For those who think that intelligence is somehow related to intellect should read this article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_bi_ge/wall_street_arrest

bob s

Bob S: For those who think that intelligence is somehow related to intellect should read this article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_bi_ge/wall_street_arrest


AAF: I would say the two are related in such a way that, even though it's quite possible to be very intelligent without being necessarily an intellectual, you can't be an intellectual without some intelligence. The question now is this: Can a stupid person trick and dupe an intelligent one? The answer is yes! The main reason for it is that intelligent people assume and expect other people to behave intelligently and do intelligent things. And that is precisely the point of weakness or Achilles' heel that helps people with low IQ to shine and score some winning points. A stupid person simply goes ahead and does an unexpected thing and makes intelligent people stupefied and dumbfounded. Take, as an example, what this moronic journalist did to very intelligent security services by unexpectedly throwing his shoes at President Bush: http://stupidcelebrities.net/2008/12/14/bush-shoe-attack-video-iraqi-journalist-throws-shoes-at-bush-during-press-conference/ In short, the stupid can win and have his day!

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: 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


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.


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


Cincirob: 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.



AAF: That is true, Bob; none of them took an IQ test. The only one of those famous individuals, who took an IQ test, was H. Poincaré; and he got an idiotic IQ of (30) on that test! Anyway, very high IQ alone is not enough to make a genius. Otherwise, the members of very high IQ societies like Omega and Sigma and Mensa would have been in terms of accomplishment as great as any on the Cox' List. According to the author of a book entitled At the Gates of Excellence, to be a genius, you need to have other traits beside a high IQ (but not very high IQ), including imagination, reflective thinking, fluid thinking, persistence, hard work, taste for discovery, very thick skin, and less than satisfying life: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112416472/abstract

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.


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

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 an absurd theory out and out regardless of whose ideas its main ideas are and to whom they belong.


Cincirob: 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?


AAF: Yes, it is! Certainly, no phony experiments and no imaginary math; I've put forwards only real experiments and very solid unassailable math; right, 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?


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


AAF: Oh, you have a lot to gain by supporting Relativity! And it's something more important than money. You see, Cinci; you've invested a lot of time and energy and effort to develop a detailed explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment on the basis of Special Relativity. Now, if Special Relativity turns out to be false as I predict, then your very detailed explanation must go down the drain or the gutter as well; correct?

Re: AAF, As to intelligence v. intellect December 21 2008, 6:42 PM

AAF< <br> To Cinci: "Oh, you have a lot to gain by supporting Relativity! And it's something more important than money. You see, Cinci; you've invested a lot of time and energy and effort to develop a detailed explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment on the basis of Special Relativity. Now, if Special Relativity turns out to be false as I predict, then your very detailed explanation must go down the drain or the gutter as well; correct?"

Cinci did a paper on the MM experiment? Link me to it so I can tell him where he went wrong. MM was little more than a poorly conceived high school science project 10th grade= "B+" 12th grade= "D" at best.

bob s

Bob S: Cinci did a paper on the MM experiment? Link me to it so I can tell him where he went wrong. MM was little more than a poorly conceived high school science project 10th grade= "B+" 12th grade= "D" at best.

cinci: Michelson got a the Nobel prize for it. I assume when you strarighten him out you'll get one too. Invite me to the ceremony.

And why bother "correcting" what I did. Here's Michelson's own work....correct that:

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/refs/mm.html
*********************

Re: Cincirob, As to intelligence v. intellect December 22 2008, 9:21 AM

Cinci,
"Michelson got a the Nobel prize for it. I assume when you strarighten him out you'll get one too. Invite me to the ceremony."

His prize was for the optics Cinci, not the experiment, already you are trying to change the subject; relativists are known to do that (changing the subject).

Cinci,
"And why bother "correcting" what I did. Here's Michelson's own work....correct that:"

Why would you have me do that? Do you not stand behind your work?

Cinci,
"Michelson got a the Nobel prize for it. I assume when you straighten him out you'll get one too. Invite me to the ceremony."

Bob S: His prize was for the optics Cinci, not the experiment, already you are trying to change the subject; relativists are known to do that (changing the subject).

cinci: He got it for: "for his optical precision instruments and the spectroscopic and metrological investigations carried out with their aid" That would include the interfereometer and the MMX experiment.
***********************************

Cinci,
"And why bother "correcting" what I did. Here's Michelson's own work....correct that:"

Bob S: Why would you have me do that? Do you not stand behind your work?

cinci: Sure I do, but the arguments on this forum aren't whether I'm right or not, they are whether mainstream science is right or not. You can't disprove mainsteram science by attacking my work, you have to got to go after the actual stuff. What's your problem, not sure you'll be able to do that?
*********************

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.


Cincirob: Well we all know the "muzzle speed" of light is c so this is bogus. By the way, here's real 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.</Font>



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


AAF: That is right, Bob; it's just the usual Relativity's propaganda and little else. As stated many times before, if (c + v) is a true fact of nature, then the speed of the synchrotron light ought to be close to 2c. Measuring the travel time of synchrotron light over some known distance, therefore, is the ultimate unambiguous test for Einstein's theory of Relativity. So, Cincirob, stop talking about those bogus and outdated experiments, because such miserable hoaxes of the twentieth century prove nothing but the crookedness and crudeness of those hoaxers of the last century. Those old hoaxers were so miserable and shameless that they actually used the inaccuracy and malfunctioning of their clocks as scientific evidence for their pet theories. How could you be fooled by stupid hoaxes like those sham experiments of Relativity?

AAF: if (c + v) is a true fact of nature...

Ted : ..but it isn't you autistic imbecile. The speed composition is not c+v but (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2)=c for any v, you hardened imbecile

AAF: Good evening & good (c + v), Idiot Ted-------->>>>>>>>


Ted: ..but it isn't you autistic imbecile. The speed composition is not c+v but (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2)=c for any v, you hardened imbecile


AAF: Idiot Ted; you can't use the BS of Relativity to challenge experimentally the BS of Relativity!
The use of (c + v) is a must; do you understand, Imbecile Ted?

cinci: I just figured out what AAF and Bob S think propaganda is: it's anything they don't know or understand.

This is the correct definition of propaganda:

Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Just becasue you can look it up doesn't mean you can recognize it.
*************************

Re: Cincirob, As to intelligence v. intellect December 23 2008, 6:02 AM

Cinci,
"Just becasue you can look it up doesn't mean you can recognize it."

It is the victims of propaganda, like you Cinci, that are unwilling to admit their victimization. Just becasue you you can't admit it does not mean we can't recognize it.

Actually Bob, all propaganda isn't bad. You have to understand the underlying facts to know the difference. I just posted an experiment that used the GPS system to confirm the one-way speed of light, which is an argument I've been making for some time. You simply dismissed it as propaganda without a single reason why. You're on automatic, Bob; any idea related to relativity is automatically bad in your mind. That automatic rejection is the result of your acceptance of anti-relativity propaganda. You need to start thinking again. Don't wait until it's too late for you as AAF has.

Re: Cincirob, As to intelligence v. intellect December 23 2008, 10:00 AM

Cinci,
"Actually Bob, all propaganda isn't bad. You have to understand the underlying facts to know the difference. I just posted an experiment that used the GPS system to confirm the one-way speed of light, which is an argument I've been making for some time. You simply dismissed it as propaganda without a single reason why. You're on automatic, Bob; any idea related to relativity is automatically bad in your mind. That automatic rejection is the result of your acceptance of anti-relativity propaganda. You need to start thinking again. Don't wait until it's too late for you as AAF has.

Thank you for your concern Cinci but my reference of propaganda was to your quoted material, "Re: On Testing the Postulate of Constancy December 21 2008, 7:54 PM
(Just more propaganda Kooks Cinci! that's all it is propaganda.)" If you will read it a little closer you will see that I was telling you about the "propaganda kooks", it is you who is to quick to judge because you "automatically" reject anything out of hand we non-relativists say.

Merry Christmas Bob, to you and to all anti-relativists.

I don't have to wish it to the relativists; we're all merry already.
*****************************

Re: Cincirob, As to intelligence v. intellect December 23 2008, 6:06 PM

Cinci,
"Merry Christmas Bob, to you and to all anti-relativists.
I don't have to wish it to the relativists; we're all merry already."

And the best of the new year to you Cinci.

Curt, AAF and I, are thinking of you too!
http://today.myway.com/toonfunview/id/10.html

Yes, Cincirob, hope your leg is doing better than your logic.