Discussion:
PONZI physics... and the Gravity Probe B experiment
(too old to reply)
Hayek
2009-02-09 09:39:21 UTC
Permalink
BACKGROUND
Any analytical individual will pick up the mathematical inconsistency
of Special Relativity. The algebraic equations of the Lorentz
transformations are symmetric. Meaning applied one way, t is
transformed to t' wherein t'>t.
You mean wherein t' = g t with g > 1.
So you conveniently forget the case t = t' = 0.
And you ignorantly forget to mention that t' = g t is only valid if x =
0, as you would see if you would understand the meanings
of the variables in the transformation.
However, in the obverse process, the
same equation transforms t' to t resulting in t>t'.
You mean wherein t = g t' with g > 1.
So you conveniently forget the case t' = t = 0.
And you ignorantly forget to mention that t = g t' is only valid if x' =
0, as you would see if you would understand the meanings
of the variables in the transformation.
In summary the
LTE implies t<t' AND t'<t.
You mean t = g t' AND t ' = g t with g > 1, i.o.w. with
x = x' = 0 and thus with t = t' = 0, if you would be able
to apply the algebra of the transformation.
So the LTE implies 0 = 0 AND 0 = 0.
HORROR IN THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIR!
D*rk, his message starts with "Any analytical
individual", so it does not apply to a clone-drone like you.

Uwe Hayek.
--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België]
naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
Strich.9
2009-02-09 15:14:54 UTC
Permalink
What the hell is it with you people and this inability to READ? GP-B
didn't meet design sensitivity but it did - unquestionably - observe
the effects in question.-
Well you said it yourself.  "GP-B didn't meet design sensitivity".
That just means that based on the ORIGINAL experimental design, the
results are NOT positive.  For any flunkie out there, that means
NEGATIVE.
That's not how it works.
A funkie telling us like it is in flunkie world.
Which you would know if you had ever designed or performed any
experiment.
Who knows nothing about statistics. Tell me what the NULL hypothesis
was for the GPB experiment you statistical idiot? Tell me what a type
1 error is you statistical imbecile? And tell me what a post-hoc
study is you statistical ignoramus?
Strich.9
2009-02-09 17:09:18 UTC
Permalink
What the hell is it with you people and this inability to READ? GP-B
didn't meet design sensitivity but it did - unquestionably - observe
the effects in question.-
Well you said it yourself. "GP-B didn't meet design sensitivity".
That just means that based on the ORIGINAL experimental design, the
results are NOT positive. For any flunkie out there, that means
NEGATIVE.
That's not how it works.
A funkie telling us like it is in flunkie world.
Which you would know if you had ever designed or performed any
experiment.
Who knows nothing about statistics. Tell me what the NULL hypothesis
was for the GPB experiment you statistical idiot? Tell me what a
type
1 error is you statistical imbecile? And tell me what a post-hoc
study is you statistical ignoramus?
BradGuth
2009-02-09 19:44:20 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Brad, the credit goes to you for this wittily worded and appropriate
headline.  As you also predicted, Eric has lost the argument and he
has cowardly disappeared from this thread.
The assclown asserts that roughly 10% of the entire United States
gross national product is spent on physics yearly. The debate is over
because I'm arguing with delusions, which serves no purpose.
The all-inclusive expenditures (meaning birth to grave) on behalf of
physics isn't just a nifty little national cabal like thing, as there
are usually partners in such public funded crimes against humanity,
and the consequences of their actions are indeed wide and deeply
rooted.

Seldom do I intentionally exclude the rest of this world when speaking
of the all-inclusive cost to humanity. Unlike yourself, I live only
on Earth where there are good and bad consequences for each and every
action.

~ BG
Eric Gisse
2009-02-10 14:17:14 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 9, 9:54 pm, "Tom Potter" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip anti-semitic spew]

Yes crackpotter, we know you hate jews and anything they helped
create. You can be quiet now - everyone knows your position.
BradGuth
2009-02-11 01:07:08 UTC
Permalink
At present, multiple data sources about the Gravity Probe B
corroborate the lack of a positive result
Where "multiple" means "everything is sourced from the GP-B team, and
most likely Everitt himself", and "lack of positive result" means
"waaahhhhhhh, my asinine claims didn't stand up to scrutiny".
The louder you shriek about the result being 'negative', the more it
is clear you know it isn't. There's no real "win" to be had here, find
a new battleground. At least you could point to LIGO and shriek about
how it hasn't found anything yet without it being a complete fucking
lie
[snip rest, completely unread]
Nice Zionist Nazi damage control spin, and otherwise denial of being
in denial. Too bad you're such a born-again liar.

Please do post your GPB positive results, and be certain that it's
fully objective and of a peer reviewed kind of positive.

~ BG
Eric Gisse
2009-02-11 02:01:03 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 10, 4:07 pm, BradGuth <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by BradGuth
Please do post your GPB positive results, and be certain that it's
fully objective and of a peer reviewed kind of positive.
 ~ BG
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/25/11/114002

Do YOU have an actual critique? Or have you - like dave - not read it
but are convinced it is wrong?
Ken S. Tucker
2009-02-11 02:25:20 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 10, 6:01 pm, Eric Gisse <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Gisse is a FUCKING ASSHOLE.

For Conception Dynamics
Ken S. Tucker
Uncle Al
2009-02-11 21:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken S. Tucker
Gisse is a FUCKING ASSHOLE.
For Conception Dynamics
Ken S. Tucker
"You will know a man by his fears." You, Tucker, are known for
fearing knowledge, ability, and objective qualification. The only
reality is empirical reality. You, Tucker, are known for having none
of it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Strich.9
2009-02-11 14:36:16 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by BradGuth
Please do post your GPB positive results, and be certain that it's
fully objective and of a peer reviewed kind of positive.
 ~ BG
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/25/11/114002
Do YOU have an actual critique? Or have you - like dave - not read it
but are convinced it is wrong?
You mean this?

Gravity Probe B data analysis status and potential for improved
accuracy of scientific results. C W F Everitt et al 2008 Class.
Quantum Grav. 25 114002 (11pp)

This is a POST-HOC study you idiot crook. Have you studied what a
POST-HOC analysis is yet?

That is STRIKE ONE for you Eric.

Where is the so-called official POSITIVE result? Make another one up,
Eric the Crook. We are waiting... STRIKE...
Han de Bruijn
2009-02-11 10:52:27 UTC
Permalink
As "namekuseijin" implies,
it may be that folks oppose Einstein because he is Jewish
I oppose Einstein because he is wrong, and for no other reason.
Einstein is "wrong" ? That covers a lot of ground.
Was he wrong about Brownian motion?
Was he wrong about the photelectric effect?
Was he wrong about about quantum mechanics?
Especially his theory about simulated emission (e.g. lasers), nowadays a
technology which is commonly employed in e.g. CompactDisk (CD) players.
If he was wrong, how did he manage to earn a Bachelors of Science as
well as a PhD in Physics? How did he get that Nobel? Why did Roosevelt
listen to him when Einstein pursuaded him to start the Manhattan
project?
Surely E = Mc^2 was confirmed experimentally, with a deafening noise
and a blinding light.
If he was "wrong", how did he correctly predict the deflection of
starlight by the Sun as well as Mercury's perihelion precession?
No doubts about Special Relativity (SR), but when it comes to _General_
Relativity (GR), some improvements on the error margins of measurements
would be desirable in the first place. No doubts about the equivalence
of inertial mass and gravitational mass, but the mathematical framework
around this principle, according to my taste, is somewhat .. overdone.

Han de Bruijn
Androcles
2009-02-11 12:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Han de Bruijn
As "namekuseijin" implies,
it may be that folks oppose Einstein because he is Jewish
I oppose Einstein because he is wrong, and for no other reason.
Einstein is "wrong" ? That covers a lot of ground.
Was he wrong about Brownian motion?
No.
Post by Han de Bruijn
Was he wrong about the photelectric effect?
No.
Post by Han de Bruijn
Was he wrong about about quantum mechanics?
YES!
Post by Han de Bruijn
Especially his theory about simulated emission (e.g. lasers), nowadays a
technology which is commonly employed in e.g. CompactDisk (CD) players.
If he was wrong, how did he manage to earn a Bachelors of Science as
well as a PhD in Physics?
The pass mark was 40% and he was 60% wrong. He failed mathematics.
Han de Bruijn
2009-02-11 13:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Androcles
Post by Han de Bruijn
As "namekuseijin" implies,
it may be that folks oppose Einstein because he is Jewish
I oppose Einstein because he is wrong, and for no other reason.
Einstein is "wrong" ? That covers a lot of ground.
Was he wrong about Brownian motion?
No.
Post by Han de Bruijn
Was he wrong about the photelectric effect?
No.
Post by Han de Bruijn
Was he wrong about about quantum mechanics?
YES!
But it should be noted that Einstein's skepticism about QM certainly has
contributed _a lot_ to the improvement and understanding of it.
Post by Androcles
Post by Han de Bruijn
Especially his theory about simulated emission (e.g. lasers), nowadays a
technology which is commonly employed in e.g. CompactDisk (CD) players.
If he was wrong, how did he manage to earn a Bachelors of Science as
well as a PhD in Physics?
The pass mark was 40% and he was 60% wrong. He failed mathematics.
Han de Bruijn
Androcles
2009-02-11 13:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Han de Bruijn
Post by Androcles
Post by Han de Bruijn
As "namekuseijin" implies,
it may be that folks oppose Einstein because he is Jewish
I oppose Einstein because he is wrong, and for no other reason.
Einstein is "wrong" ? That covers a lot of ground.
Was he wrong about Brownian motion?
No.
Post by Han de Bruijn
Was he wrong about the photelectric effect?
No.
Post by Han de Bruijn
Was he wrong about about quantum mechanics?
YES!
But it should be noted that Einstein's skepticism about QM certainly has
contributed _a lot_ to the improvement and understanding of it.
Y'know, he was wrong about quantum mechanics.
He was even wrong about about quantum mechanics and probably
wrong about about about quantum mechanics, not to mention
wrong about about about about quantum mechanics.

End of story.
Post by Han de Bruijn
Post by Androcles
Post by Han de Bruijn
Especially his theory about simulated emission (e.g. lasers), nowadays a
technology which is commonly employed in e.g. CompactDisk (CD) players.
If he was wrong, how did he manage to earn a Bachelors of Science as
well as a PhD in Physics?
The pass mark was 40% and he was 60% wrong. He failed mathematics.
Han de Bruijn
Strich.9
2009-02-11 14:33:11 UTC
Permalink
At present, multiple data sources about the Gravity Probe B
corroborate the lack of a positive result
Where "multiple" means "everything is sourced from the GP-B team...
And Eric is simply too lazy to look up thse multiple sources. He is
used to looking at ZERO sources, and then simply make up information...
Loading...