Grimer wrote:Bollocks standing on the shoulders of bollocks
Grimer wrote:these people are disappearing up their own wormholes
Grimer wrote:You are just trotting out the conventional rubbish
Grimer wrote:Why the hell are you here?
Grimer wrote:you seem to be a missionary from the Church of Science
Where is the reason?
Franks hatred for science clouds his judgement. This may be the reason he jumps to pre-mature conclusions about the final outcome of a yet to be resolved scientific experiment. Arbitrary pre-mature conclusions is religion in the middle ages, which seems telling given the depth of Frank's reasonless argument (it's all bollocks), his obvious hatred for science, and his choice of dark age y-front clad avatar imagery.
Frank is wrong. The very remote chance that Frank is right seems completely outweighed by his unlikeableness :D
Last edited by ovyyus on Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
ovyyus wrote:That's OK Frank, I don't think you're THAT smart :D
Spilled my beer, thanks.
LMAO
Si mobile in circumferentia circuli feratur ea celeritate, quam acquirit cadendo ex
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.
This thread is so far off topic it is off topic, so what the hell! Try a little dark humor for a change.
Socially Unacceptable Humor
1. I was in bed with a blind girl last night and she said that I had the biggest penis she had ever laid her hands on. I said you're pulling my leg."
2. My girlfriend thinks that I'm a stalker. Well, she's not exactly my girlfriend yet.
3. Went for my routine checkup today and everything seemed to be going fine until he stuck his index finger up my butt! Do you think I should change dentists?
4. A wife says to her husband you're always pushing me around and talking behind my back. He says what do you expect? You're in a wheel chair.
5. I was explaining to my wife last night that when you die you get reincarnated but must come back as a different creature. She said she would like to come back as a cow. I said, "You're obviously not listening".
6. My wife has been missing a week now. Police said to prepare for the worst. So, I have been to the thrift shop to get all of her clothes back.
7. At the Senior Citizens Center they had a contest the other day. I lost by one point: The question was: Where do women mostly have curly hair? Apparently the correct answer was Africa!!!
8. One of the other questions that I missed was to name one thing commonly found in cells. It appears that Mexicans is not the correct answer either.
9. I've heard that Apple has scrapped their plans for the new children oriented iPod after realizing that 'iTouch Kids;' is not a good product name.
10. You can say lots of bad things about pedophiles but at least they drive slowly past schools.
11. A buddy of mine has just told me he's getting it on with his girlfriend and her twin. I said "How can you tell them apart?" He said "Her brother's got a mustache."
12. Being a modest man, when I checked into my hotel on a recent trip, I said to the lady at the registration desk, "I hope the porn channel in my room is disabled." To which she replied, "No, it's regular people-porn, you sick bastard.
Thanks for reminding us that we are all at the mercy of a language that makes it a sheer wonder that we ever get anything right or straight between us at all. LOL
As for Einstein and his theory of relativity, there have been many experiments that have disproven the speed of light as being an absolute while none that have genuinely and unequivocably proven it to be true.
Alain Aspect delivered what I and some others considered to be the final nail in the coffin of that absolute way back in 1982 and the hue and cry from scientific and academic circles was so fierce and unrelenting that he was forced to abandon any further studies in that direction if he wanted to keep on working.
So much for any truth in science when it's not convenient and I suspect this one from OPERA will likely suffer the same fate and eventually be lost in the same kind of overwhelming sea of deliberate obfuscations and pre-meditated distortions that Aspect's did.
The many remarkable and quite brilliant contributions Aspect subsequently made to the whole field of optics merely showed to what a real extent he actually knew what he was doing and talking about, albeit in a far less dangerous and threatening way to those in authority, of course.
The danger of upsetting applcarts is only to those who deliberately or even inadvertently simply threaten to, rather than those determined to try and keep things as they are.
That is most true when those defenders of the status-quo also benefit from it far more than anyone else does and use that very formidable advantage to simply see that things remain just as they are.
Now you can take the science out of the human being but you can't unfortunately take the human being out of the science.
We always need to bear that in mind when it comes to discerning whether the truth is actually being served in a forthright manner or simply the truth of that unflattering proposition itself.
By the way, having any "faith in science" is a complete contradiction in terms. To do so places it in the realm of being a religion and yourself in the untenable position of being the one with the misplaced prioritiies and faulty logic.
Appealing to reason is always commendable but not to the extent that we are willing to become unreasonable in the pursuit of it...hmmm? LOL
The reason I use a spacer is because otherwise one cannot quote the previous post and one has to enter the relevant code to show who one is quoting by hand - which is damned annoying.
Last edited by Grimer on Fri Sep 30, 2011 5:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
I used to be in communication with Caroline Thompson (R.I.P.) who was obsessed with Bell's Theorem as much as I am with Keenie. When I read that bit on Aspect you linked I was desperately trying to remember her name since I knew there was a connection between Bell and Aspect. Eventually I twigged it and when I googled was surprised to find she still had a wiki site. I'm glad her work didn't die with her.
Here's an extract from her wiki.
The first application of Bell's theorem was in 1972, by Freedman and Clauser (Freedman, 1972). This was a single-channel experiment, using an atomic radiative cascade source and "pile-of-plates" polarisers. The results violated the Freedman inequality -- an inequality that can be derived from the full version of the CH74 inequality when the source is rotationally invariant (Clauser, 1978).
Other applications followed during the 1970s, then in 1981-2 Alain Aspect and his team in Orsay, Paris, conducted the three experiments for which he is now well known (Aspect, 1981-2). These experiments used a similar source, and the first and last also used similar polarisers, to Freedman and Clauser. The source was not so convincingly rotationally invariant, though, so the general form of the CH74 test was used. In the remaining experiment, with two-channel polarisers, the CHSH test was used, this being the first application of the test.
All three of Aspect's experiments violated their respective Bell inequalities and have been taken by the majority of physicists as convincing evidence of quantum entanglement and the impossibility of any local realist (local hidden variable) model for quantum events. Experimental conditions were not perfect, however. There were large numbers of "accidentals", and it is possible that the subtraction of these -- justified by Aspect using quantum-mechanical arguments -- biased the analysis (Thompson, 2003). The two-channel experiment, for which the subtraction of accidentals was not critical (Aspect, 1985), required the fair sampling assumption. Despite Aspect's best efforts to check that the sample was fair, this, as has been known since 1970 (Pearle, 1970), represents a possible loophole. The last experiment is probably the best known, having used an acousto-optical system to switch the photon direction on each side to one of two polarisers, thus blocking the locality loophole.
A photon is a single quantum of action. We are all familiar with quantities such as mass, velocity, acceleration, momentum and energy. Action is just another member of this family, but not one that we come across much in ordinary life. It is defined as the product of momentum and distance traveled, or, equivalently, energy and time. Thus the amount of action of speeding bullet is higher than the same bullet traveling more slowly across the same distance. Double the bullet's mass, and you get twice the action—which accords with our intuitive concepts of action.
This bit is relevant to gravity wheels with regard to acceleration.
Thus the amount of action of a mass being accelerated is higher than that of same mass accelerated more slowly across the same distance
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
I really wanna say something here but for the moment it's totally irrelevant.... So I will try to keep it relevant as I can.
I understood Einstein to be mass specific. ie Mass cannot travel faster than the speed of light as more energy input to increase the speed also increases the mass. This takes more fuel to propel and you could never get enough fuel to move faster as the mass increases just negate the speed increase. Assuming light is a universal constant.
Makes sense to me the initial wave of sound say from a shotgun, the sound which has a lower max speed than light, in my perception, can sometimes be felt as if it had some kind of mass. To me an example of sound trying to go faster than it can.
