: > [...]
: >
: > Some parts are really funny!
: >
: > "According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
: > meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
: > meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
: > meters north, a contradiction."
: >
: > :)))
:
: Clarification for those who are unware of what "uncyclopedia" intends
: to be:
:
: "Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter
: lies."
: - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:About
:
: Harald
That's right, and relativity is an utter lie so it belongs in the
Uncyclopedia
where the truth about relativity is told.
Now you are faced with the Liar's Paradox.
Bertrand Russell formulated the liar paradox in terms of set theory. He
discovered this form of the paradox, known as Russell's paradox, in 1901.
First, he conceived of a set that included other sets. An example of this
is
the set of all sets. By definition, all sets, including this set, are
members of the set of all sets. He then conceived of the set of all sets
that do not include themselves. He pondered if this set included itself,
and
realized that it does if it does not, and it does not if it does.
Four years later the plagiarist Einstein wrote:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which is member of the set
of
velocities of light that are NOT c.
A QUESTION FOR ANDROCLES:
What is the GPS Satellite clock frequency?
[ ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)
[ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)
WHAT IS - Y.O.U.R. - ANSWER, ANDROCLES?
Come on, it is that simple, just put an x in there.
Pentcho Valev, the liar, refuses to answer that question.
How about you, Andro?
Of course you are free to play the ball back,
to return with another question.
SIMULATED ANDROCLES ANSWER:
[x ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)
[ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)
"H. Wabnig" calling the frequency offset of
the satellite oscillators "relativistically corrected",
is like saying that Bush invaded Iraq
to bring democracy to Iraq,
rather than to steal their oil.
No doubt the frequency of oscillators
are affect by acceleration,
Galileo and Newton knew this centuries ago,
and in fact England sent ships all over the
world with standard pendulums to count the swings
from sunrise to sunrise,
and Newton used this data to compute the shape of the Earth,
and tides all over the world.
In other words, people parrot
what supports their religion/race/conditioning and/or agenda.
I dare say that "H. Wabnig" doesn't know why it
is desirable, but not essential, to offset the oscillators.
In fact, I have not seen any of the General Relativity Priests
nor their Cult Members address this point.
They just chant the mantra:
"relativistically corrected".
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
*** May 2007 Anti-Bigot Award ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
27 Jun 2007 07:57:40 AM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46822e94$0$16313$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
:
: "H. Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wrote in
: message news:30d1831ntrmd17fc4fm2qtft087v9v9em0@4ax.com...
: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:26:51 GMT, "Androcles"
: > <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>"harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
: >>news:1182803235.140473.229050@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: >>: On Jun 23, 11:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
: >>: > On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
: >>: >
: >>: > > Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
: >>: >
: >>: > [...]
: >>: >
: >>: > Some parts are really funny!
: >>: >
: >>: > "According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
: >>: > meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
: >>: > meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
: >>: > meters north, a contradiction."
: >>: >
: >>: > :)))
: >>:
: >>: Clarification for those who are unware of what "uncyclopedia" intends
: >>: to be:
: >>:
: >>: "Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter
: >>: lies."
: >>: - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:About
: >>:
: >>: Harald
: >>
: >>That's right, and relativity is an utter lie so it belongs in the
: >>Uncyclopedia
: >>where the truth about relativity is told.
: >>Now you are faced with the Liar's Paradox.
: >>
: >>Bertrand Russell formulated the liar paradox in terms of set theory. He
: >>discovered this form of the paradox, known as Russell's paradox, in
1901.
: >>First, he conceived of a set that included other sets. An example of
this
: >>is
: >>the set of all sets. By definition, all sets, including this set, are
: >>members of the set of all sets. He then conceived of the set of all sets
: >>that do not include themselves. He pondered if this set included itself,
: >>and
: >>realized that it does if it does not, and it does not if it does.
: >>
: >>Four years later the plagiarist Einstein wrote:
: >>
: >>"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in
: >>the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" which is member of the set
: >>of
: >>velocities of light that are NOT c.
: >
: > A QUESTION FOR ANDROCLES:
: >
: > What is the GPS Satellite clock frequency?
: >
: > [ ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)
: >
: > [ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)
: >
: > WHAT IS - Y.O.U.R. - ANSWER, ANDROCLES?
: >
: > Come on, it is that simple, just put an x in there.
: > Pentcho Valev, the liar, refuses to answer that question.
: > How about you, Andro?
: >
: > Of course you are free to play the ball back,
: > to return with another question.
: >
: > SIMULATED ANDROCLES ANSWER:
: >
: > [x ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)
: >
: > [ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)
:
: "H. Wabnig" calling the frequency offset of
: the satellite oscillators "relativistically corrected",
:
: is like saying that Bush invaded Iraq
: to bring democracy to Iraq,
: rather than to steal their oil.
:
: No doubt the frequency of oscillators
: are affect by acceleration,
: Galileo and Newton knew this centuries ago,
:
: and in fact England sent ships all over the
: world with standard pendulums to count the swings
: from sunrise to sunrise,
: and Newton used this data to compute the shape of the Earth,
: and tides all over the world.
:
: In other words, people parrot
: what supports their religion/race/conditioning and/or agenda.
:
: I dare say that "H. Wabnig" doesn't know why it
: is desirable, but not essential, to offset the oscillators.
:
: In fact, I have not seen any of the General Relativity Priests
: nor their Cult Members address this point.
:
: They just chant the mantra:
: "relativistically corrected".
:
:
: --
: Tom Potter
The moron Wabnigga confuses a count of cycles, N, within
an interval of time 1/f, little realising that he has missing cycles.
10.23 MHz is 10,230,000 cycles per second (ground frequency, not used).
10.22999999545 MHz is 10,229,999 cycles per second (satellite frequency).
Wabnigga has a cycle missing and is a sandwich short of a picnic.
GPS only works because the receiver uses satellite time.
It has to, receivers would be too expensive and bulky to use
atomic clocks in them.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
In any event, local ground time is irrelevant to position calculations.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
27 Jun 2007 01:39:14 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
"H. Wabnig" wrote in
[x ] 10.23000000000 MHz (no relativistic correction)
[ ] 10.22999999545 MHz (relativistically corrected)
"H. Wabnig" calling the frequency offset of
the satellite oscillators "relativistically corrected",
is based on Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
BTW, GTR has directly contributed to a $30B+ industry, creating a
global infrastructure benefiting people all over the world. Aviation,
shipping, asset management, survey, mining, agriculture, time
dissemination, communications networks, etc.
Bluster on, Potter, bluster some more!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 06:38:22 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 1:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
[...]
Some parts are really funny!
"According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
meters north, a contradiction."
:)))
The whole thing should be deleted. It simply isn't funny at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
24 Jun 2007 04:04:29 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1182641902.945841.177430@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 1:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
[...]
Some parts are really funny!
"According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
meters north, a contradiction."
:)))
The whole thing should be deleted. It simply isn't funny at all.
I find it very funny.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
25 Jun 2007 12:58:53 PM |
|
|
On Jun 24, 2:04 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1182641902.945841.177430@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 1:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
[...]
Some parts are really funny!
"According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
meters north, a contradiction."
:)))
The whole thing should be deleted. It simply isn't funny at all.
I find it very funny.
I especially like this sentence from it: "And you should listen to me
because I AM TYPING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS."
Paul Cardinale
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
25 Jun 2007 01:02:07 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 4:38 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:41 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
[...]
Some parts are really funny!
"According to non-contradiction [...], if one meter north was zero
meters east, it could not also be true that one meter east was zero
meters north, because that would make one meter north equal to zero
meters north, a contradiction."
:)))
The whole thing should be deleted. It simply isn't funny at all.
You need to understand the context, the site owner is, best I know, an
avowed antirelativist. The irony is that he presents Ken Seto's theory
in all its idiocy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 03:34:46 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 1:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
"
Hey, the link points out to Ken Seto's "contributions" to science .
Well done!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 04:15:14 PM |
|
|
Dono wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
"
Hey, the link points out to Ken Seto's "contributions" to science .
TYPO: you obviously meant UNscience.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
24 Jun 2007 07:26:34 AM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C3gfi.16942$RX.2802@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
Dono wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
"
Hey, the link points out to Ken Seto's "contributions" to science .
TYPO: you obviously meant UNscience.
Assertion is not a scientific argument.
My contribution to science: an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and a new
theory of gravity called DTG.
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are
valid in all environments, including gravity.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
24 Jun 2007 07:27:31 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are
valid in all environments, including gravity.
IRT has already been refuted, Seto.
Given two clocks A and B in intergalactic space in two different
inertial frames that are in relative motion with respect to each
other, such that dv/dt = 0 and c > |dr/dt| > 0 .
Observer in the frame of the clock (A) measures the clock (B)
running slow (time dilation precisely modeled by SR)...
Observer in the frame of the clock (B) measures the clock (A)
running slow (time dilation precisely modeled by SR)...
One would expect this result from the symmetry of the situation.
The same is true for Doppler shift.
IRT makes the wrong prediction. IRT is wrong. IRT must be discarded!
Now, Seto, don't go telling us that the experiment has never been
done! That's *****. That experiment is ongoing with GPS NAVSTAR
satellites--many can and do communicate with each and with
interplanetary probes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 05:39:31 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 2:15 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dono wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
"
Hey, the link points out to Ken Seto's "contributions" to science .
TYPO: you obviously meant UNscience.
Tom Roberts
"contributions" :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 04:05:56 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 4:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
"
Why isn't "The Relativity Cult" in all capitals?
The Cult of Relativity is a religion that asserts that Einstein was never
wrong,
Except for pointing out that he was wrong about the expansion of the
universe, .... and the cosmological constant", ..... and "spooky
action at a distance" (EPR experiment), .... and God playing dice
with the universe....., and his 1907 theory of graviation .... and his
unified field theory, and .....
that rulers and clocks expand and contract, and that 0/0 = c.
You went to the same school of ignorance as Androcles.
The
cult had regular meetings on the Usenet group sci.physics.relativity, in
which they chastised the "small brains" of unbelievers, and sang songs such
as "Divine Einstein" [2]. High priests in Einstein's cult are known as professors
(by cult members) or hypnotists (by critics), and followers are known as
students or zombies, respectively.
"Ambercombie! My zombie!"
According to the 1995 census, the membership in this cult has fallen off
drastically since its foundation in 1905. In fact, there appears to have
been only one member, who lived in Pentuska Bay, Arizona and died in 1957
by impaling himself on a ladder while running at .9 c into a barn.
Prestigious scientists such as Feynman who appeared to believe in the cult
were probably just pretending to believe in order to obtain government grant money.
Or YOU are just pretending to NOT "believe" because you are too
fucking stupid tom get a cent of the billions that the government
gives away each year to anyone who is even remotely competent.
In any case, in the eyes of the original cultists, the shiftless, think-nothing
Einstein zombies that inhabit sci.physics.relativity today would probably
be considered to be non-practicing.
... " <see the website for the rest of the text>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
25 Jun 2007 01:46:23 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 4:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
"
The Cult of Relativity is a religion that asserts that Einstein was never
wrong
Einstein was wrong plenty of times. When are you going to admit your
errors?
that rulers and clocks expand and contract
Not in their proper frames.
and that 0/0 = c.
Ever heard of l'Hopital's rule?
The
cult had regular meetings on the Usenet group sci.physics.relativity, in
which they chastised the "small brains" of unbelievers, and sang songs such
as "Divine Einstein" [2]. High priests in Einstein's cult are known as professors
(by cult members) or hypnotists (by critics), and followers are known as
students or zombies, respectively.
You must be on some serious drugs.
According to the 1995 census, the membership in this cult has fallen off
drastically since its foundation in 1905. In fact, there appears to have
been only one member, who lived in Pentuska Bay, Arizona and died in 1957
by impaling himself on a ladder while running at .9 c into a barn.
Prestigious scientists such as Feynman who appeared to believe in the cult
were probably just pretending to believe in order to obtain government grant money.
In any case, in the eyes of the original cultists, the shiftless, think-nothing
Einstein zombies that inhabit sci.physics.relativity today would probably
be considered to be non-practicing.
... " <see the website for the rest of the text>
Don't give up your day job. You're not that funny. And you're
completely cluesless about science in general, so I guess that's out
of the question, too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 04:36:59 PM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 4:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
"
The Cult of Relativity is a religion that asserts that Einstein was never
wrong, that rulers and clocks expand and contract, and that 0/0 = c.
Ah, I see that Androcles has made a convert to the view that there's
no such thing as a round trip.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 08:06:39 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182634619.268209.180220@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
: On Jun 23, 4:08 pm, "gravman" <grav...@gravmangravman.man> wrote:
: > Cult of Relativity:http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
: > "
: > The Cult of Relativity is a religion that asserts that Einstein was
never
: > wrong, that rulers and clocks expand and contract, and that 0/0 = c.
:
: Ah, I see that Androcles has made a convert to the view that there's
: no such thing as a round trip.
:
: - Randy
Although I made no direct contribution to the document cited it pleases
me that there really is intelligence and humour out there...err... fuckhead.
Yes, dingbat, when defining velocity there really is no such animal as
a round trip.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 03:15:38 PM |
|
|
gravman wrote:
Cult of Relativity:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
I wonder what gravman makes of the fact that to date there has not
been an observation that contradicts a prediction of SR, GTR or QFT?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Marx c/o www.paf.li" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
24 Jun 2007 02:13:31 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Kbffi.116765$n_.85693@attbi_s21...
gravman wrote:
Cult of Relativity:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
I wonder what gravman makes of the fact
that to date there has not been an observation
that contradicts a prediction of SR, GTR or QFT?
Besides the fact, that nature does noz know, is not
functioning & could never be designed by these UQT
& none of them or their derivatives have ever produced
qualitative predictions, the proof of their uselessness
&, moreover, dangerousness[1] lies a) in their failure of
having predicted the true nature of gravitation as being
qualitatively variable, substance-relevant & bipolar
according to the experimental output of the GFMI[2];
b) in their inability to establish that there are no
constants or "laws" of nature such as qualitative
"mass attraction", a "gravitational constant" &c; &
c) in their having not succeeded to show the energy
& vortex background of the universe, as explained
in the EVU[3].
Qualitatively "relative" in the Universe, therefore, are all
things compared to each other, & basically compared
to the potential energy (electricity) floating around as
so-called "dark matter" & being the non-substance (&
therefore invisible) core of all substances from star to
"atom" at the lowest coldness pole of ~-5'000'000 °C.
That's all, kids, & from now on use your ICS when
assessing OUO.
++++
[1] cf "Quantification > Mathematics > Modelling > Scientific
Method: The most Central Problem of Global Civilization in
www.paf.li/Quantification.pdf)
[2] GFMI = Gravitational Field Measuring Instrument:
www.qualifying-science.com/downloads/qualifyingproofofgfmi.pdf
www.qualifying-science.com/downloads/qsatphysicalcongress2006a4.pdf
(Engl paper Physical Congress 2006 St Petersburg)
cf www.paf.li/gfmi-e.pdf; output of experiment online in
http://evu.paf.li, substance relevant in
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/hg.html - Mercury
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/cu.html - Copper
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/sn.html - Tin
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/pb.html - Lead
[3] EVU = Electric Vortex Universe; cf
www.paf.li/perceptions.htm
LQS = Logical Qualitative System
UQT = Unlogical Quantitative Theories
(cf www.paf.li/Quantification.pdf)
ICS = Informed Common Sense
OUO = Orthodox Uninformed Opinion
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gravman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
23 Jun 2007 07:50:22 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:Kbffi.116765$n_.85693@attbi_s21...
gravman wrote:
Cult of Relativity:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
I wonder what gravman makes of the fact that to date there has not
been an observation that contradicts a prediction of SR, GTR or QFT?
1) Curve-fitting.
2) "Solutions" to highly speculative hypotheses that really nobody else can verify,
except the members of this religous money-making cult themselves of course
(such "interesting" things like what happens inside blackholes, wormholes etc., LOL:-).
3) <CITE> "With all this evidence against relativity, one may wonder
why so many scientists continue to believe it.
If you are wondering about that, you are rather dimwitted, because
it's obvious that relativist scientists are just a big money-making cult.
In addition, they need government grant money"... </CITE>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hayek" |
|
| Title: Re: The Relativity Cult |
24 Jun 2007 02:08:16 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
gravman wrote:
Cult of Relativity:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Relativity
I wonder what gravman makes of the fact that to date there has not
been an observation that contradicts a prediction of SR, GTR or QFT?
There has not been an observation that confirms it either, an by that I
mean an OWLS cofirmation.
I have definite proof of cult practices.
Once I was referred to "Mathpages" by VDM.
There I found some text saying : the discussion between relative and
absolute is moot, you only need that for ontological purposes.
There is no reason that we should exclude the ontological purpose from
sci.physics.relativity, so I quote back the text to VDM and the group.
Some time later the text on Mathpages has changed ! It no longer
contains the term absolute !
Also, Albro Swift was present on Mathpages, and Albro constantly
insinuates about an absolute reference. Albro Swift is gone !
No more reference to him, as if the texts were never there.
The only thing left is me quoting him here, and I am beginning to wonder
how long that is going to last.
Uwe Hayek.
--
Such an assertion can only have be provided by individuals whose inborn
ability to think has been severely repressed by excessive education.
This repression of intelligent thought is characteristic of the process
by which PhD candidates acquire their degrees. They are well taught the
accepted truth at the expense of their ability to question that truth.
They become, in other words, priests of a religion rather than true
scientists.
-- H.E.Retic on the web
L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !
This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus
IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
(usenet/news) groups.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
