Einstein Was Right

[Paradox]

-- which includes a passage on the work of Bryan G. Wallace' date=' who showed how light is emitted on the principle of a Newtonian c+v addition of velocities.

[/size']

So that dismisses all the other evidence that says otherwise?

Why do you have faith that this is correct and the rest are not?

 

 

Unlike all the other literature, Wallace provides a coherent scrutinisation of the data.

[AlphaToOmega]

Fibre optic laser gyroscope cannot be explained by conventional means. The normal one can.

The rotation of the non relativistic gyroscope is measurable because of the sensitivity of the device.

The actual difference in displacements are in the nanometre vicinity. Great if you want accuracy to that degree but that sort of accuracy is not required to launch a space vehicle.

 

As for very very basic geometry, you still haven't shown it here. You brought it up, you prove it.

Its not up to me to prove your false concept, its up to you.

 

Ron Hatch is a quack. Every field has them.

You always cite references from people who disagree with what you disagree with as though its proof that you are right.

 

You have a habit of citing quacks as references.

 

BTW, I'll repeat this for you again and just maybe you can get it this time, it really is very simple. It just involves the most basic of maths:

 

You said,Force = mV2-mV1 is what Newton meant.

 

we take out the m and get

 

F=m(V2-V1)

V2-V1 is a change in velocity. V2 being the final velocity and V1 being the initial one. We call this Delta V, or dV

The time it occurs over is Delta T or dt. Velocity change has to take some time as time cannot be zero while the velocity changes.

So what we get is

F=m dv/dt

The change in velocity over any given time is its acceleration, a, over that time.

So,

F= m (dv/dt) where dv/dt = a

so

F=ma

 

That is for a body that has the same initial mass and final mass and is an elastic collision.

 

When the body changes mass during the time Delta T we use the general formula m2v2-m1v1 to determine force, velocity or whatever we are interested in doing.

Its year 10 and 11 physics.

If its an inelastic collision the we have to calculate the loss of energy in the system as well.

 

What the hell is so hard to understand about these concepts?

They are all used in high school problem solving.

We refer to them as Newtonian physics.

 

What is your argument about other than semantics and naming convention and what has it to do with relativity?

 

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

-- which includes a passage on the work of Bryan G. Wallace' date=' who showed how light is emitted on the principle of a Newtonian c+v addition of velocities.

[/size']

 

So that dismisses all the other evidence that says otherwise?

Why do you have faith that this is correct and the rest are not?

 

 

 

Unlike all the other literature, Wallace provides a coherent scrutinisation of the data.

 

 

Ah. So you view agree's with his and therefore is right. Yet you call me arrogant.

 

In a fibre optic ring gyroscope the fibre optic cable is moved. It is the medium in which the light travels. If you do Newtonian addition of velocity you get the WRONG answer.

Your argument about reflections and geometry is ludicrous. The fibre is moving and the light is moving within it. The reflections are off a moving surface with the same velocity as the fibre so sum up to the same velocity as the fibre if Newtonian summing is done and they provide the WRONG answer.

Show me one work that calculates the correct answer using Newtonian maths for this device.

None of these claims that a three year old can do it, YOU show me how its done and calculate the correct figure for any given angular velocity corresponding to the rotation of the gyroscope.

I'll make it easy for you.

 

The gyroscope rotates clockwise when observed from the top, it is 1 metre in diameter and has 1000 coils which are locked together so as not to move w.r.t. each other and is rotating at 1 rpm. It is located on the equator with the coils arranged at a tangent to the Earth's surface. The laser is operating at 550nm wavelength. The optical fibre is 0.1mm thick. There is a 10Hz low amplitude dithering frequency applied to the device for the duration of the test.

Do the geometry, do the calculations. What are your observations of the interference patterns over 1 hour?

Come on. A three year old can do the very very simple geometry according to you.

Show me how simple it is.

[AlphaToOmega]

double post

[Paradox]

Fibre optic laser gyroscope cannot be explained by conventional means. The normal one can.

The rotation of the non relativistic gyroscope is measurable because of the sensitivity of the device.

 

Oh I see. So there is the relativistic gyro and the non-relativistic one, the nonrelativistic one being the more sensitive. Well why don't they just ditch the relativistic one? Of course, you havent got a clue: they all work on the principle of the Sagnac effect. Not even you have denied that. So presumably you are supposing that the Sagnac effect can be either relativistic or non-relativistic. Oh, I seem to recall you think that the fact that the fibre optical cable is an optical medium makes all the difference. Well so is air. And it would make absolutely no difference to the physics of it if air rotated with, and inside, the device (which, doubtless, to some extent it does).

 

As for very very basic geometry, you still haven't shown it here. You brought it up, you prove it.

Its not up to me to prove your false concept, its up to you.

 

I have already said how the angle of reflection changes to become more acute for the beam going in one direction and more obtuse for the beam going in the other. This changes, to different degrees, the area enclosed by the light paths, which is the crucial term in the equation for the Sagnac effect. That is the geometry of it explained in very simple terms. Now, are you going to give any explanation whatsoever of your eccentric standpoint? Oh, sorry, your educated standpoint .

 

Ron Hatch is a quack. Every field has them.

You always cite references from people who disagree with what you disagree with as though its proof that you are right.

 

You have a habit of citing quacks as references.

 

Yeh, great to have had a quack running the whole of the GPS navigation project for many years. But then, you know best.

 

BTW, I'll repeat this for you again and just maybe you can get it this time, it really is very simple. It just involves the most basic of maths:

 

You said,Force = mV2-mV1 is what Newton meant.

 

we take out the m and get

 

F=m(V2-V1)

V2-V1 is a change in velocity. V2 being the final velocity and V1 being the initial one. We call this Delta V, or dV

The time it occurs over is Delta T or dt. Velocity change has to take some time as time cannot be zero while the velocity changes.

So what we get is

F=m dv/dt

The change in velocity over any given time is its acceleration, a, over that time.

So,

F= m (dv/dt) where dv/dt = a

so

F=ma

 

That is for a body that has the same initial mass and final mass and is an elastic collision.

 

When the body changes mass during the time Delta T we use the general formula m2v2-m1v1 to determine force, velocity or whatever we are interested in doing.

Its year 10 and 11 physics.

If its an inelastic collision the we have to calculate the loss of energy in the system as well.

 

What the hell is so hard to understand about these concepts?

They are all used in high school problem solving.

We refer to them as Newtonian physics.

 

What is your argument about other than semantics and naming convention and what has it to do with relativity?

 

Is your "Velocity change has to take some time as time cannot be zero while the velocity changes" your skilled way of trying to tell me that acceleration is defined in physics as v₁-v₂? Huh! Read some text books!!!

Find me one reference that states that an impulse, in the meaning of the word employed by physicists, is measured as I = ma, where I is the impulse!!!

[Paradox]

In a fibre optic ring gyroscope the fibre optic cable is moved. It is the medium in which the light travels. If you do Newtonian addition of velocity you get the WRONG answer.

Your argument about reflections and geometry is ludicrous. The fibre is moving and the light is moving within it. The reflections are off a moving surface with the same velocity as the fibre so sum up to the same velocity as the fibre if Newtonian summing is done and they provide the WRONG answer.

 

Sorry, but it makes absolutely no difference whether the reflective surface is moving, save in its position relative to the emitter and reception. Reflection is always angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. You've fouled up yet again on a very basic point of physics.

 

I am not going to waste any more time on this. If you can't be bothered to do the geometry there are people reading this who will have done it and can see perfectly well that you're just making a complete idot of yourself once again.

 

Show me one work that calculates the correct answer using Newtonian maths for this device.

None of these claims that a three year old can do it, YOU show me how its done and calculate the correct figure for any given angular velocity corresponding to the rotation of the gyroscope.

I'll make it easy for you.

 

The gyroscope rotates clockwise when observed from the top, it is 1 metre in diameter and has 1000 coils which are locked together so as not to move w.r.t. each other and is rotating at 1 rpm. It is located on the equator with the coils arranged at a tangent to the Earth's surface. The laser is operating at 550nm wavelength. The optical fibre is 0.1mm thick. There is a 10Hz low amplitude dithering frequency applied to the device for the duration of the test.

Do the geometry, do the calculations. What are your observations of the interference patterns over 1 hour?

Come on. A three year old can do the very very simple geometry according to you.

Show me how simple it is.

 

There is a Dr Wang who established a Sagnac effect merely using a fibre optic cable shaped as a square and changing to become a parallelogram. It didn't even need to rotate. The same happens when it is moved in a translational motion.

 

Honestly, I have got better things to do than go over all this stuff time and again with someone who is too bloody minded than to be anything other than doggedly philistine about it.

[AlphaToOmega]

Fibre optic laser gyroscope cannot be explained by conventional means. The normal one can.

The rotation of the non relativistic gyroscope is measurable because of the sensitivity of the device.

 

Oh I see. So there is the relativistic gyro and the non-relativistic one, the nonrelativistic one being the more sensitive. Well why don't they just ditch the relativistic one? Of course, you havent got a clue: they all work on the principle of the Sagnac effect. Not even you have denied that. So presumably you are supposing that the Sagnac effect can be either relativistic or non-relativistic. Oh, I seem to recall you think that the fact that the fibre optical cable is an optical medium makes all the difference. Well so is air. And it would make absolutely no difference to the physics of it if air rotated with, and inside, the device (which, doubtless, to some extent it does).

 

 

I guess I should have made that more clear, the non relativistic rotation speed of the gyro is measurable because of the sensitivity of the device.

 

Is your "Velocity change has to take some time as time cannot be zero while the velocity changes" your skilled way of trying to tell me that acceleration is defined in physics as v₁-v₂? Huh! Read some text books!!!

Find me one reference that states that an impulse' date=' in the meaning of the word employed by physicists, is measured as I = ma, where I is the impulse!!!

[/quote']

 

 

Acceleration is v2-v1 over a given time where v2 is the final velocity and v1 is the initial velocity.

You can't have a change in velocity without time.

 

Impulse force

 

 

 

Impulse = F_averageΔt = mΔv

 

So, F = m dv/dt

Thus

F=ma

Impulse force again

 

The product of average force and the time it is exerted is called the impulse of force. From Newton's second law

 

the impulse of force can be extracted and found to be equal to the change inmomentum of an object provided the mass is constant:

 

 

And oddly, they say the EXACT SAME THING as I do.

I just don't know why you are having trouble understanding this. Its basic formula transposition.

Its year 10 and 11 physics stuff.

Maybe you need to learn some maths and come back.

 

[Paradox]

Fibre optic laser gyroscope cannot be explained by conventional means. The normal one can.

The rotation of the non relativistic gyroscope is measurable because of the sensitivity of the device.

 

Oh I see. So there is the relativistic gyro and the non-relativistic one, the nonrelativistic one being the more sensitive. Well why don't they just ditch the relativistic one? Of course, you havent got a clue: they all work on the principle of the Sagnac effect. Not even you have denied that. So presumably you are supposing that the Sagnac effect can be either relativistic or non-relativistic. Oh, I seem to recall you think that the fact that the fibre optical cable is an optical medium makes all the difference. Well so is air. And it would make absolutely no difference to the physics of it if air rotated with, and inside, the device (which, doubtless, to some extent it does).

 

 

I guess I should have made that more clear, the non relativistic rotation speed of the gyro is measurable because of the sensitivity of the device.

 

Is your "Velocity change has to take some time as time cannot be zero while the velocity changes" your skilled way of trying to tell me that acceleration is defined in physics as v₁-v₂? Huh! Read some text books!!!

Find me one reference that states that an impulse' date=' in the meaning of the word employed by physicists, is measured as I = ma, where I is the impulse!!!

[/quote']

 

 

Acceleration is v2-v1 over a given time where v2 is the final velocity and v1 is the initial velocity.

You can't have a change in velocity without time.

 

Impulse force

 

 

 

Impulse = F_averageΔt = mΔv

 

So, F = m dv/dt

Thus

F=ma

 

Impulse force again

 

The product of average force and the time it is exerted is called the impulse of force. From Newton's second law

 

the impulse of force can be extracted and found to be equal to the change inmomentum of an object provided the mass is constant:

 

 

And oddly, they say the EXACT SAME THING as I do.

I just don't know why you are having trouble understanding this. Its basic formula transposition.

Its year 10 and 11 physics stuff.

Maybe you need to learn some maths and come back.

 

 

1) The formula for the Sagnac fringe shift is

delta Z = 4wA / lamba_0 c,

 

Where Z is the fringe shift, w is the angular velocity of the rotating device (giving the proportionality of the angle between the axis of rotation and the normal to the optical circuit), lambda is the vacuum wavelength and c is the speed of light.

 

Now, can you show me a relativistic equation for delta Z??

 

Here is the text-book analysis (before the relativists got hold of it) of the geometry of it:

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdf

 

2) You have NOT shown me ANYTHING that says that an impulse (note, not 'impulse force') is synonymous with force. IT IS NOT.

[AlphaToOmega]

In a fibre optic ring gyroscope the fibre optic cable is moved. It is the medium in which the light travels. If you do Newtonian addition of velocity you get the WRONG answer.

Your argument about reflections and geometry is ludicrous. The fibre is moving and the light is moving within it. The reflections are off a moving surface with the same velocity as the fibre so sum up to the same velocity as the fibre if Newtonian summing is done and they provide the WRONG answer.

 

Sorry, but it makes absolutely no difference whether the reflective surface is moving, save in its position relative to the emitter and reception. Reflection is always angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. You've fouled up yet again on a very basic point of physics.

 

I am not going to waste any more time on this. If you can't be bothered to do the geometry there are people reading this who will have done it and can see perfectly well that you're just making a complete idot of yourself once again.

 

I read that as, even though its so easy anyone can do it and even though you brought it up, even though you claim its true, you want me to prove it and if I can't then I must be at fault.

 

Yes, you are a true believer in God. Your faith is mind boggling. Your science and facts however are not.

 

 

And off you go with the name calling but you claim that I'm the one doing such things. I do note however that I have not once called you an idiot.

You have however called me an idiot, implied I'm an idiot and based much of your argument on attacking me personally while claiming I am the one attacking you.

 

 

Show me one work that calculates the correct answer using Newtonian maths for this device.

None of these claims that a three year old can do it' date=' YOU show me how its done and calculate the correct figure for any given angular velocity corresponding to the rotation of the gyroscope.

I'll make it easy for you.

 

The gyroscope rotates clockwise when observed from the top, it is 1 metre in diameter and has 1000 coils which are locked together so as not to move w.r.t. each other and is rotating at 1 rpm. It is located on the equator with the coils arranged at a tangent to the Earth's surface. The laser is operating at 550nm wavelength. The optical fibre is 0.1mm thick. There is a 10Hz low amplitude dithering frequency applied to the device for the duration of the test.

Do the geometry, do the calculations. What are your observations of the interference patterns over 1 hour?

Come on. A three year old can do the very very simple geometry according to you.

Show me how simple it is.

[/quote']

 

There is a Dr Wang who established a Sagnac effect merely using a fibre optic cable shaped as a square and changing to become a parallelogram. It didn't even need to rotate. The same happens when it is moved in a translational motion.

 

Honestly, I have got better things to do than go over all this stuff time and again with someone who is too bloody minded than to be anything other than doggedly philistine about it.

 

Wang smang.

Bla bla bla.

Its so EASY, that was your claim. Very Very basic.

So show me. Its just a small part of your time and it could help countless others and maybe even me to understand your wonderful reasoning and infallible drawings that can calculate such a thing.

You claimed its so very very basic.

Surely its less complicated and time consuming than trying other things like you have been. Arguing to no avail.

 

If your geometry comes up with the correct answers to this problem then how can I or anyone else debate it?

 

Don't mislead by introducing Mr Wang's Smang.

 

Calculate the according to you, very very basic geometrical explanation.

 

ITS very very basic, you said it. Please show us how BASIC it is for you.

 

 

I note again, I'm now "too bloody minded than to be anything other than doggedly philistine about it".

 

All I ask is that you actually prove your case considering how very very basic it is for you to do so.

Yet you don't.

 

Yeah. Thought so.

Its easy to make a bullshit claim but backing it up with actual calculation leaves you with egg in your face.

 

You can speak highly of your skills but can't do the basic maths to prove them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

 

1) The formula for the Sagnac fringe shift is

delta Z = 4wA / lamba_0 c,

 

Where Z is the fringe shift, w is the angular velocity of the rotating device (giving the proportionality of the angle between the axis of rotation and the normal to the optical circuit), lambda is the vacuum wavelength and c is the speed of light.

 

Now, can you show me a relativistic equation for delta Z??

 

 

Here is the text-book analysis (before the relativists got hold of it) of the geometry of it:

http://www.orgonelab...ft/Post1967.pdf

 

 

 

That's real pretty.

It shows a normal optical gyroscope.

As I've said consistently, you can explain it without relativity.

 

But, nowhere did it have any reference to an optical fibre laser gyroscope.

 

No where in your above parroting of a formula actually calculate anything.

You need to use the formula to calculate the very very basic problem I gave you.

You have not.

Please try again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AlphaToOmega]

2) You have NOT shown me ANYTHING that says that an impulse (note, not 'impulse force') is synonymous with force. IT IS NOT.

 

 

Previously you implied F=mv2-mv1 and said force is defined as a change in momentum. I told you that was not correct. Force can exist without momentum changes.

 

 

Now I think you are saying that impulse = mv2-mv1.

That's great, because now I don't need to introduce the fact that velocity change requires time which you had problems with as well as misunderstanding force.

 

Impulse, is the integral of force over time t.

It is defined as:

 

Force x delta time

 

So now I take it that you understand that:

 

f delta t = mv2 - mv1

 

Lets do it from here then:

 

F delta t = mv2-mv1

 

F= (mv2-mv1)/delta t

F=m(v2-v1)/delta t

F= m (delta V)/delta t

F= m dv/dt

 

dv/dt = a

 

So,

F=ma

 

At long last we are in agreement.

Euler correctly interpreted Newtons work.

[Paradox]

1) The formula for the Sagnac fringe shift is

delta Z = 4wA / lamba_0 c,

 

Where Z is the fringe shift, w is the angular velocity of the rotating device (giving the proportionality of the angle between the axis of rotation and the normal to the optical circuit), lambda is the vacuum wavelength and c is the speed of light.

 

Now, can you show me a relativistic equation for delta Z??

 

 

Here is the text-book analysis (before the relativists got hold of it) of the geometry of it:

http://www.orgonelab...ft/Post1967.pdf

 

 

 

That's real pretty.

It shows a normal optical gyroscope.

As I've said consistently, you can explain it without relativity.

 

But, nowhere did it have any reference to an optical fibre laser gyroscope.

 

No where in your above parroting of a formula actually calculate anything.

You need to use the formula to calculate the very very basic problem I gave you.

You have not.

Please try again.

 

 

I've showed you how to do it -- but you keep maintaining this brick-wall attitude. You caluculate the difference in area enclosed by either beam by way of the change in angle of reflection.

 

I don't see why I should waste any more time with one who can't accept what formulae mean, to the point of thinking that the formula for impulse is identical to the formula for force, even when they are very obviously two different formulae, the former using using units of MLT^-1 and the latter, MLT_^-2.

[AlphaToOmega]

I've showed you how to do it -- but you keep maintaining this brick-wall attitude. You caluculate the difference in area enclosed by either beam by way of the change in angle of reflection.

 

Bla bla bla. Calculate it. You said it was very very basic.

I don't see why I should waste any more time with one who can't accept what formulae mean' date=' to the point of thinking that the formula for impulse is identical to the formula for force, even when they are very obviously two different formulae, the former using using units of MLT[sup']-1[/sup] and the latter, MLT^_-2

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

This is a perfect example why I wanted YOU to write down the exact formula for how YOU interpret Newtons words.

You never did commit, it was always some crappy non committal so you can claim I don't understand what you meant but you never want to explain EXACTLY what you mean.

 

So lets try it again then shall we.

What formula do YOU interpret from Newtons words.

No beating around the bush, no implications, nothing other than a straight formula showing how force, length, mass and time are related.

 

[Paradox]

I've showed you how to do it -- but you keep maintaining this brick-wall attitude. You caluculate the difference in area enclosed by either beam by way of the change in angle of reflection.

 

I don't see why I should waste any more time with one who can't accept what formulae mean' date=' to the point of thinking that the formula for impulse is identical to the formula for force, even when they are very obviously two different formulae, the former using using units of MLT[sup']-1[/sup] and the latter, MLT^_-2.

 

Saying how you calculate something doesn't make it give the correct answer. I gave you the problem. Pretty detailed. Calculate what you'd observe. You claimed it was easy.As for force, you claimed it was the change in momentum. It is not.

 

 

 

 

Don't be stupid. Force is defined as change in momentum' date=' as is very clear, especially since the second law expresses the proportionality of 'the forces impressed'.[/size']

 

It was YOU not me that said force is defined by a change in momentum. It was NOT me.

Its up there, in the quoted section and is very clear that you meant F=mv2-mv1

 

I had to introduce time to balance the units and tried to explain it to you since a change in velocity requires time.

Now you claim that I was the one that is confusing Force and impulse.

 

Impulse is defined as: Ft

 

This is a perfect example why I wanted YOU to write down the exact formula for how YOU interpret Newtons words.

You never did commit, it was always some crappy non committal so you can claim I don't understand what you meant but you never want to explain EXACTLY what you mean.

 

So lets try it again then shall we.

What formula do YOU interpret from Newtons words.

No beating around the bush, no implications, nothing other than a straight formula showing how force, length and time are related.

 

 

I have asked you before not to play on my citing of force in two different contexts -- the context on each occasion being perfectly clear -- which are the Newtonian conception of force and the modern conception. You are just doing it as more deflection.

 

As for the Sagnac effect, I have given you the formula -- you just replace the term for angular momentum with a value that gives proportionality to speed of change from square to parallelogram. Oh and I forgot to say that the A, in the formula, is area enclosed. That is enough for anyone who can do any basic algebraic substitution. Go ahead and do it.

 

Now, I have gievn you the classical formula for fringe shift. Yet you refuse to give me any relativistic formula for it. Is there any reason for this?

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Paradox, ok!

 

I get it!

One keystroke is too much to ask of you. So, instead of getting any input at all from you on this, I'll simply to tell you.

 

Your 1st Mistaken Assumption.

You mistakenly assume that it is enough for you to prove your case, regardless of how you do it.

That the internal logic of your argument will sway those who read it. That they will accept what you say as the truth and become ardent anti-Relativists and supporters of the NPA. That if you persist for long enough, never wavering in your purpose, you will persuade others. That it doesn't matter how many noses you put out of joint, how many toes you tread on and how much damage you do along the way, as long as you prove your point - that's all that matters.

How naive is that?

For all of your obvious intelligence, you fail to grasp the simple wisdom that it is better to win friends than to win arguments. I'll repeat that for effect.

 

IT IS BETTER TO WIN FRIENDS THAN TO WIN ARGUMENTS.

 

So let's see how you've gone about winning friends in this forum.

 

The FalloutDude was injured by your lack of empathy for his fragile condition. How is that winning friends?

You questioned Ouroboros' objectivity and ability as a Moderator. How is that winning friends?

To Stryper... Are you ill? That's nice. Questioning his sanity. How is that winning friends?

To Vigile...

Wow. And I am the only person on this whole forum, at least as far as I know (agreed, there are very probably others) who was not for a single moment taken in by all the arm waving, Bible-slinging, tongue-waggling evangelical crap that I saw in church, but stood back and was prepared to think objectively, rationally, and never once like the crazed, mesmerised nutters I saw around me.

So, from get go, you elevate yourself above everyone else in this forum. Oh and btw. Many of us Ex-Christians did stand back and think objectively. Thanks for the kind-hearted put down. How is that winning friends?

To SciFiChick...

I have read a fair few of your posts, ScifiChick, and there is a very good reason for my not having responded to any of them previously: I see a very sly, manipulative (particularly with language), proud, superficial, callous, jealous, elbow-their-way-to-the-top individual. Consonant with that, you're someone who left their religion apparently because their idea for a play had been nicked. Seems the acme of petty-mindedness, if you ask me. But bear in mind that I am not here to do any name-calling, I'm just doing a bit of observational critique, about which I hope you can prove me wrong.

There it is again! Paradox's raison d'etre. Proving that he's right.

Well, I'm sure that calling SciFiChick all those names really helps your cause. How is that winning any friends?

You were halfway civil with SkepticalMe, but now he's given up in the face of your monomaniacal pursuit of proving yourself right at all costs. How is that approach winning any friends?

To AlphatoOmega...

Hmm... where do I start? Your list of sneering, condescending name-calling is just too long to include here. He'd be a great ally for your cause, but how are you winning him over? The same way you're winning over everyone else!

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Y'know, when I can almost hear Legion wincing when he reads some of the dismissals, put-downs, slights and insults you've handed out. Hasn't he tried (in vain) to rein you in? Isn't he a potential ally of yours?

Legion wrote (in vain)...

Paradox I have few allies who recognize the deficiencies of contemporary physics. Let us suppose for a moment that you are absolutely correct in that this science has much to learn (perhaps even to unlearn). Does your style of approach towards people make them more likely or less likely to explore this possibility? And please man, I beg you. Stop asking for threads to be closed.

Well, that plea was never going to work, was it? In every case, Paradox always knows better and knows best. How is that attitude going to win any friends?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Deadly serious now, Paradox - please pay close attention.

 

 

If you joined this forum to fight with anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, then just carry right on.

 

If you joined this forum to prove yourself right, no matter how many enemies you make along the way, then just carry right on.

 

If you just don't care about effectively and efficiently promoting your cause, then just carry right on.

 

If you really think that you can make any kind of difference by doing what you're doing, then just carry right on.

 

If you think that always painting yourself as the much-maligned, badly-treated, downtrodden victim is going to help your cause, then carry right on.

 

If you think that your behavior is above reproach and that you don't have to change your M.O. one iota, then carry right on.

 

If you are totally convinced of the truth of your cause and this is reason enough for you to carry right on, then do that... carry right on!

 

 

But, if you joined this forum to bring people around to your way of thinking, if you joined to persuade anyone, if you joined to further the cause of anti-Relativism, If you joined to highlight corruption and if you joined to promote the NPA, then why don't you do something you told Vigile about? That is, why don't you take a moment and stand back from this mess and think objectively and rationally about how many friends you've won over so far?

 

Care to list them?

Is this what you really want here?

To win your argument and antagonize, alienate and anger everyone in doing so?

 

Now, I haven't got time to go into your second mistaken assumption, so I await your response with interest.

 

BAA.

[AlphaToOmega]

I have asked you before not to play on my citing of force in two different contexts -- the context on each occasion being perfectly clear -- which are the Newtonian conception of force and the modern conception. You are just doing it as more deflection.

 

Bla bla bla Here, have a red herring. That's what you do. Sorry, you can have your red herring back. Not interested.

 

I have asked you repeatedly what your definition of force was.

You have refused to answer this simple direct question.

Trying to deflect it back onto me, the other members, the world, the conspiracy of the banks in peer reviewed studies of your ass, won't change that basic fact.

 

I have asked you to solve the fibre optic laser gyroscope problem and gave you all the required information to solve it after you claimed it's, "very very basic".

Instead, you link a page, quote a formula for different type of device and tell me to do it.

Again, all the deflection won't change the basic fact that you not once have actually put down a formula. NOT ONCE.

 

You claimed, ten years ago you could have "cut every relativist to pieces" but you never did.

 

The only thing to conclude here is that you like to claim a lot of stuff, you want to talk the talk but the first time you are required to walk the walk you fall flat on your face in shit..

 

 

As for the Sagnac effect, I have given you the formula -- you just replace the term for angular momentum with a value that gives proportionality to speed of change from square to parallelogram. Oh and I forgot to say that the A, in the formula, is area enclosed. That is enough for anyone who can do any basic algebraic substitution. Go ahead and do it.

 

Now, I have gievn you the classical formula for fringe shift. Yet you refuse to give me any relativistic formula for it. Is there any reason for this?

 

The hyperbolic shift in the diarrhoeal excretion of the Paradox-al model of the Internet textual algorithm combined with the field of the flux capacitor shows that the phasers can be used to power the di-lithium crystals.

I too can write bullshit like you, if I want to.

 

Now, solve the, by your own words, very very basic problem. You claimed its very very basic, not me.

You claimed its solvable by Newtonian methods.

I said it can't be done with Newtonian methods.

YOU need to prove YOUR claim. That's not my job. Its YOUR claim and YOUR responsibility to prove it.

 

Surely you understand this?

Then again, maybe that's why you have problems with peer reviewed papers. You want the reviewers to do the calculations and solve the problems for you because you don't know how.

Or, you want reviewers to be swayed by gobbley gook writing and very little in the way of actual calculation, then quoting formula's, even if they don't really apply to the topic in question but they look cool and appear on first glance to be legitimate...till one looks at it deeper...

 

If you can't even understand this very very very basic principle in science (the onus of proof) then you don't even have basic understanding of much at all. You will be stuck in your own incompetence forever but think you are invincible.

 

You throw logical fallacies around like they are a golden gift to the world, you regularly cite papers that do the same.

You claim to be a published philosopher but don't understand logic or logical fallacy.

 

You are ignorant but you choose to remain ignorant.

That makes you an ignoramus.

That's not an insult so don't take it that way. Its meant to be taken as constructive observation after seeing your performance in this thread.

I write it to help you understand your inadequacies and overcome them so you may become a valuable member of society rather than an arrogant ignoramus.