Pentcho Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Des vitesses plus grandes que 300000 km/s ont ete obtenues dans des experiences diverses: http://i-newswire.com/pr43033.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796 Mais les experimentateurs (qui n'ont rien a voir avec la theorie de la relativite) expliquent aux zombies de la relativite pourquoi la theorie quand meme reste valide, et les zombies repetent l'explication trois fois par jour. C'est le principe d'Ignatius de Loyola: "That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to be black if the Romish Church define it so to be." Une illustration du signal superlumineux: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html Le signal superlumineux peut etre appele "Hamlet": il existe parce qu'on enregistre son depart et son arrivee (sinon on ne pourrait pas mesurer sa vitesse), mais en meme temps il ne doit pas exister parce qu'il est dangereux pour la theorie de la relativite. Ce signal est vraiment tres dangereux, par exemple quand on tente de resoudre Probleme 6 ("Train in a tunnel"), p. 47 (solution a la p. 53), dans http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf Pentcho Valev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Please use a translation program. All posts and articles at SFN must be submitted in English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DV8 2XL Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Pentcho Valev is well documented as a crank in the Eur. J. Phys. and has a reasonable command of Standard English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanJ Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Please use a translation program. All posts and articles at SFN must[/i'] be submitted in English. Rules are rules Incase you are interested, here is what was said (Bad translation by the looks of it though): http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scienceforums.net%2Fforums%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D224976&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools Cheers, Ryan Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger's Eye Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Here with another translation, since the google one is kinda sketchy (sry RyanJ ). Hope this is somewhat accurate. Plz correct it if i'm way off. Cheers! Tiger Subliminal speeds and Ignatius de Loyola Speeds greater than 300000 km/s have been obtained in several (diverse) experiences/experiments (?) http://i-newswire.com/pr43033.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796 But the experimenters (who have nothing to do w/ the theory of relativity) explain to the relativity zombies (fanatics?) why the theory is still valid all the same, and the zombies repeat the explanation three times a day. It’s Ignatius de Loyala’s principle (law): "That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to be black if the Romish Church define it so to be." An illustration of subliminal motion: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.ne...ETS/20/20.html The subliminal motion is also called ‘Hamlet’: it exists because one registers its departure and arrival (if not, one wouldn’t be able to measure its speed), but at the same time, it must not exist because it is dangerous for the theory of relativity. This motion is truly very dangerous, for example, when trying to resolve Problem 6 (“Train in a tunnel”), p.47 (solution on pg.53), in http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch10.pdf Pentcho Valev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanJ Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Here with another translation, since the google one is kinda sketchy (sry RyanJ ) No problem, Goolge is not known for its accurate translating abilities and I can only just use English! Cheers, Ryan Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 This topic has been discussed (in English) several times before. And it was conclusively proved not to violate Relativity. Though I can't tell if this person is trying to argue against relativity or agree with it, as the translation is hard to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DV8 2XL Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 He is totaly against it, and has made himself a pest on several websites and in several newsgroups over the years because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 What Pentcho is talking about is a well known thing in physics and is totaly within the laws of all physics including relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now