sci.physics.relativity Google Group

Re: Keplers Laws and Planetary Motion Refute GR.

jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com (eric gisse) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 11:04:37 UT

That's your theory, Ralph. Not SR.
Remind us who had to invent all these little "willusions" and
"unification distances" and "h-aethers" to explain what SR already
predicts?

Re: The incorrect asymptotical limits of Special Relativity: Modified de Brogle relations

jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com (eric gisse) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 11:02:30 UT

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:58:27 -0800 (PST), Albertito
Demonstrably wrong, like your latest "model".
Funny how discussion of your model has been abandoned for arguments
about other things.

Re: Galilean transformation equations

jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com (eric gisse) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 11:00:27 UT

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:39:26 -0800 (PST), PD
[...]
Was this week's demonstration of him dancing like a puppet not
sufficient?

Re: Study: Black Holes Seem to Form Before Galaxies

ianpark...@gmail.com (Ian Parker) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 10:57:17 UT

[link]
I have given details of the various simulations that have been done.
This whole area is illuminated by supercomputer simulations. Of course
these simulations do not (yet) tell us how galaxies originated, they
simply tell us how fully formed galaxies work.

Re: Intelligent Design or "It's Only a Theory"

a...@b.c (The Natural Philosopher) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 10:48:17 UT

Alen wrote:
Ah. So rain water randomly falling over the flat countryside eventually
carves its way to make a river. Aha You say. It was Designed.
Well maybe the laws of physical science were designed, and maybe they
just happened,. That is another issue.
The point being it takes no more than the combination of random events

Re: Planet & Satellite Paradox (just for fun!)

phys...@graduate.org (TheoreticalPhysics) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 10:33:10 UT

<snip>
So, using your "sphincter contraction" method, an observer on one
planet would see a dilation in time on the other planet as clocks
running faster ?

Re: POSTSCIENTISM: ZOMBIE EDUCATION

zzbun...@netscape.net (zzbunker@netscape.net) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 10:11:29 UT

Well, that's very true. Because, that standard Relatitistic
Dramamine analogue crapola between
airplanes and ground transport, is still why the real engineers,
still mostly work on
DSP, Digital-Terrain Mapping, Drones, Cruise Missiles, AUVs, C++,
RISC++, USB, CD+rw,
DVD-rw, DVD-rom,,DVD-ram, GPS, USB, Post Ford Batteries, Post

Re: NO Giant black hole inside the CENTER of our milky way.

leov...@gmail.com (LeoVuyk@gmail.com) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 09:12:23 UT

The center of our Galaxy and the giant black hole, is by the
mainstream logically supposed to be located at the hart of Sagittarius
A open star cluster see the star accelerations around the Sag A, the
red cross :
[link]
[link]

Re: POSTSCIENTISM: ZOMBIE EDUCATION

martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk (ukastronomy) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 07:49:13 UT

.
Valev has a long history of similar behaviour - look for the FAQ on
his earlier "contributions". Eventually he does accept that he is
wrong, he moves on and the group sighs in relief. I am just
facilitating the process.

Re: WHY VALEV IS GUILTY

martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk (ukastronomy) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 07:42:41 UT

<Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted>
1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.
2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.
3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and

Re: IS VALEV A CRACKPOT? - YES

martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk (ukastronomy) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 07:41:37 UT

Re: Intelligent Design or "It's Only a Theory"

vir...@gmale.com (Virgil) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 07:27:31 UT

In article <rubrum-DFD72B.21455308012...@ news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
Smart religious folk do not push ID.
The Roman Catholics and a number of Protestant groups accept and support
evolution and oppose the ID movement.

Re: New Improved Twin Paradox Explanation

koobee.wub...@gmail.com (Koobee Wublee) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 07:27:02 UT

You actually do not know jack-sh*t. In doing so, you do not know that
you do not know jack sh*t. <shrug>
No, in doing so, you resort to faith to resolve the twin’s paradox.
It is lame, stupid, and unproductive on your part. <shrug>
The twin’s paradox was already considered by Voigt in 1887. That is a

IS RELATIVITY AN INCONSISTENCY?

pva...@yahoo.com (Pentcho Valev) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 07:11:45 UT

Philosophers of science dealing with axiomatic (deductive) systems
have devised what may be called the hat-of-the-magician model of
science.
Einstein: "Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops
a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a
small number of fundamental assumptions, the so called axioms."

re: Impossible beings in flying machines ...?

dolomi...@hotmail.com (foolsrushin) — Fri, 01 Jan 2009 07:11:10 UT

Brilliant question, but steady movement would be part of *that*
stream, of course, and gravitaionlly subject to inertia. Back to
primitive propulsion and rowing-boats!
Any energetic thing that wanted out? Back to gravity!
Ideas, however, have no weight, so all sorts of Through the Looking
Glass stuff might be possible in their sphere, including odd, good or