http://www.wbabin.net/philos/pal.pdf
Interesting read...and true...assuming of course Relativity is true!

Goo grief Bob, when are you going to stop reading Babin's site?
**********************

the real issue here is - if there is a god is he stupid enough to believe relativity.

Goo (sic) grief, Cinci, when are you going to start [reading]? It might cause you to actually think, instead of spewing the same old barf on any thinking person's post?

Onestone's relativity and the Big Bang. This is how God does it. Now that you know, you too can be God.

The only problem here is that both theories are BS.

cinci: Curt, thinking persons don't bother with typographical errors.
***********************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 7 2009, 1:17 AM

cinci: "Curt, thinking persons don't bother with typographical errors."

Intelligent people try and avoid typographical errors, their thinking is, is that it is a more thoughtful way to communicate more intellectually, monkeys think!

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 6 2009, 6:53 PM

Cinci,
"Goo grief Bob, when are you going to stop reading Babin's site?"

It was an interesting read...and true...assuming of course Relativity is true!

My question is, why should I take advice from you? For an aircraft engineer who doesn't know the difference between a turbine and a jet engine I put little faith in your advice even if I should risk the chance. But to answer your question, I'll stop reading Babin's site when I've finished reading Babin's site.

Cinci, if you don't like Babin's site, go have a beer [root beer] with Mini max, and his nitwit girl friend..

Cinci,
"Good grief Bob, when are you going to stop reading Babin's site?"

Bob S: It was an interesting read...and true...assuming of course Relativity is true!

cinci: Interesting and usually good for a laugh.
********************

Bob S: My question is, why should I take advice from you? For an aircraft engineer who doesn't know the difference between a turbine and a jet engine I put little faith in your advice even if I should risk the chance. But to answer your question, I'll stop reading Babin's site when I've finished reading Babin's site.

cinci: So you still think there's a difference between a jet engine and a turbine engine. You don't even realize that your statement doesn't always make sense. In fact some jet engines are turbine engines but some aren't. And some turbine engines are jet engines and some aren't. Can you name all these variations?
**************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 8 2009, 8:39 AM

cinci: "So you still think there's a difference between a jet engine and a turbine engine."

Yes Cinci, there is a difference.


cinci: "You don't even realize that your statement doesn't always make sense. In fact some jet engines are turbine engines but some aren't. And some turbine engines are jet engines and some aren't. Can you name all these variations?"

You said those "were your turbines in the Hudson" but they weren't turbines and if you knew anything about air craft you would know the difference. Now you want me to go on fishing expedition to try and salvage your lying arse! No way! All you have to do is show me that the engines on the A320 Airbus "in the Hudson" where "turbines" and not "jet".

cinci: "You don't even realize that your statement doesn't always make sense. In fact some jet engines are turbine engines but some aren't. And some turbine engines are jet engines and some aren't. Can you name all these variations?"

Bob S: You said those "were your turbines in the Hudson" but they weren't turbines and if you knew anything about air craft you would know the difference. Now you want me to go on fishing expedition to try and salvage your lying arse! No way! All you have to do is show me that the engines on the A320 Airbus "in the Hudson" where "turbines" and not "jet".

cinci: Well first, you can't answer my question and second, the A320 engines definitely are turbine engines. In fact, they have two turbines. Where did you get the idea they weren't turbine engines?

CFM International CFM56 series engines (US military designation F108) are a family of


high-bypass turbofan engines


made by CFM International with a thrust range from 18,500 to 34,000 lbf (82 kN to 151 kN). CFM International is a 50-50 joint company of Snecma, France and GE Aviation, U.S.A. Both companies are responsible for producing various components, with each having their own final assembly line. GE is responsible for the high pressure compressor, combustor and


high pressure turbine,


while Snecma is responsible for the fan,


low pressure turbine,


the gearbox and the exhaust. The engines are assembled by GE in Evendale, Ohio, USA and by Snecma in Villaroche, France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56
***************************************

A "turbofan" engine is a "JET" engine not turbine.

Bob S: A "turbofan" engine is a "JET" engine not turbine.


cinci: Gee Bob, doesn't it mean anything at all to you that in that whole a website I cited they don't call it a JET at all? Did you miss that TURBO part of TURBOFAN?

And you still can't answer my questions.
*****************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 8 2009, 7:47 PM

Bob S: A "turbofan" engine is a "JET" engine not turbine."

cinci: Gee Bob, doesn't it mean anything at all to you that in that whole a website I cited they don't call it a JET at all? Did you miss that TURBO part of TURBOFAN?

And you still can't answer my questions."

First as to your questions, I only find thin one, "Can you name all these variations?" My answer is , yes I can! but no I won't, because the only engine at issue here is the one on the Airbus A320.

A turbine engine drives a shaft which in turn drives a generator (as in a power station) a transmission (as in the Abrams Tank) a rotor (as in a helicopter) a propeller (as in a turbo prop airplane) there have even been attempts for turbine driven cars (also through a transmission) The out put of a turbine engine is not measured in "thrust" it is measured by torque or ft. lbs.

The out put of a jet engine on the other hand is measured by thrust. The Airbus A320 is powered by two CFMI CFM56-5 or IAE V2500 with thrust ratings between 25500 to 27000 pounds force. There is no turbine engine that can propel an aircraft by thrust alone.

A "Turbo" as in Turbofan, is add on equipment to increase power and efficiency. Cars have "Turbos" but that does not make them a turbine nor a jet, many over the road trucks have "Turbos" but that does not make them a turbine nor a jet, locomotives use "Turbos" but they are not turbines or jets either, my point here is that just because a CFMI CFM56-5 or IAE V2500 has a Turbofan does not make it a "turbine" it is still a jet because its out put is thrust not torque.

Regardless of what you or your article says, or does not say, the Airbus A320 that ended up in the Hudson was powered by jet engines not turbine engines. If you had any experience in the field of air craft I would not have to be giving you this explanation. But then, if you had any experience in the field of air craft you would not have made the statement the "the turbines in the Hudson were yours" in the first place because they were not "turbines".

Bob S: First as to your questions, I only find thin one, "Can you name all these variations?" My answer is , yes I can! but no I won't, because the only engine at issue here is the one on the Airbus A320.

cinci: Well if that's the issue, I told you those were my turbines on that aircraft and I just showed you that those engines have turbines.
********************************

Bob S: A turbine engine drives a shaft which in turn drives a generator (as in a power station) a transmission (as in the Abrams Tank) a rotor (as in a helicopter) a propeller (as in a turbo prop airplane) there have even been attempts for turbine driven cars (also through a transmission) The out put of a turbine engine is not measured in "thrust" it is measured by torque or ft. lbs.

cinci: Yes, the ones in the tanks and helocopters are called a turboshaft engines.
**********************************

BobS: The out put of a jet engine on the other hand is measured by thrust. The Airbus A320 is powered by two CFMI CFM56-5 or IAE V2500 with thrust ratings between 25500 to 27000 pounds force. There is no turbine engine that can propel an aircraft by thrust alone.

cinci: Really? What else is there beside thrust?
********************************

Bob S: A "Turbo" as in Turbofan, is add on equipment to increase power and efficiency. Cars have "Turbos" but that does not make them a turbine nor a jet, many over the road trucks have "Turbos" but that does not make them a turbine nor a jet, locomotives use "Turbos" but they are not turbines or jets either, my point here is that just because a CFMI CFM56-5 or IAE V2500 has a Turbofan does not make it a "turbine" it is still a jet because its out put is thrust not torque.

cinci: Add-on equipment? Without the two turbines noted in the article, these engines don't run at all. They are the source of mechanical power. You really don't have a clue about this do you? Look at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine

Scrool down until you see the drawing entitled "Components of jet engines". Notice the turnbines in the picture. This drawing represents engines like theones in the Hudson incident.
*******************************

Bob S: Regardless of what you or your article says, or does not say, the Airbus A320 that ended up in the Hudson was powered by jet engines not turbine engines. If you had any experience in the field of air craft I would not have to be giving you this explanation. But then, if you had any experience in the field of air craft you would not have made the statement the "the turbines in the Hudson were yours" in the first place because they were not "turbines".

cinci: Keep guessing Bob. I'm loving it.
*************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 9 2009, 9:42 AM

Bob S: "First as to your questions, I only find thin one, "Can you name all these variations?" My answer is , yes I can! but no I won't, because the only engine at issue here is the one on the Airbus A320."

cinci: "Well if that's the issue, I told you those were my turbines on that aircraft and I just showed you that those engines have turbines."

The fact that a jet engine has turbine blades does not make it a turbine engine. I explained the difference and all you are doing is trying to cover your lying A$$. The Airbus A320 is a JET powered air craft NOT a turbine powered air craft.

Bob S: The fact that a jet engine has turbine blades does not make it a turbine engine. I explained the difference and all you are doing is trying to cover your lying A$$. The Airbus A320 is a JET powered air craft NOT a turbine powered air craft.


cinci: Well it has more than turbine blades. It has a complete turbine....two in fact. And those turbines are what turn the energy from burning fuel into the mechanical energy that drives the fan which produces the thrust. If having turbines doesn't make it a turbine engine then what would?
*******************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 9 2009, 8:09 PM

cinci: "If having turbines doesn't make it a turbine engine then what would?"

The Airbus A320 is a JET powered air craft NOT a turbine powered air craft. Turbine engines do not produce the thrust required to fly an air plane.

cinci: "If having turbines doesn't make it a turbine engine then what would?"

Bob S: The Airbus A320 is a JET powered air craft NOT a turbine powered air craft. Turbine engines do not produce the thrust required to fly an air plane.

cinci: Where does the power come from Bob? Why do these A320 engines have turbines in them?
**********************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 10 2009, 2:07 AM

Bob S: "The Airbus A320 is a JET powered air craft NOT a turbine powered air craft. Turbine engines do not produce the thrust required to fly an air plane."

cinci: "Where does the power come from Bob? Why do these A320 engines have turbines in them?"

Any aircraft engineer worth his weight in pocket protectors knows the difference between a jet engine and a turbine engine, you obviously you don't know the difference so you should be stripped of any and all pocket protectors.

A "turbo" also has turbine blades but it is not called a turbine it is call a "turbo" for reasons I have already stated.

Bob S: "The Airbus A320 is a JET powered air craft NOT a turbine powered air craft. Turbine engines do not produce the thrust required to fly an air plane."

cinci: "Where does the power come from Bob? Why do these A320 engines have turbines in them?"

Bob S: Any aircraft engineer worth his weight in pocket protectors knows the difference between a jet engine and a turbine engine, you obviously you don't know the difference so you should be stripped of any and all pocket protectors.

cinci: Anybody who could read what I posted knows a jet engine could be turbine engine or it might not. He would also know the jet engines in the Hudson river were turbine engines.
*************************

Bob S: A "turbo" also has turbine blades but it is not called a turbine it is call a "turbo" for reasons I have already stated.

cinci: When speaking of jet engines, "turbo" is a prefix indicating that the power source for the engine is a turbine; for example, turbofan like the Hudson river engines. As a noun, "turbo" refers to internal combustion engines with superchargers.
******************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 10 2009, 10:17 AM

Bob S: "Any aircraft engineer worth his weight in pocket protectors knows the difference between a jet engine and a turbine engine, you obviously you don't know the difference so you should be stripped of any and all pocket protectors."

cinci: "Anybody [read novice] who could read what I posted knows a jet engine could be turbine engine or it might not."

I, being an "anybody" (novice) might believe that to be true but you as a professed "somebody" (professional air craft engineer) would know that there is a distinct difference between a turbine engine and a jet engine and would not have mistaken the difference and, even if, the professional did make such a mistake would have conceded his/her mistake when it was pointed out to them by the novice.

cinci: "He [the anybody novice] would also know the jet engines in the Hudson river were turbine engines."

I may be an "anybody novice" or (nobody novice if you prefer) to air craft design but, I am not a novice to engines. You have boasted that you were an air craft engineer and boasted the "those were you turbines in the Hudson". It was your Freudian slip that exposed you as being the true novice to air craft engines, and, a slip that a true air craft engineer would not make.

All jet engines are internal combustion but not all turbine engines are internal combustion for example, some are water driven, some are steam driven and some are wind driven. An internal combustion turbine engine drives a shaft but does not produce thrust for propulsion. A jet engine only produces thrust for propulsion therefor, a jet engine is never considered a turbine engine and a turbine engine is never considered a jet engine, you might try remembering that next time you get boastful.

Bob S: I may be an "anybody novice" or (nobody novice if you prefer) to air craft design but, I am not a novice to engines. You have boasted that you were an air craft engineer and boasted the "those were your turbines in the Hudson". It was your Freudian slip that exposed you as being the true novice to air craft engines, and, a slip that a true air craft engineer would not make.

cinci: The turbines on the engines in the Hudson river incident were turbines that I had design responsibility for when the engines were certified for commercial use. If you are you saying there weren't any turbines in those engines you wouldn't even qualify as a novice. I didn't have responsibility for the whole engine so, being truthful, I didn't claim they were my engines, just my turbines. Even a novice would have figured this out by now.
************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 10 2009, 3:21 PM

cinci: "I didn't have responsibility for the whole engine so, being truthful, I didn't claim they were my engines, just my turbines. Even a novice would have figured this out by now."

Then why did it take you so long to come up with it? It might have more believable way back when this discussion first began but now it looks more like desperation. It might be better if you just pretend to "miss" this message and get back to your other museings.

cinci: "I didn't have responsibility for the whole engine so, being truthful, I didn't claim they were my engines, just my turbines. Even a novice would have figured this out by now."

Bob S: Then why did it take you so long to come up with it? It might have more believable way back when this discussion first began but now it looks more like desperation. It might be better if you just pretend to "miss" this message and get back to your other museings.

cinci: I "came out with it" in my first statment. You copied exactly that statement in one of your recent messages. I said the turbines in the Hudson River incident were mine. Since then you've been saying ridiculous things like "jet engeines aren't turbine engines" and I've been trying to correct all you wanderings. When are you going to get honest about it?
******************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 11 2009, 9:16 AM

cinci: "I "came out with it" in my first statment. You copied exactly that statement in one of your recent messages. I said the turbines in the Hudson River incident were mine."

I see, so in the beginning you weren't talking about the jet engines, you were talking about components of the jet engines; am I correct?

cinci: "I "came out with it" in my first statment. You copied exactly that statement in one of your recent messages. I said the turbines in the Hudson River incident were mine."

Bob S: I see, so in the beginning you weren't talking about the jet engines, you were talking about components of the jet engines; am I correct?

cinci: I was talking about the jet engines with the turbines in them that I had design responsibility for. What part of "jet engines have turbines in them" do you not understand after all the material I posted for you?
*******************************

You said "the turbines in the Hudson River" were yours, you did not say the turbines in the jet engines in the Hudson were yours. And, when I asked, "Then why did it take you so long to come up with it?" I did not mean the statement, I meant the explanation.

Here is your statement from March 9 2009, 8:09 PM "If having turbines doesn't make it a turbine engine then what would?" which makes it pretty clear that you were asserting, that because the A320 engines had turbines they must be turbine engines. And I was absolutely correct in saying that turbine engines are never confused with jet engines and jet engines are never confused with turbine engines. It just took you a long time to figure out the difference. Had you known the difference you would have provided the explanation in the beginning. I an just curious as to how big a brain trust did you have to gather around to try and find you an escape clause because I don't think you did it on your own.

If we try to be gracious then it was a momentarily slip made by the writer.

Bob S: You said "the turbines in the Hudson River" were yours, you did not say the turbines in the jet engines in the Hudson were yours. And, when I asked, "Then why did it take you so long to come up with it?" I did not mean the statement, I meant the explanation.

cinci: I didn't think it required any explanation since it was a simple declarative statement and I'm not required to explain myself to you in any case.
****************************

Bob S: Here is your statement from March 9 2009, 8:09 PM "If having turbines doesn't make it a turbine engine then what would?" which makes it pretty clear that you were asserting, that because the A320 engines had turbines they must be turbine engines.

cinci: This isn't my first statement. And the engines on that airplane are turbine engines as every reference I cited to you attests.
********************

Bob S: And I was absolutely correct in saying that turbine engines are never confused with jet engines and jet engines are never confused with turbine engines.

cinci: There's no confusion. Anybody who knows anything about aircraft engines will tell you the jet engines on the A320 are turbine engines.
**************************

Bob S: It just took you a long time to figure out the difference. Had you known the difference you would have provided the explanation in the beginning. I an just curious as to how big a brain trust did you have to gather around to try and find you an escape clause because I don't think you did it on your own.

cinci: No, I've understood this from the beginning and I've understood it for at least 40 years now that I've been associated with the business. You are making a distinction that wouldn't make any sense to anybody in the business and the websites I've cited tell you exactly that.
************************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 11 2009, 8:48 PM

cinci: "You are making a distinction that wouldn't make any sense to anybody in the business and the websites I've cited tell you exactly that."

It's my ability to make those distinctions that give me the knowledge to know when to replace a jet engine with a jet engine and not a turbine engine because I do know the difference. Technical jargon doesn't get the job done, your cited sources are mistaken and so are you.

cinci: "You are making a distinction that wouldn't make any sense to anybody in the business and the websites I've cited tell you exactly that."

Bob S: It's my ability to make those distinctions that give me the knowledge to know when to replace a jet engine with a jet engine and not a turbine engine because I do know the difference. Technical jargon doesn't get the job done, your cited sources are mistaken and so are you.

cinci: It's your ability to make such distinctions that prevents you from understanding science.
******************************************

cinci: It's your ability to make such distinctions that prevents you from understanding science.

I think your version of science is a blur of ill-defined terms and ambiguity, that's what makes your version of science confusing.

cinci: It's your ability to make such distinctions that prevents you from understanding science.

Anon: I think your version of science is a blur of ill-defined terms and ambiguity, that's what makes your version of science confusing.

cinci: I agree.......that's what you think. If you spend a little time educating yourself your confusion might go away.
**************************

the confusion is caused by people like you.

Anon: the confusion is caused by people like you.

cinci: No, I didn't cause it. I just exposed it.
************************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 13 2009, 10:28 AM

cinci: "It's your ability to make such distinctions that prevents you from understanding science."

It is your in-ability to make such distinctions Cinci, that prevents you from distinguishing* between good science and jargon science.

*rejecting a science does not mean it is not understood, it means it is rejected!


As long as I have your attention, here is some unfinished discussion.

Re: Cincirob, Is fundamentalism as thread for science in the US? March 4 2009, 9:01 AM

cinci: "Einstein didn't cite the MMX in OEMB and has denied knowing about the experiment when he wrote it."


My reply, Re: Is fundamentalism as thread for science in the US? March 4 2009, 9:56 AM

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES Pg1 Par2 opening sentence A. Einstein June 30, 1905 Translated, 1922
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium,""
Now you tell me Cinci, that the quoted passage is not referencing the MM experiment. If Einstein denied knowing about the MM experiment he lied!

Well Bob, if you're willing to call everybody a liar that disagrees with you then you aren't discussing things any more. You've just closed your mind. There wan't google in those days and Eisntein wasn't connected with a university. Lorentz's work with the Michelson-Morley experiment was not widely published or discussed. If you think it was, then try to find it. Much of it was in letters to individuals and Einstein was not one of them. When Lorentz did make it public he had no idea that Fitzgerald had beaten him to the idea of length contraction....was he a liar to? The MMX was performed when Einstein was 8 years old and nobody believed or understood the results in the physics fraternity. You don't go shouting failures to the roof tops. Michelson spent the rest of his life trying to find the aether velocity. I doubt that it was in any kind of a textbook when Albert was in school although I don't know that.

In any case, my statement was that Einstein didn't mention the MMX in OEMB and it is a correct statement.

As far as what experiments Albert was referring to, here's a list:

(Notice the Lorentz book cited as a reference Einstein would have had was written a year before Michelson's paper. Lorentz didn't come up with the idea of length contraction until the 1890s)

The Special Theory of Relativity (SR) is a theory invented in 1905 by Einstein to explain several experimental results. Since then it has been found to explain a wide range of experimental results. SR is not a mathematical game or just a hypothesis. SR is a physical theory that has been well tested many times.

A detailed account of the early history of SRT is given in: Arthur L. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence and early interpretation, Addison Wesley, 1981, ISBN 0-201-04680-6.

When A. Einstein wrote his famous paper: The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in 1905, he already had experimental support for his new theory:

...Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the Earth relatively to the light medium suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good...

What was the experimental support for this claim? There were several experiments concerning the electrodynamics of moving bodies that are not very well known today; but Einstein knew of numerous examples. Many of these experiments were reviewed in H. A. Lorentz's important paper On the influence of the earth's motion on luminiferous phenomena, Versl. Kon. Akad. Wettensh. Amsterdam, 297 (1886). Lorentz showed that Stokes' theory of light, which assumed complete dragging of the æther at the surface of the Earth and decreased to zero dragging far away, had severe problems with aberration and the results of Arago and Airy.

Bradley, Phil. Trans. 35, no 406 (1728).

Bradley (1727) discovered that the images of stars move in small ellipses. This is explained as aberration due to the Earth's motion around the sun. This is inconsistent with a simple model of light as waves in an æther that is dragged along by the Earth; it is consistent with SR.

Arago, Oevre completes, T.1. pg 107 (1853) (delayed publication of results from 1810).

Examined the expected change in focus of a refracting telescope due to Earth's motion around the sun. This is first order in v/c if one assumes light is fully dragged by the lens. The null result is consistent with SR. Arago's results caused Fresnel to develop his theory of the partial dragging of æther, which was then confirmed by:

Fizeau, Ann. de chem et de physique, 3e ser., T.57 pg 385 (1859).

Measured the speed of light in moving materials. The Fresnel drag coefficient is solidly established by experiments, and is consistent with SR to within experimental resolutions.

Hoek, Arch. Neerl. T.3, pg 180 (1868).

Much more accurate version of the basic concept of Arago's experiment, using a terrestrial source and a square (ring) interferometer with one side in water and three in air. The null result is consistent with Arago's result and with Fresnel's drag coefficient, and with SR.

Airy, Proc. Royal Soc. London, V20, pg 35 (1871); V32, pg 121 (1873). Phil. Mag. 43, pg 310 (1872).

Airy tested whether stellar aberration remained unchanged if the telescope was filled with water. It did, in agreement with the prediction of SR.

Kettler, Pogg. Ann., Bd.144, pg 370 (1872); Bd.147, pg 410 and pg 410 (1872). Astr. Und. Theorie, pg 66 (1873).

Interference and polarization experiments similar to Hoek.

Mascart, Ann. de l'ecole normale, 2e ser., T.1 pg 210214 (1872); T.3, pg 376 (1874).

Changes of polarization in the direction of the Earth's motion not observed.

W.C. Roentgen, Annalen der Physik 35 (1888), pg 264.

Note that Roentgen describes in this paper an unsuccessful experiment, where he tried to measure the velocity of the Earth through the æther (a primitive version of the Trouton-Noble experiment).

R. Blondlot, C.R.A.S. 133 (1901), pg 778.

H. A. Wilson, Philosph. Transact. Roy. soc. London 204 (1904), pg 121.

H. A. Wilson, M. Wilson, Philosph. Transact. Roy. soc. London 89 (1913), pg 99.

Experiments concerning the so-called Roentgen convection, with a magnetic field (See Sommerfeld Vol. 3, Chapter 4, and von Laue Ch. 1). Blondlot's experiment was an early experiment with , = 1.

Rayleigh Phil. Mag. (6) 4, pg 678 (1902).

Brace Phil. Mag. (6) 7, pg 317 (1904).

Phil. Mag. (6) 10, pg 71 (1905); pg 387 (1905).

Experiments concerning the effect of the motion of the Earth on double refraction.

A. Eichenwald, Annalen der Physik 11 (1903), pg 1 and pg 241.

Experiments concerning the so-called Roentgen convection, with an electric field (See Sommerfeld Vol. 3, Chapter 4).

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 14 2009, 7:44 PM

Cinci,
"Well Bob, if you're willing to call everybody a liar that disagrees with you then you aren't discussing things any more."

You are quick to paint with a broad brush, I don't call "everybody" a liar that disagrees with me. And besides, Einstein does not disagree with me, it is I who disagree with him, a small distinction Cinci.

Cinci,
"There wan't google in those days and Eisntein wasn't connected with a university. Lorentz's work with the Michelson-Morley experiment was not widely published or discussed. If you think it was, then try to find it."

Lorentz's work has nothing to do with the subject I referred to. To refresh your memory it is the "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium," not the Lorentz contraction. The question is; what were the unsuccessful attempts? In other words, "the experiments" themselves, I claim MM, you claim not. Here is what you assert,

Cinci,
"The MMX was performed when Einstein was 8 years old and nobody believed or understood the results in the physics fraternity. You don't go shouting failures to the roof tops. Michelson spent the rest of his life trying to find the aether velocity. I doubt that it was in any kind of a textbook when Albert was in school although I don't know that."

You first assert that Einstein was only 8yrs old, I say, so what, that only shows that the MMX was performed before Einstein went to University. You then assert that, "nobody believed or understood the results in the physics community", which would have to mean that everybody in the physics community must have known of the experiment for them to not believe or understand the experiment.

Cinci,
"You don't go shouting failures to the roof tops. Michelson spent the rest of his life trying to find the aether velocity."

MMX was not a failure! The fact that the MM experiment failed to detect a light carrying medium does not mean the experiment was a failure, which is another one of those "distinctions" you are so loath to make.

You then assert that you "doubt it was in any kind of a text book" which may or not be true, but for everybody in the physics community to either, not know or understand, it, (MMX) must have been widely published or known somehow.

Cinci,
"As far as what experiments Albert was referring to, here's a list:"

You list at least 6 experiments prior to MM that must have failed to detect the motion of the Earth relative to the "light medium" that Einstein was referring to. It is MM then, that confirmed those experiments that you claim that nobody believed or understood, HOGWASH! I do not believe that the MMX was not a topic of discussion and/or study when Einstein attended University so when Einstein denied he knew of the MMX, he lied.

The main of your message is nothing more than a copy/paste hack job that you suckle as an infant at a mother's breast. And for that I can't call you a liar, just a dupe, there is another distinction for you to loath.

Cinci,
"Well Bob, if you're willing to call everybody a liar that disagrees with you then you aren't discussing things any more."

Bob S: You are quick to paint with a broad brush, I don't call "everybody" a liar that disagrees with me. And besides, Einstein does not disagree with me, it is I who disagree with him, a small distinction Cinci.

cinci: We're dioscussing a particular subject, that is whether Eisntein know about the MMX in 1905. YOu just generalized it to somthing completely different. Einstein himself said he didn't know about the MMX and you called him a liar. So that pretty much rules out your believing anybody else on that subject. So "everybody" fits.
******************************

Cinci: "There wan't google in those days and Eisntein wasn't connected with a university. Lorentz's work with the Michelson-Morley experiment was not widely published or discussed. If you think it was, then try to find it."

Bob S: Lorentz's work has nothing to do with the subject I referred to. To refresh your memory it is the "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium," not the Lorentz contraction. The question is; what were the unsuccessful attempts? In other words, "the experiments" themselves, I claim MM, you claim not. Here is what you assert,

cinci: Well here's another small disticntion, it wasn't what I asssert it was what Einstein asserted. What I asserted was that he didn't mention the MMX in OEMB and that is unequivocally correct. The MMX dose not appear in OEMB.
************************************

Cinci: "The MMX was performed when Einstein was 8 years old and nobody believed or understood the results in the physics fraternity. You don't go shouting failures to the roof tops. Michelson spent the rest of his life trying to find the aether velocity. I doubt that it was in any kind of a textbook when Albert was in school although I don't know that."

Bob S: You first assert that Einstein was only 8yrs old, I say, so what, that only shows that the MMX was performed before Einstein went to University. You then assert that, "nobody believed or understood the results in the physics community", which would have to mean that everybody in the physics community must have known of the experiment for them to not believe or understand the experiment.

cinci: Well no Bob. The ones who knew about it didn't understand it and neither did the ones who didn't know about it. So nobody understood it. Unless you want to argue that people who didn't know about it did understood it.
*******************************

Cinci: "You don't go shouting failures to the roof tops. Michelson spent the rest of his life trying to find the aether velocity."

Bob S: MMX was not a failure! The fact that the MM experiment failed to detect a light carrying medium does not mean the experiment was a failure, which is another one of those "distinctions" you are so loath to make.

cinci: Michelson thought it was a failure and spent the rest of his life building ever more accurate versions of the instrument to try to find the velocity he was looking for. As an experiment to determine aether velocity, it was a failure.
*********************************

Bob S: You then assert that you "doubt it was in any kind of a text book" which may or not be true, but for everybody in the physics community to either, not know or understand, it, (MMX) must have been widely published or known somehow.

cinci: It was published and I've posted it on this site. But that doesn't mean it was widely read. Michelson didn't claim any new science since he failed to find aether velocity. Fitzgerald and Michelson didn't make any headway on the thing until years later. It wasn't like Eddington's measuremtn of bending starlight which demonstrated a theory, it was just one more experiment that nobody could explain. Here's the paper: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/refs/mm.html Read the paragraph on page 341 just before the supplement. All the thing did was confuse the issues.
********************************

Cinci: "As far as what experiments Albert was referring to, here's a list:"

Bob S: You list at least 6 experiments prior to MM that must have failed to detect the motion of the Earth relative to the "light medium" that Einstein was referring to. It is MM then, that confirmed those experiments that you claim that nobody believed or understood, HOGWASH! I do not believe that the MMX was not a topic of discussion and/or study when Einstein attended University so when Einstein denied he knew of the MMX, he lied.

cinci: Read what Michelson said. His experiment didn't settle anything. Neither he nor anybody else know what to do with the results. Again, you call Einstein a liar even though you have no shred of evidence to that effect.
*************************************

Bob S: The main of your message is nothing more than a copy/paste hack job that you suckle as an infant at a mother's breast. And for that I can't call you a liar, just a dupe, there is another distinction for you to loath.

cinci: So it's your considered opinion that those experiments can't be the ones Eisntein referred to. Go read OEMB and you will find that in paragraph 6 he uses his theory to explain the moving wire and magnet problem he noted in his opening paragraphs. In paragraph 7 he deals with aberration which several of those early experiments dealt with. If he knew aboout MMX, it would have been a coup to have explained it in this paper. The question you need to answer is "Why didn't he explain it in his paper if he knew about it."
*********************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 15 2009, 3:27 AM

cinci: "So it's your considered opinion that those experiments can't be the ones Eisntein referred to. Go read OEMB and you will find that in paragraph 6 he uses his theory to explain the moving wire and magnet problem he noted in his opening paragraphs. In paragraph 7 he deals with aberration which several of those early experiments dealt with. If he knew aboout MMX, it would have been a coup to have explained it in this paper. The question you need to answer is "Why didn't he explain it in his paper if he knew about it."

No! it's my considered opinion that Einstein lied about knowing of the MMX.

Maybe you should go back and read OEMB because paragraphs 6 and 7 reference the synchronizing of clocks or, you could learn to count!

You think the question I need to answer is, "Why didn't he explain it in his paper if he knew about it."? He did explain it einstein! In fact he used the results of the MMX as the basis to raise the "Principle of Relativity" to the status of a postulate.

I stated my opinion and I gave an explanation a 12th grader could comprehend after that the only explanation I owe is the one I decide to give. If you don't like what I say or how I say it then ask for a refund. And that goes double for your cat!

One more thing, I made an earlier response to you message at 10:55a but it never got posted so if it should show up...well read it at your own risk of wasting your time.

>>No! it's my considered opinion that Einstein lied about knowing of the MMX.

E had to know about MMX if he wrote the 1905 paper (and there is doubt that he did).

(1) The 1905 paper refers to Lorentz transformations. The basis of those transformations was to try to interpret the MMX.
(2) E refer to an experiment showing light speed constancy what other experiment than MMX can he be referring to other than interpreting MMX result.

The whole farce of Modern Physics comes from E's 1905 paper with its lack of references. Lorentz's work would have been a much better basis for Modern Physics.

Re: Anonymous, Relativity predicts a God? March 15 2009, 6:09 PM

Anonymous,
">>No! it's my considered opinion that Einstein lied about knowing of the MMX.

E had to know about MMX if he wrote the 1905 paper (and there is doubt that he did)."

I think he wrote the paper, the ambiguity was intentional, the same as Relativists are still wont to do!

you say: "I think he wrote the paper,[*] the ambiguity was intentional, the same as Relativists are still wont to do!"[**]

[*] - you shouldn't be so sure; there was a recent drama on Einstein and even in that he couldn't do the maths and had to get someone else do the maths for him. It is generally known Saint Einstein couldn't do maths; it is only to the relativists that he was perfect.

[**] Einstein set the tradition of ambiguity and inconsistencies for his followers to imitate.

cinci: "So it's your considered opinion that those experiments can't be the ones Eisntein referred to. Go read OEMB and you will find that in paragraph 6 he uses his theory to explain the moving wire and magnet problem he noted in his opening paragraphs. In paragraph 7 he deals with aberration which several of those early experiments dealt with. If he knew aboout MMX, it would have been a coup to have explained it in this paper. The question you need to answer is "Why didn't he explain it in his paper if he knew about it."

Bob S: No! it's my considered opinion that Einstein lied about knowing of the MMX.

Maybe you should go back and read OEMB because paragraphs 6 and 7 reference the synchronizing of clocks or, you could learn to count!

cinci: Maybe you should learn to read:

II. ELECTRODYNAMICAL
PART
§ 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz
Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature
of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a
Magnetic Field During Motion

§ 7. Theory of Doppler's Principle and of
Aberration
***********************

Bob S: You think the question I need to answer is, "Why didn't he explain it in his paper if he knew about it."? He did explain it einstein! In fact he used the results of the MMX as the basis to raise the "Principle of Relativity" to the status of a postulate.

cinci: Again, your imagination is running away with you. He doesn't mention the experiment. The principle of relativity was first stated by Galileo about 250 years earlier than the experiment.
******************************************

Bob S: I stated my opinion and I gave an explanation a 12th grader could comprehend after that the only explanation I owe is the one I decide to give. If you don't like what I say or how I say it then ask for a refund. And that goes double for your cat!

cinci: And I gave you reasons that your opinion was probably wrong that could be understood by a 6th grader.
***************************

Bob S: One more thing, I made an earlier response to you message at 10:55a but it never got posted so if it should show up...well read it at your own risk of wasting your time.

cinci: Don't worry. Every message from you is a waste of time except for the high comedy it provides.
*********************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 15 2009, 10:00 PM

cinci: "Maybe you should learn to read:"

I know how to read and here is what you said on March 15 2009, at 3:27 AM, "Go read OEMB and you will find that in paragraph 6 he uses his theory to explain the moving wire and magnet problem he noted in his opening paragraphs. In paragraph 7..." you clearly say paragraph 6 and 7. Today you reference me to "II. ELECTRODYNAMICAL PART § 6. and § 7 which are clearly not paragraphs 6 and 7 they are sections 6 and 7 and they are on page 11.

You then say, "And I gave you reasons that your opinion was probably wrong that could be understood by a 6th grader." which is not true, a 6th grader would know the difference between a paragraph and a section and you, obviously, don't.

cinci: Don't worry. Every message from you is a waste of time except for the high comedy it provides."

I glad for you, because until you can raise the level of your communication skills above that of a 6th grader, humor (call it what you will) is about all you are going to get from me.

Bob, you just posted one more useless message to avoid the truth. Get over it.
********************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 16 2009, 6:19 PM

Cinci,
"Bob, you just posted one more useless message to avoid the truth. Get over it."

Useless to you maybe, bot not useless for me.

Apparently you can't get over it.
*********************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 16 2009, 11:05 PM

Cinci,
"Apparently you can't get over it."

Apparently not...And!...that's important to you...because?

Re: Anonymous, Relativity predicts a God? March 15 2009, 6:09 PM

Anonymous,
"The whole farce of Modern Physics comes from E's 1905 paper with its lack of references. Lorentz's work would have been a much better basis for Modern Physics."

OH! absolutely, LR works well for GPS.

Bob S: OH! absolutely, LR works well for GPS.

cinci: I agree...both theories arrived at the same transformations.
*****************************

different interpretations though

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 17 2009, 10:19 AM

Bob S: "OH! absolutely, LR works well for GPS."

cinci: "I agree...both theories arrived at the same transformations."

I disagree, Lorentz arrived at the transformations, Einstein bastardized the transformations.

Bob S: I disagree, Lorentz arrived at the transformations, Einstein bastardized the transformations.

cinci: Disagreeing is easy. Why don't you just write down Eisntein's transformations and Lorentz's and explain the difference?
********************

no, why don't you; if you think they are the same then explain why you think that

cinci, I found a statement about ether by Einstein (in the paper you did not find me). Is the ether in that statement the same one that Einstein said was superfluous in his 1905 paper?

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 22 2009, 8:33 PM

Bob S: "I disagree, Lorentz arrived at the transformations, Einstein bastardized the transformations."

cinci: "Disagreeing is easy. Why don't you just write down Eisntein's transformations and Lorentz's and explain the difference?"

Agreeing is easy also, so what's your point? I didn't say Einstein's transforms were different than Lorentz's, I said Einstein bastardized them.

Do you realize that since 12:29 today you have posted at least 11 messages; aren't you forgetting something Cinci?

cinci: "Disagreeing is easy. Why don't you just write down Eisntein's transformations and Lorentz's and explain the difference?"

Bob S: Agreeing is easy also, so what's your point? I didn't say Einstein's transforms were different than Lorentz's, I said Einstein bastardized them.

cinci: Our messages were as follows:

'cinci: "I agree...both theories arrived at the same transformations."

'Bob S: I disagree, Lorentz arrived at the transformations, Einstein bastardized the transformations.

So, I said they were the same and you disagreed with them being the same. In this universe that means you think they were different. Why don't you just write down Eisntein's transformations and Lorentz's and explain the difference?

Bob S: Do you realize that since 12:29 today you have posted at least 11 messages; aren't you forgetting something Cinci?

cinci: I forgot that anybody would take the time to count my messages. And since you asked about my day, I played a two hour tennis match, shopped for over $200 worth of food for an upcoming trip with a group of tennis and golfing friends, took a 30 minute steam bath, and spent an hour in a jacuzzi as therapy for my new knee. Then I spent some time with my grandkids. If I forgot anything else it probably wasn't worth remembering. Tomorrow is my birthday if you want to send me a card. (Actually it's my birthday even if you dont' want to send a card. How was your day?
******************************************************

Happy Birthday, Old Fart!

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 22 2009, 11:40 PM

cinci: "Disagreeing is easy. Why don't you just write down Eisntein's transformations and Lorentz's and explain the difference?"

Bob S: "Agreeing is easy also, so what's your point? I didn't say Einstein's transforms were different than Lorentz's, I said Einstein bastardized them."

My point here is that you mis-state what I said, part 1 of my prediction.

Cinci,
"So, I said they were the same and you disagreed with them being the same. In this universe that means you think they were different. Why don't you just write down Eisntein's transformations and Lorentz's and explain the difference?"

Part 2, you are changing the subject.

Bob S: "Do you realize that since 12:29 today you have posted at least 11 messages; aren't you forgetting something Cinci?"

Part 4, is when you (read Relativists) drop out of of a discussion when faced with an irrefutable statement. You said you wouldn't, so I made an irrefutable statement that contradicts your professed knowledge of Relativity and you dropped out of the discussion, in other words, I called your bluff and you folded.

Now is when you get all huffy puffy and ask me to repeat my statement, like you have done in the past, claiming you missed what I said, which is what you always say. In fact the last time this happened I referred you back to my statement at least 4 times and you never did respond.

Now you, being a professed "Good" bluffer, can appreciate that since a good gambler never bluffs two hands in a row, will understand that I must let a few hands go by before calling your fluff again, which I will do.

The problem is, (if you've even read this far) is that the Relativists that come here don't show any respect for the fact that I disagree with Relativity. If I don't fall lock step along with what you want me to believe then I am nothing more than a big dummy, so to speak. I don't think you, or Lal, or any of the other Relativists that have come and gone want to discuss anything as much as to disrupt what is being discussed and I told you this a year ago.

How was my day you ask, it went well, I got up, put two feet on the floor, stood up, and went about my business, Today is pretty much the same but tomorrow I golf and try and care about the thinks I don't care about the rest of the week. The truth be known, my golf game is crap by I really don't care, it's the putting my two feet on the floor thing I care about.

My golf game is crap also. But you haven't made a statement contrary to relativity that I backed away from.
***********************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 23 2009, 10:58 AM

Cincirob,
"My golf game is crap also. But you haven't made a statement contrary to relativity that I backed away from."

Prediction 1. mis-state what is said to you.

What I said Cinci, is, "I made an irrefutable statement that contradicts your professed knowledge of Relativity"

I did not say it contradicted Relativity Cinci, I said it contradicted "YOUR PROFESSED" knowledge of Relativity.

Cincirob,
"My golf game is crap also. But you haven't made a statement contrary to relativity that I backed away from."

Bob S: Prediction 1. mis-state what is said to you.

What I said Cinci, is, "I made an irrefutable statement that contradicts your professed knowledge of Relativity"

I did not say it contradicted Relativity Cinci, I said it contradicted "YOUR PROFESSED" knowledge of Relativity.

cinci: Prediction #2: We'll never see what this supposed contradiction was.
**********************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 23 2009, 5:08 PM

cinci: "Prediction #2: We'll never see what this supposed contradiction was."

You just fulfilled my prediction 4., again, Cinci.

You know the rules of poker Cinci, at least you claimed you do. Anyway, the player who folds does not get to see the winning hand, to which, the novice player will cry "foul"!

Bob S: cinci: "Prediction #2: We'll never see what this supposed contradiction was."

You just fulfilled my prediction 4., again, Cinci.

You know the rules of poker Cinci, at least you claimed you do. Anyway, the player who folds does not get to see the winning hand, to which, the novice player will cry "foul"!

cinci: I didn't cry foul and I didn't fold. I just told you that you fulfilled predictiton 2 which means you're just bluffing and I ain't buying it.
************************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity predicts a God? March 23 2009, 6:31 PM

Bob S: cinci: "Prediction #2: We'll never see what this supposed contradiction was."

You just fulfilled my prediction 4., again, Cinci.

You know the rules of poker Cinci, at least you claimed you do. Anyway, the player who folds does not get to see the winning hand, to which, the novice player will cry "foul"!"

cinci: "I didn't cry foul and I didn't fold. I just told you that you fulfilled predictiton 2 which means you're just bluffing and I ain't buying it."

Prediction 1. mis-stating what was said.
I didn't say you would cry "foul", I said the novice player would cry "foul". But, yes you did fold because it was I who called your bluff and it was you who dropped of of the discussion.

Cinci can't tell when he's crying, his hot tub makes him sweat and the tears are camouflaged. The heat goes to his head and he says stuff he doesn't mean. But he'll never apologize.

Relativity is the liturgy of the religion. The God is Onestone. Just as Pencho has stated.

Jose: Cinci can't tell when he's crying, his hot tub makes him sweat and the tears are camouflaged. The heat goes to his head and he says stuff he doesn't mean. But he'll never apologize.

Relativity is the liturgy of the religion. The God is Onestone. Just as Pencho has stated.

cinci: And here ladies and gentlemen you see a prime example of what Jose thinks is scientific comment.
**************************