On Testing the Postulate of Constancy





Cincirob: There is no fabulous synchrotron experiment and if there were it wouldn't produce light going faster than c.


AAF: Oh, there is one; and it drove you 'nuts' last year! There is no other way around it. If the travel time of the synchrotron light from earth to the moon and back to earth again is about the half of the travel time of the laser light from earth to the moon and back to earth again, then even Stephen Hawking will concede that Special Relativity is dead and fatally falsified by experiment for good.


Ted: Ted: Show your calculations.


AAF: Ted, Ted, Ted ... ... ... It's so easy, man; Even Mike can do it! Here it is: Let the average distance between earth & the moon be d. The speed of the laser light is c. Upon assuming (c + v) hold good, synchrotron light emitted by electrons moving at average speed close to the speed of light, should be close to 2c Therefore, the laser light travel time: t_l = 2d / c And the Synchrotron light travel time: t_s = 2d / 2c = d / c And hence, t_l = 2t_s And that is it.


Ted: Pretentious Imbecile, the above doesn't "hold good". Light speed doesn't add up with the speed of the source, it is always c. You can assume that your mother was a camel, your intellect is proof (:


Curt: Ted Iggy assumes light always travels @ c. He cannot imagine anything else. Some day, his cockroach mind will be smashed by a camel. He cannot fathom that, in "General Relativity," c is variable. He cannot even spell intellect. Teddy boy: Stop with the ad hominem remarks. You are not the genius that your cockroach mother thinks you are.


AAF: Actually, Curt, it is not much of an attack and I like it! Pay attention, Ted (you, son of a 'moose'); a camel cannot be a 'mom', only a 'dad'; a she-camel? Maybe; a camel? Not a chance! Anyway, the animal named 'camel' is a symbol of giganticness and strength in that part of the world. And that means you really think I have strong teeth and can bite your ears off: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/tyson1.html As mentioned earlier, the main purpose of the synchrotron experiment is to find out whether or not Einstein's Postulate of Constancy is true. It follows, therefore, that the opposite of that postulate must be assumed to hold good in any experiment designed for testing the validity of that postulate.


Curt: AAF, My laptop responded to a curse or spell cast by probably Ted Iggy or Stanley. The touch pad and all the USB ports are not recognized. So, I have to learn how to navigate via keyboard. This joker at your link has no clue. A real mainstreamer non thinker. I came across this site a long time ago. He has yet to respond to my e-mails.


AAF: I don't think hackers would do that to your laptop. They are people of high principles and interested only in passwords and data files! The above problem is most likely caused by corrupted mouse and pointing stick drivers. And to solve it, you should visit the website of your laptop manufacturer and download and install the relevant drivers. Good luck ...

AAF: As mentioned earlier, the main purpose of the synchrotron experiment is to find out whether or not Einstein's Postulate of Constancy is true.

Ted: plenty of experimens confirm the postulate of constancy. Same experiments falsify your idiotic hypothesis. Take some physics class, imbecile.

"To the apparent delight of onlookers, Mike Tyson consigns this young boxing fan to a lifetime of intensive psychotherapy." Moron; those so-called experiments are a joke; and their results are too minute and insignificant to prove or disprove anything.

AAF: those so-called experiments are a joke; and their results are too minute and insignificant to prove or disprove anything.


Ted: Is this because an ignorant moron like AAF says that? :LOL:

No, my little twit!(:

It's Irving Langmuir who studied this type of bogus experiments and concluded the following:


Symptoms of Pathological Science:

1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langmuir.htm

Ted: AAF, BIG Twat, the stuff you quote doesn't apply to the experiments that confirm the light speed independency on the speed of the source. Only ahardened crackpot like you would believe such a thing. Langmuir's words do apply though to your crank experiment :LOL:

Like I said, go take a class in physics, your imbecility is showing. Why do you feel compelled to reaffirm it on a daily basis? You are a very convincing crank already, no need to push it any further. :LOL:

Well, thank you my assistant 'crackpot'!

Those symptoms of sick science are general and apply perfectly well to most of SRT's experiments whose results are almost always so minute and tiny and only an idiot would be convinced by them.

AAF: Those symptoms of sick science are general and apply perfectly well to most of SRT's experiments whose results are almost always so minute and tiny and only an idiot would be convinced by them.

Ted: the results are "so tiny" because they represent the measured deviation from the theoretical prediction, MORON. Take a class, MORON. :lol:

'LOL' on you, my 'best moron'!

The experimental results are so tiny and minute, because the numerical values of the SRT predictions are, for all piratical purposes, minute and tiny and insignificant.

AAF : The experimental results are so tiny and minute, because the numerical values of the SRT predictions are, for all piratical purposes, minute and tiny and insignificant.

Ted: SR predicts ZERO deviation from c, MORON. So kiss your demented "2c" and "killer experiment" goodbye, MORON.
c it is and that's that, MORON.

Don't be an idiot forever, my best 'moron'!
This synchrotron experiment is going to kill Relativity.
There can be no doubt about that.

Keep dreaming, MORON.
So far all that it killed is your brain cells, MORON.

Iggy Liggety has no brain cells to kill. His mind consists of neurons around the sphincter muscles. "Special Relativity" is a con job, DOA. A clock cannot run both fast and slow at the same time. This is what the logic of SR implies. SR is a Theory, Iggy Liggety is a tightly wound fiber fallen from the neither region, and can only cite the fairy tales he learned in the romper room..

You know Curt, except for a short transitional period this Iggy Liggety showed up just as Maxipadi was leaving the forum, the poor boy has no dignity left.

bob s

AAF: Ted, Ted, Ted ... ... ... It's so easy, man; Even Mike can do it! Here it is: Let the average distance between earth & the moon be d. The speed of the laser light is c. Upon assuming (c + v) hold good, synchrotron light emitted by electrons moving at average speed close to the speed of light, should be close to 2c Therefore, the laser light travel time: t_l = 2d / c And the Synchrotron light travel time: t_s = 2d / 2c = d / c And hence, t_l = 2t_s And that is it.



Cincirob: I see you've bought into AAF's pipe dream. Here are a few experiments that should discourage this line of reasoning but probably won't: Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965). Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast Î0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Optical extinction is not a problem for such high-energy gamma rays. The speed of the Ã0 is not measured, but is assumed to be similar to that measured for Î+ and Î . Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), pg 271. Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e annihilation (with center-of-mass v/c ~0.5) to be c within 10%. This experiment was criticized in Lo Savio, Phys. Lett. A, 1988, Vol 133, pg 176. It is certainly true that at the instant of annihilation the e+ need not be traveling in the same direction it had initially, or have the same speed (most annihilations occur at very low energy as the positrons stop). This experiment is inconclusive at best. Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964). This repeat of Kantor's experiment in vacuum shows no significant variation in the speed of light affected by moving glass plates. Optical Extinction is not a problem. k < 0.02. > Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast Î0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%. > Beckmann and Mandics, gTest of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuumh, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965). A direct experiment with coherent light reflected from a moving mirror was performed in vacuum better than 106 torr. Its result is consistent with the constant velocity of light. This experiment is notable because Beckmann was a perennial critic of SR. Optical Extinction is not a problem. Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/ . A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5~107. Optical extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high vacuum. http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#terrestrial



AAF: I see you've done a 'heck' of a job in searching for those 'humbug' claims made by the supporters of Relativity over the years! Jargon aside, however, those bogus experiments, more often than not, are based upon hypothetical entities whose very existence is unproven and in doubt. In other words, the hypothetical chaining involved in those phony experiments must degrade and reduce their evidential value to zero or something very close to zero. In addition, the effects and the experimental results based upon them are so small and so entangled and masked by many other effects, so much so that highly complicated and convoluted methods of data extraction and data reduction are needed and employed arbitrarily and ad hoc to give just any outcome the tricky experimenters are looking for. In short, those experiments of Relativity are bogus and useless and with no evidential value whatsoever to prove or disprove anything.

AAF, I hope that they treat you well at the lunatic asylum where you reside. Have you taken your medication today?

Oh, don't a give it a second thought!
Inmates are trying to figure out if the nurse is really this one:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000173/
Or just the incarnation of this one:
http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95nov/antoinette.html


All in all, Ted, I hope your (sons & daughters) will be kind enough to move you to a better place for taking care of morons and idiots: http://beverlyfarm.org/
http://www.americaworks.net/idiots/index.html

Was Albert Einstein an Idiot Savant? Yes? No? explain?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070401201532AAFftbz

What is clear is that AAF is an idiot. Pure idiot, without any "savant" in it :lol:

You never know, Ted; you might be a savant of music, but because your baby sitter was an idiot, nobody discovered your special talent for music:
http://nickystardust.blogspot.com/

Re: AAF, On Testing the Postulate of Constancy December 13 2008, 10:43 PM

"Was Albert Einstein an Idiot Savant? Yes? No? explain?"

Albert Einstein was neither an idiot, a savant nor an idiot savant, he was an obsessive, under achieving slackard. Leo Szilard, for example, was a true genius, Einstein was a pseudo-genius.

bob s

AAF: I see you've done a 'heck' of a job in searching for those 'humbug' claims made by the supporters of Relativity over the years!

cinci: Nah, it only takes a few minutes. Even you shold be able to do it.

They say it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. Apparently you would rather blow out the candle and revel in the darkness.
***********************


AAF: Jargon aside, however, those bogus experiments, more often than not, are based upon hypothetical entities whose very existence is unproven and in doubt. In other words, the hypothetical chaining involved in those phony experiments must degrade and reduce their evidential value to zero or something very close to zero. In addition, the effects and the experimental results based upon them are so small and so entangled and masked by many other effects, so much so that highly complicated and convoluted methods of data extraction and data reduction are needed and employed arbitrarily and ad hoc to give just any outcome the tricky experimenters are looking for. In short, those experiments of Relativity are bogus and useless and with no evidential value whatsoever to prove or disprove anything.

cinci: Jargon aside? How about about your opinions, which are not supportable by the facts, aside. You have nothing but empty words here in the face of incontrovertable experimental evidence. It's time to get over your dreams of unseating Einstein and get on with your life.
*************************************

AAF: I see you've done a 'heck' of a job in searching for those 'humbug' claims made by the supporters of Relativity over the years! Jargons aside, however, those bogus experiments, more often than not, are based upon hypothetical entities whose very existence is unproven and in doubt. In other words, the hypothetical chaining involved in those phony experiments must degrade and reduce their evidential value to zero or something very close to zero. In addition, the effects and the experimental results based upon them are so small and so entangled and masked by many other effects, so much so that highly complicated and convoluted methods of data extraction and data reduction are needed and employed arbitrarily and ad hoc to give just any outcome the tricky experimenters are looking for. In short, those experiments of Relativity are bogus and useless and with no evidential value whatsoever to prove or disprove anything.


Cincirob: Nah, it only takes a few minutes. Even you should be able to do it. They say it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. Apparently you would rather blow out the candle and revel in the darkness. Jargon aside? How about about your opinions, which are not supportable by the facts, aside. You have nothing but empty words here in the face of incontrovertible experimental evidence. It's time to get over your dreams of unseating Einstein and get on with your life.


AAF: Still it's a 'heck' of a job! And it's clear that I'm the one who lights, here, 1000 candles to show you the absurdities of Relativity, and you the one who curses the light because you don't want to see the ugliness of Relativity; right Cincirob? Those so-called experiments are bogus and worthless as far proofs and disproofs are concerned. In the past, the Relativists used to justify doing such useless experiments by saying all potential effects are intrinsically minute and there is no other alternative but to use them. Not anymore! Sending timed pulses of synchrotron light to the NASA reflectors on the moon is a very viable and practical option for testing Einstein's claims decisively and once and for all. In brief, the mainstream physicists have to choose either to behave as true scientists and real truth seekers and send synchrotron light to the moon, or to keep doing their humbug experiments and remain charlatans in the eyes of everybody including their chief attorney, Cincirob.


Bob S: "Was Albert Einstein an Idiot Savant? Yes? No? explain?" Albert Einstein was neither an idiot, a savant nor an idiot savant, he was an obsessive, under achieving slackard. Leo Szilard, for example, was a true genius, Einstein was a pseudo-genius.


AAF: I'm not sure, Bob; to me he looks 'stupid' most of the time! Certainly, he is very good at the PR stuff of science; but when it comes to physics, Albert is really 'dumb' in spite of the sympathetic assertions of these very nice people: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070401201532AAFftbz

AAF: Sending timed pulses of synchrotron light to the NASA reflectors on the moon is a very viable and practical option for testing Einstein's claims decisively and once and for all.

Ted: the scientists have already done this test, it confirms SR to a very high precision.It infirms your moronic misconception that the speed of light , c adds up with the speed of the emittor, v to form c+v.
Just that an autistic imbecile like AAF doesn't know that is only ...AAF's fault You were born stupid, you will die stupid. Your imbecility is not curable, moron.

I know you're a moron; but a liar too, that is news to me!

The synchrotron experiment is original, and it's mine; you idiot without savant attached to it.
Perhaps, Cincirob can claim to share some of the credit with me; but for the most part, the credit is mine; OK, moron?

AAF: Still it's a 'heck' of a job! And it's clear that I'm the one who lights, here, 1000 candles to show you the absurdities of Relativity, and you the one who curses the light because you don't want to see the ugliness of Relativity; right Cincirob? Those so-called experiments are bogus and worthless as far proofs and disproofs are concerned.

cinci: New post, same old nonsense.
******************************

AAF: In the past, the Relativists used to justify doing such useless experiments by saying all potential effects are intrinsically minute and there is no other alternative but to use them. Not anymore! Sending timed pulses of synchrotron light to the NASA reflectors on the moon is a very viable and practical option for testing Einstein's claims decisively and once and for all. In brief, the mainstream physicists have to choose either to behave as true scientists and real truth seekers and send synchrotron light to the moon, or to keep doing their humbug experiments and remain charlatans in the eyes of everybody including their chief attorney, Cincirob.

cinci: We already have experiments where muons moving near light speed decay and produce light at c. By the way, a number of the experiments that confirm relativty were run by anti-relativists. so your critques are baseless.
*************


Bob S: "Was Albert Einstein an Idiot Savant? Yes? No? explain?" Albert Einstein was neither an idiot, a savant nor an idiot savant, he was an obsessive, under achieving slackard. Leo Szilard, for example, was a true genius, Einstein was a pseudo-genius.

cinci: Read the five papers he wrote in 1905.
***************************

AAF, you imbecile, you are describing the Ives-Stilwell experiment (electrons emitting light that is reflected by mirrors at the end of the light path). It is just that you are too stoooopid to know it, MORON.

Re: Cincirob, On Testing the Postulate of Constancy December 14 2008, 11:09 PM

Cinci,
"Bob S: "Was Albert Einstein an Idiot Savant? Yes? No? explain?" Albert Einstein was neither an idiot, a savant nor an idiot savant, he was an obsessive, under achieving slackard. Leo Szilard, for example, was a true genius, Einstein was a pseudo-genius.

cinci: Read the five papers he wrote in 1905."

Yes Cinci, which brings me full circle to my answer which is; No! not without intervention. The laws of nature do not accommodate Divine intervention; human intervention yes, Divine intervention no!

"Bob S: "Was Albert Einstein an Idiot Savant? Yes? No? explain?" Albert Einstein was neither an idiot, a savant nor an idiot savant, he was an obsessive, under achieving slackard. Leo Szilard, for example, was a true genius, Einstein was a pseudo-genius.

cinci: Read the five papers he wrote in 1905."


Bob S.: Yes Cinci, which brings me full circle to my answer which is; No! not without intervention. The laws of nature do not accommodate Divine intervention; human intervention yes, Divine intervention no!


cinci: Where did divine intervention enter the discussion. Are yousaying he coudlnt' have written the papers without divivne intervention.
************************************

AAF: Still it's a 'heck' of a job! And it's clear that I'm the one who lights, here, 1000 candles to show you the absurdities of Relativity, and you the one who curses the light because you don't want to see the ugliness of Relativity; right Cincirob? Those so-called experiments are bogus and worthless as far proofs and disproofs are concerned. In the past, the Relativists used to justify doing such useless experiments by saying all potential effects are intrinsically minute and there is no other alternative but to use them. Not anymore! Sending timed pulses of synchrotron light to the NASA reflectors on the moon is a very viable and practical option for testing Einstein's claims decisively and once and for all. In brief, the mainstream physicists have to choose either to behave as true scientists and real truth seekers and send synchrotron light to the moon, or to keep doing their humbug experiments and remain charlatans in the eyes of everybody including their chief attorney, Cincirob.


Cincirob: New post, same old nonsense. We already have experiments where muons moving near light speed decay and produce light at c. By the way, a number of the experiments that confirm relativity were run by anti-relativists. so your critiques are baseless.


B>AAF: Look, Cinci! Muons are more obscure and more hypothetical and more unknown than photons. And just can't scientifically or logically use something of more unknown nature to verify or prove some aspect of something of less unknown nature. This so-called Muon experiment is quite frankly a sham nothing more and nothing less. And so, it's left to the earth-shuttering synchrotron experiment to settle the issue of variable light speed once and for all. Even the confirmed idiot (Ted) can, in theory, anticipate and foresee such an unmitigated disaster that the timed synchrotron pulses will bring upon your beloved Relativity!


Ted: AAF, you imbecile, you are describing the Ives-Stilwell experiment (electrons emitting light that is reflected by mirrors at the end of the light path). It is just that you are too stoooopid to know it, MORON. The scientists have already done this test, it confirms SR to a very high precision. It infirms your moronic misconception that the speed of light , c adds up with the speed of the emitter, v to form c+v. Just that an autistic imbecile like AAF doesn't know that is only ...AAF's fault You were born stupid, you will die stupid. Your imbecility is not curable, moron.



B>AAF: The synchrotron experiment is very original and having nothing do with the phony IS experiment, Imbecile Ted! Well, not most of it. You see; NASA has done exactly the same experiment using laser light. To make life a bit more difficult for the folks of Relativity, I've concluded that the repetition of the NASA experiment using synchrotron light would certainly test Einstein's Postulate of Constancy very decisively and put the Relativists between a rock and hard place and potentially out of business for good. That is to say Veni Vidi Vici: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/veni-vidi-vici.php

AAF: The synchrotron experiment is very original and having nothing do with the phony IS experiment

Ted: MORON AAF, synchroton radiation is unusable since it has a very wide spectrum.This makes it unusable, imbecile.
By contrast, the Ives-Stilwell experiment uses atomic transitions which are very sharp. It shows that, contrary to your moronic ideas, the speed of the source (ions) doesn't add with the speed of light.

Your idiocy and ignorance are showing in a very big way, Ted.

Moron, the range of spectrum of synchrotron light is the same as that of laser light.
Besides, the spectrum is not an issue here, because there is no use for it in this experiment.
Only the intervals of the total travel time from earth to the moon and back to earth again are important.

As for the IS experiment is outdated and its very short path makes it a joke; that is what it is; just a joke!

AAF, your imbecility is not curable, synchroton spectrum and laser spectrum are totally different. You must be an old fart as well, about 50+ yo, suffering from early Alzheimer onset.

Ted, the only moronic ignorant old (70+) 'fart' around here is you.

Moron, laser and synchrotron have the same broad range of spectrum, because both are very bright white light.
Yes, they can be filtered out to various colors using simple color filters. But, there is need for filtering any of them within this
long-range experiment.

Ted, the only moronic ignorant old (70+) 'fart' around here is you.

Moron, laser and synchrotron have the same broad range of spectrum, because both are very bright white light.
Yes, they can be filtered out to various colors using simple color filters. But, there is no need for filtering any of them within this
long-range experiment.

Iggy Liggety, you are the one with the perverted mind. Only you would go around smelling other's farts. Don't complain if you don't enjoy it,

Re: Cincirob, On Testing the Postulate of Constancy December 15 2008, 6:21 PM

Cinci,
""Bob S: "Was Albert Einstein an Idiot Savant? Yes? No? explain?" Albert Einstein was neither an idiot, a savant nor an idiot savant, he was an obsessive, under achieving slackard. Leo Szilard, for example, was a true genius, Einstein was a pseudo-genius.

cinci: Read the five papers he wrote in 1905."

Bob S.: Yes Cinci, which brings me full circle to my answer which is; No! not without intervention. The laws of nature do not accommodate Divine intervention; human intervention yes, Divine intervention no!

cinci: Where did divine intervention enter the discussion. Are yousaying he coudlnt' have written the papers without divivne intervention."

What I am saying is, that for the answer to be Yes!, Divine intervention is required. I suggest that it is you who should read the 1905 papers Cinci. I made it quite clear that nature does not accommodate Divine intervention. Your reading comprehension is still sub-par I see.

Bob S: What I am saying is, that for the answer to be Yes!, Divine intervention is required. I suggest that it is you who should read the 1905 papers Cinci. I made it quite clear that nature does not accommodate Divine intervention. Your reading comprehension is still sub-par I see.


cinci: Well short of dividne intervention, I guess we're never going to get you to see the light.
*****************************

If I was God, I'd stay out of it too.

Re: Cincirob, On Testing the Postulate of Constancy December 15 2008, 11:27 PM

Cinci,
"Bob S: What I am saying is, that for the answer to be Yes!, Divine intervention is required. I suggest that it is you who should read the 1905 papers Cinci. I made it quite clear that nature does not accommodate Divine intervention. Your reading comprehension is still sub-par I see.

cinci: Well short of dividne intervention, I guess we're never going to get you to see the light."

Again Cinci, I suggest you read the 1905 papers otherwise you will never understand my answer. There is no Divine intervention Cinci, not for me, not for you and most assuredly, there was none for Einstein's work.

AAF: laser and synchrotron have the same broad range of spectrum, because both are very bright white light.

Ted: AAF, you MORON, laser is MONOCHROMATIC (i.e. single frequency).So, it isn't "white light", imbecile.
You don't have to prove that you are an ignorant idiot with every post, you have convinced everybody. Take a break, MORON.

"Bob S: What I am saying is, that for the answer to be Yes!, Divine intervention is required. I suggest that it is you who should read the 1905 papers Cinci. I made it quite clear that nature does not accommodate Divine intervention. Your reading comprehension is still sub-par I see.

cinci: Well short of divine intervention, I guess we're never going to get you to see the light."

Again Cinci, I suggest you read the 1905 papers otherwise you will never understand my answer. There is no Divine intervention Cinci, not for me, not for you and most assuredly, there was none for Einstein's work.


cinci: Einstein's 1905 papers were works of genius, human genius. That's what Einstein was. His IQ was around 160. I don't know what your "divine interventin" comments are supposed to mean and at this point I no longer care. Is your problem that you just don't want to admit that Einstein might have been a lot smarter than you and you need to bring him down to avoud feeling inferior? Just what is your problem?
***********************

Re: Cincirob, On Testing the Postulate of Constancy December 16 2008, 11:42 AM

cinci,
"cinci: Einstein's 1905 papers were works of genius, human genius. That's what Einstein was. His IQ was around 160. I don't know what your "divine interventin" comments are supposed to mean and at this point I no longer care. Is your problem that you just don't want to admit that Einstein might have been a lot smarter than you and you need to bring him down to avoud feeling inferior? Just what is your problem?"

If you no longer care then why ask me two questions, you never even asked me the question I was giving an answer to. You haven't "cared" since you came on board here all you want to do is be antagonistic. I am inferior to no Man or Woman; in fact, being "somewhat of a idiot" gives me the advantage to most of either!

Ted: AAF, you imbecile, you are describing the Ives-Stilwell experiment (electrons emitting light that is reflected by mirrors at the end of the light path). It is just that you are too stoooopid to know it, MORON. The scientists have already done this test, it confirms SR to a very high precision. It infirms your moronic misconception that the speed of light , c adds up with the speed of the emitter, v to form c+v. Just that an autistic imbecile like AAF doesn't know that is only ...AAF's fault You were born stupid, you will die stupid. Your imbecility is not curable, moron.


AAF: The synchrotron experiment is very original and having nothing do with the phony IS experiment, Imbecile Ted! Well, not most of it. You see; NASA has done exactly the same experiment using laser light. To make life a bit more difficult for the folks of Relativity, I've concluded that the repetition of the NASA experiment using synchrotron light would certainly test Einstein's Postulate of Constancy very decisively and put the Relativists between a rock and hard place and potentially out of business for good. That is to say Veni Vidi Vici: http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/veni-vidi-vici.php


Ted: AAF, you MORON, laser is MONOCHROMATIC (i.e. single frequency).So, it isn't "white light", imbecile. You don't have to prove that you are an ignorant idiot with every post, you have convinced everybody. Take a break, MORON.


AAF: Ted, you're a terminal moronic case! There is white laser light: http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/257210/12/none/none/NBrea/Single-fluoride-fiber-laser-produces-white-laser-light There is also white synchrotron light that can be filtered and made monochromatic: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel3/4659/13054/00598090.pdf?temp=x
In addition, NASA has put a laser in orbit around the Moon to map its surface:
http://www.physorg.com/news4230.html Very briefly, nothing stands in the way of the synchrotron experiment to test the Postulate of Constancy of Relativity, except perhaps the morbid fear of contemporary Relativists concerning testing their pet theory and facing reality.



Bob S: What I am saying is, that for the answer to be Yes!, Divine intervention is required. I suggest that it is you who should read the 1905 papers Cinci. I made it quite clear that nature does not accommodate Divine intervention. Your reading comprehension is still sub-par I see.


Cincirob: Einstein's 1905 papers were works of genius, human genius. That's what Einstein was. His IQ was around 160. I don't know what your "divine intervention" comments are supposed to mean and at this point I no longer care. Is your problem that you just don't want to admit that Einstein might have been a lot smarter than you and you need to bring him down to avoid feeling inferior? Just what is your problem?


AAF: The 1905 paper was a work of a crackpot, Cincirob! What else could the nonsense of time dilation and length contraction be labeled except the work of a confirmed crackpot?


Curt: Sorry AAF, I am not sure who is who in your post, Jorges Arbusto, to me is the unmitigated buffoon, and the reporter is the one with the valid point. I agree with you on most everything, but you travel with the Hegalian right wing on this subject.


AAF: Curt, no matter how you look at it, that moronic reporter is a disgrace to journalism and deserving contempt. That 'son of a bitch' was a slave in every sense of the word; and the President was his true liberator. In a nutshell, that shoe thrower should be hanged upside down with his legs and left for the desert flies to feast on him!

Cincirob: Einstein's 1905 papers were works of genius, human genius. That's what Einstein was. His IQ was around 160. I don't know what your "divine intervention" comments are supposed to mean and at this point I no longer care. Is your problem that you just don't want to admit that Einstein might have been a lot smarter than you and you need to bring him down to avoid feeling inferior? Just what is your problem?


AAF: The 1905 paper was a work of a crackpot, Cincirob! What else could the nonsense of time dilation and length contraction be labeled except the work of a confirmed crackpot?


cinci: I'd call it a great leap forward in theoretical physics. All new ideas are rejected by people who can't think outside the prevailing ideas. You're 100 years out of whack, AAF. It's time to start catching up. It's never too late.
********************************

Ted: You are the same old imbecile, AAF, no matter what the subject. It is good to see that you are an even MORON, what in the sentence
"The white-light laser resulted from the COMBINATION of 522 and 635 nm laser energy...." didn't you understand, cretinoid? Never mind

Ted, you're a real idiot, and you know it!
That laser light is white; and that means it consists of the primary colors of the spectrum.
And that is it.

Hi, Ted ::::
It's me again!

The following articles are about the NASA Laser experiment that inspires the earth-shaking synchrotron experiment for putting the theory of Relativity to the ultimate experimental test:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment
[2] http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=605

AAF, as is usual, Cincirob has twisted my words to suit his own purpose, what I said about Einstein was, "Albert Einstein was neither an idiot, a savant nor an idiot savant, he was an obsessive, under achieving slackard. Leo Szilard, for example, was a true genius, Einstein was a pseudo-genius" I never said Einstein was stupid. Cinci responded with, "cinci: Einstein's 1905 papers were works of genius, human genius. That's what Einstein was. His IQ was around 160." I doubt that Einstein was ever tester for an IQ let alone having one of 160". The IQ test was not developed until 1904 and it was originally for children, Einstein was about 27 at that time. My question is; do you know if Einstein was ever "really" tested for his IQ? I am asking you because I dont believe anything Cinci says.

Also, did you know that ExLax was developed in 1905 because an Hungarian chemist saw the advent of the Relativist and knew a fix was to be needed.

bob s

Bob;

The main method for the IQ estimate, in the case of Einstein and others, is based mainly upon achievements. And so, if the the value of the achievements goes up, the IQ scores go up; and if it goes down, the IQ scores go down with it. The following is Cox' method for estimating the IQ scores of historical geniuses:

In 1926, psychologist Dr. Catherine Morris Cox - who had been assisted by Dr. Lewis M. Terman, Dr. Florence L. Goodenaugh, and Dr. Kate Gordon - published a study of the most eminent men and women who had lived between 1450 and 1850 to estimate what their IQs might have been. Data from that study as well as other sources around the net were compiled to form the following list. Please drop me a comment if you have additions or corrections (make sure and cite sources).


190 - Ludwig Wittgenstein
190 - Sir Isaac Newton
190 - Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
180 - Leonardo da Vinci
180 - David Hume
180 - Buonarroti Michelangelo
179 - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
176 - Emanuel Swedenborg
176 - Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
175 - Johannes Kepler
175 - Edmund Spenser
175 - Baruch Spinoza
174 - John Stuart Mill
171 - Blaise Pascal
170 - Michael Faraday
170 - George Friedrich Hegel
170 - Antoine Lavoisier
170 - Martin Luther
165 - Galileo Galilei
165 - Charlotte Bront
165 - Johann Sebastian Bach
165 - Thomas Hobbes
165 - Carl von Linn
165 - John Locke
165 - Joseph Priestley
165 - Ludwig van Beethoven
165 - Samuel Johnson
162 - Rene Descartes
162 - Madame De Stael
160 - Albert Einstein
160 - Robert Boyle
160 - Benjamin Franklin
159 - Immanuel Kant
156 - Linus Carl Pauling
156 - Sofia Kovalevskaya
156 - Thomas Chatterton
156 - Olof Palme
155 - Rembrandt van Rijn
155 - Miguel de Cervantes
155 - Jonathan Swift
153 - Charles Darwin
153 - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
150 - George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans)
150 - Nicolaus Copernicus
150 - Abraham Lincoln
145 - Napoleon Bonaparte
145 - Anna Lindh
143 - George Sand (Aurore Dupin)
140 - George Washington
130 - Ulysses S. Grant
130 - Sir Francis Drake

http://onemansblog.com/2007/11/08/the-massive-list-of-genius-people-with-the-highest-iq/

AAF: The following articles are about the NASA Laser experiment that inspires the earth-shaking synchrotron experiment for putting the theory of Relativity to the ultimate experimental test:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment
[2] http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=605

cinci: Since the Earth-Moon system is moving through space at 360 km/sec, Why wouldn't this show up in the data? As they make these maeasurments at different times of the years they should see a +/- 1% change in the round trip time. It's not the 50% change that you think you'll get, but I can get 1% of 3 seconds on a hand-held stopwatch. Why aren't they seeing it? What's wrong with your theory?
***************************

Re: AAF, On Testing the Postulate of Constancy December 17 2008, 1:44 AM

AAF,
"Bob;
The main method for the IQ estimate, in the case of Einstein and others, is based mainly upon achievements. And so, if the the value of the achievements goes up, the IQ scores go up; and if it goes down, the IQ scores go down with it. The following is Cox' method for estimating the IQ scores of historical geniuses:"

That is quite a formidable list AAF, but I take it that none of those people actually took an IQ test so it seems more like a comparison of accomplishments, which is OK, but were their failures factored in?

John P. offers an IQ test to see how one may compare to those on the list but the test is only 40 min. long while those on the list had a life time. Einstein was (assigned) an IQ of 160 over his life time I would have to (earn) an IQ based on a 40 min. test. It seems to me that it would diminish my IQ if I agreed to take the test under those conditions.

bob s

I do wonder though, how many people on that list would fall for a "ponzi scheme"

Bob S: I do wonder though, how many people on that list would fall for a "ponzi scheme"


cinci: It seems to me that all of these Wall Street geniuses who invested in this Madoff character should be forced to give back all the money they ever made for giving advice on investing. What a bunch of phoneys.
************************************

Cincirob: Einstein's 1905 papers were works of genius, human genius. That's what Einstein was. His IQ was around 160. I don't know what your "divine intervention" comments are supposed to mean and at this point I no longer care. Is your problem that you just don't want to admit that Einstein might have been a lot smarter than you and you need to bring him down to avoid feeling inferior? Just what is your problem?


AAF: The 1905 paper was a work of a crackpot, Cincirob! What else could the nonsense of time dilation and length contraction be labeled except the work of a confirmed crackpot?


Cincirob: I'd call it a great leap forward in theoretical physics. All new ideas are rejected by people who can't think outside the prevailing ideas. You're 100 years out of whack, AAF. It's time to start catching up. It's never too late.


AAF: Your above testimony in favor of your Albert has the same value as the testimony of the bride's mom in favor of her daughter! I don't buy it. Furthermore, time dilation and length contraction are an old hat and more than 100 years out of whack. That is the truth, Cincirob.

Cincirob: Einstein's 1905 papers were works of genius, human genius. That's what Einstein was. His IQ was around 160. I don't know what your "divine intervention" comments are supposed to mean and at this point I no longer care. Is your problem that you just don't want to admit that Einstein might have been a lot smarter than you and you need to bring him down to avoid feeling inferior? Just what is your problem?


AAF: The 1905 paper was a work of a crackpot, Cincirob! What else could the nonsense of time dilation and length contraction be labeled except the work of a confirmed crackpot?


cinci: If only those ideas were nonsense you would have a point.

By the way, you and the other antirelativity people have to make up your mind. Half the time you're telling me his ideas are no good and the other half of the time you tell me he was a charlatan for stealing good ideas from someone else. It makes it clear that you're just staring at these great ideas uncomprehendingly, like cows staring at a passing train.
********************************


Cincirob: I'd call it a great leap forward in theoretical physics. All new ideas are rejected by people who can't think outside the prevailing ideas. You're 100 years out of whack, AAF. It's time to start catching up. It's never too late.


AAF: Your above testimony in favor of your Albert has the same value as the testimony of the bride's mom in favor of her daughter! I don't buy it. Furthermore, time dilation and length contraction are an old hat and more than 100 years out of whack. That is the truth, Cincirob.


cinci: The truth? You can't handle the truth! And who would know her daughter better than her mother. Maybe that's your problem....you keep listening to the wrong sources.
*************************************

AAF: The 1905 paper was a work of a crackpot, Cincirob! What else could the nonsense of time dilation and length contraction be labeled except the work of a confirmed crackpot?


Cincirob: If only those ideas were nonsense you would have a point. By the way, you and the other antirelativity people have to make up your mind. Half the time you're telling me his ideas are no good and the other half of the time you tell me he was a charlatan for stealing good ideas from someone else. It makes it clear that you're just staring at these great ideas uncomprehendingly, like cows staring at a passing train.


AAF: 'Like cows staring at a passing train', what a fertile imagination; I like it! However, the opponents of Einstein's Relativity are a diverse group; and it's a mistake to treat them as if they were one homogeneous group having the same approach and the same ideas; because they are not. As for me, the theory of Relativity is an absurd theory out and out regardless of whose ideas its main ideas are and to whom they belong.


Cincirob: I'd call it a great leap forward in theoretical physics. All new ideas are rejected by people who can't think outside the prevailing ideas. You're 100 years out of whack, AAF. It's time to start catching up. It's never too late.


AAF: Your above testimony in favor of your Albert has the same value as the testimony of the bride's mom in favor of her daughter! I don't buy it. Furthermore, time dilation and length contraction are an old hat and more than 100 years out of whack. That is the truth, Cincirob.


Cincirob: The truth? You can't handle the truth! And who would know her daughter better than her mother. Maybe that's your problem....you keep listening to the wrong sources.


AAF: But the bride's mom has an obvious motive to exaggerate and lie a little; and that motive is to trap and snare the best groom around for her beloved daughter! Her testimony in favor of her daughter, therefore, is unbelievable to say the least. And the same applies to Cincirib's current testimony in favor of Einstein's Relativity; right?

AAF : As for me, the theory of Relativity is an absurd theory out and out

Ted: This must be because you are so dumb and you can't learn it. So, you'll die dumb, but why do you feel that you need to advertise your stupidity on a daily basis?

Hi Ted===>>>>>>

I bet you will meet the 'Old One' and still believe Relativity is OK!
In other words, you are not just an idiot and moron and dumb, but a big sucker too.
Look, big moron; Time Dilation is a lie. Length Contraction is a lie. Constant c is a lie.
Variable Mass is a lie. And your intellectual life is a lie!

well, one thing is sure, you are an imbecile and you'll die one , AAF.

Hello Ted ---------->>>>>>>>>>>>

well, one more thing is sure, you are an imbecile and sucker and you'll die one , Ted!

AAF: The 1905 paper was a work of a crackpot, Cincirob! What else could the nonsense of time dilation and length contraction be labeled except the work of a confirmed crackpot?


Cincirob: If only those ideas were nonsense you would have a point. By the way, you and the other antirelativity people have to make up your mind. Half the time you're telling me his ideas are no good and the other half of the time you tell me he was a charlatan for stealing good ideas from someone else. It makes it clear that you're just staring at these great ideas uncomprehendingly, like cows staring at a passing train.


AAF: 'Like cows staring at a passing train', what a fertile imagination; I like it! However, the opponents of Einstein's Relativity are a diverse group; and it's a mistake to treat them as if they were one homogeneous group having the same approach and the same ideas; because they are not. As for me, the theory of Relativity is an absurd theory out and out regardless of whose ideas its main ideas are and to whom they belong.


cinci: Is it your intention now to talk the world out of believing relativity? No more phoney experiments, not Dingle imaginary math, just you talking...that's it? Do you know how boring that is?
*********************************

Cincirob: I'd call it a great leap forward in theoretical physics. All new ideas are rejected by people who can't think outside the prevailing ideas. You're 100 years out of whack, AAF. It's time to start catching up. It's never too late.


AAF: Your above testimony in favor of your Albert has the same value as the testimony of the bride's mom in favor of her daughter! I don't buy it. Furthermore, time dilation and length contraction are an old hat and more than 100 years out of whack. That is the truth, Cincirob.


Cincirob: The truth? You can't handle the truth! And who would know her daughter better than her mother. Maybe that's your problem....you keep listening to the wrong sources.


AAF: But the bride's mom has an obvious motive to exaggerate and lie a little; and that motive is to trap and snare the best groom around for her beloved daughter! Her testimony in favor of her daughter, therefore, is unbelievable to say the least. And the same applies to Cincirib's current testimony in favor of Einstein's Relativity; right?

cinci: No, you've already proven that there is absolutely nothing for me to gain by supporting relativity...unless you're holding my paycheck.....
*************************

Cincirob: Since the Earth-Moon system is moving through space at 360 km/sec, Why wouldn't this show up in the data? As they make these measurements at different times of the years they should see a +/- 1% change in the round trip time. It's not the 50% change that you think you'll get, but I can get 1% of 3 seconds on a hand-held stopwatch. Why aren't they seeing it? What's wrong with your theory?


AAF: The (360 km/sec) wouldn't show up in the data, because the measuring observer (NASA) is moving with the same speed in the same direction as the earth-moon system.


Cincirob: So when you do your famous synchrotron radiation experiment, the measuring observer won't be moving with the earth-moon system? What are you going to do, shoot him off in space somewhere? Is he going to ride the synchrotron beam?


AAF: Don't be silly! The muzzle speed of the synchrotron light is very close to 2c. And this speed would show up in the measurements of the synchrotron experiment regardless of the space motion of the earth-moon system.

AAF: Don't be silly! The muzzle speed of the synchrotron light is very close to 2c.

Ted: still the same old self-deluded imbecile, AAF. Light speed doesn't add with source speed, moron.

AAF:
Don't be silly! The muzzle speed of the synchrotron light is very close to 2c.

Ted:
Still the same old self-deluded imbecile, AAF. Light speed doesn't add with source speed, moron.

AAF:
Still the same old self-deluded imbecile, Ted. Light speed must be assumed to add with source speed in any experiment to test Einstein's Postulate of Conctancy, moron.

ESTRAGON:
(giving up again). Nothing to be done.
VLADIMIR:
(advancing with short, stiff strides, legs wide apart). I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I've tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle. (He broods, musing on the struggle. Turning to Estragon.) So there you are again.
ESTRAGON:
Am I?
VLADIMIR:
I'm glad to see you back. I thought you were gone forever.
ESTRAGON:
Me too.
VLADIMIR:
Together again at last! We'll have to celebrate this. But how? (He reflects.) Get up till I embrace you.
ESTRAGON:
(irritably). Not now, not now.
VLADIMIR:
(hurt, coldly). May one inquire where His Highness spent the night?
ESTRAGON:
In a ditch.
VLADIMIR:
(admiringly). A ditch! Where?
ESTRAGON:
(without gesture). Over there.

http://samuel-beckett.net/Waiting_for_Godot_Part1.html

AAF: ed. Light speed must be assumed to add with source speed in any experiment to test Einstein's Postulate of Conctancy

Ted: AAF, this has been done many times, old imbecile (you already got the list of experiments many times over, autistic imbecile). The result has always been the same. So , only a hardened idiot like you would write 2c.

AAF: "Light speed must be assumed to add with source speed in any experiment to test Einstein's Postulate of Constancy"

Iggy Liggety said:: "AAF, this has been done many times, old imbecile (you already got the list of experiments many times over, autistic imbecile). The result has always been the same. So , only a hardened idiot like you would write 2c."

Curt says: Iggy Liggety demonstrates his juvenile lack of intelligence, knowledge, and logic with his every post. He is a cesspool of ad hominem verbiage.

The obvious way to test the speed of any object is to gauge the duration of time the object takes to pass over a known distance. Since light is not necessarily an object, complications arise. In AAF's experiment, the scintillated light, when bounced off the mirror on the moon, may then acquire the speed of the mirror on the moon, his experiment may be flawed.

To really test the speed of light from a high speed emitter, the short, intense pulse from it must be clocked directly as it passes between the two points having the known distance. This has never been done.

Cincirob: Since the Earth-Moon system is moving through space at 360 km/sec, Why wouldn't this show up in the data? As they make these measurements at different times of the years they should see a +/- 1% change in the round trip time. It's not the 50% change that you think you'll get, but I can get 1% of 3 seconds on a hand-held stopwatch. Why aren't they seeing it? What's wrong with your theory?


AAF: The (360 km/sec) wouldn't show up in the data, because the measuring observer (NASA) is moving with the same speed in the same direction as the earth-moon system.


Cincirob: So when you do your famous synchrotron radiation experiment, the measuring observer won't be moving with the earth-moon system? What are you going to do, shoot him off in space somewhere? Is he going to ride the synchrotron beam?


AAF: Don't be silly! The muzzle speed of the synchrotron light is very close to 2c. And this speed would show up in the measurements of the synchrotron experiment regardless of the space motion of the earth-moon system.

cinci: Well we all know the "muzzle speed" of light is c so this is bogus. By the way, here's arel experiment that evaluates the one-way speed of light and drives the last nail in that coffin. Read it and weep. It's the end of the antirelativist whimper "Oh but we've never really measured the one-way speed of light....boo hoo hoo"

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v56/i6/p4405_1

"A test of special relativity has been carried out using data of clock comparisons between hydrogen maser clocks on the ground and cesium and rubidium clocks on board 25 global positioning system (GPS) satellites. The clocks were compared via carrier phase measurements of the GPS signal using geodetic receivers at a number of stations of the International GPS Service for Geodynamics (IGS) spread worldwide. In special relativity, synchronization of distant clocks by slow clock transport and by Einstein synchrony (using the transmission of light signals) is equivalent in any inertial frame. A violation of this equivalence can be modeled using the parameter Âc/c, where c is the round-trip speed of light (c=299 792 458 m/s in vacuum) and Âc is the deviation from c of the observed velocity of a light signal traveling one way along a particular spatial direction with the measuring clocks synchronized using slow clock transport. In special relativity Âc/c=0. Experiments can set a limit on the value of Âc/c along a particular spatial direction (henceforth referred to as gdirection of Âch). Within this model our experiment is sensitive to a possible violation of special relativity in any direction of Âc, and on a nonlaboratory scale (baselines >~20 000 km). The results presented here set an upper limit on the value of Âc/c<5~10-9 when considering all spatial directions of Âc and Âc/c<2~10-9 for the component in the equatorial plane." <br> **************************

Just more propaganda Kooks Cinci! that's all it is propaganda.

Bob S: Just more propaganda Kooks Cinci! that's all it is propaganda.


cinci: Just keep your head jammed firmly into the sand (or wherever you've got it jammed) and don't let any facts get in the eay of what you think.
********************************

Re: Cincirob, On Testing the Postulate of Constancy December 22 2008, 9:23 AM

Cinci,
cinci: Just keep your head jammed firmly into the sand (or wherever you've got it jammed) and don't let any facts get in the eay of what you think.

Propagandists use facts Cinci, they twist and distort the facts to suit their own ends. I just dont let propaganda get in the eay of what I think.

Re: Cincirob, On Testing the Postulate of Constancy December 22 2008, 9:23 AM

Cinci,
cinci: Just keep your head jammed firmly into the sand (or wherever you've got it jammed) and don't let any facts get in the way of what you think.

Bob S: Propagandists use facts Cinci, they twist and distort the facts to suit their own ends. I just dont let propaganda get in the way of what I think.


cinci: Yes, and you don't let the facts get in the way you think either.
******************************

Cinci said: "Yes, and you don't let the facts get in the way you think either."

Curt says: Goes double for you Cinci. If the "Mainstream" says it, by golly, it's the truth, according to you! So much for the advancement of science.