Re: An Italian published E=mc2 two years B.E. (before Einstein)

Message has been deleted

Androcles

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 4:59:43 AM2/26/07

to

"5,999,999" <nighth...@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:1172479042.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

[snip crap]

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm

Whoopee, I derived E = mv^2.

Gris...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 7:24:19 AM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 4:59 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:

> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
>
> Whoopee, I derived E = mv^2.

No, you're just a crank.

Roger

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 7:38:25 AM2/26/07

to

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be 5,999,999 wrote
in message
<1172479042.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:

>Ask yourself who is The World's Most Evil Man™ and The World's Most
>Brilliant Mind™ according to popular culture, then ask yourself who
>controls the media.
>
>By Rory Carroll in Rome
>The Guardian - London
>
>The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was
>discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert
>Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was
>claimed yesterday.
>
>Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the
>equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto
>Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

OF course, De Pretto was using it to describe the properties of
"aether," but don't let that stop your distortions. I know you won't.

Just like I know you will continue to run from this:

<quote>

>> >Debate should be never be closed as long as there are some who disbelieve the
>> >"so-called" facts.

>> So, there should continue to be debate over whether the Earth is flat?

>Saying holocaust revisionists are flat-earthers is ignorant or plain
>dishonest.

No, it is deniers who are demonstrably ignorant or dishonest.

>A holocaust denier is any non--partisan who has done any
>research beyond watching Schindler's list.

Demonstrably wrong.

>What "Holocaust deniers" say is simply that there were no gas
>chambers. None. Zero. Nada. There is NO evidence of gas chambers that
>an objective person can find credible.

And that assertion is either made out of ignorance or dishonesty,
given things like the Krakow Institute report, the transportation
records to (and recorded lack of transportation from) the camps, and
the Kremer diary, just to name three pieces of that evidence.

>There is growing credible
>evidence that what purport to be the remains of gas chambers at
>Auschwitz, and elsewhere, are frauds - less believable than Potemkin
>villages.

>> And yet, you cannot cite a single bit of this "new evidence."
>>
>> Funny, that.

>There is PLENTY of evidence.

And yet, you *still cannot actually *cite* a single bit of this "new
evidence."

Funny, that.

>In comparison, this is a sample of what "Holocaust Proof" is made of,
>along with photos of crematoriums, cans of empty flea powder and
>emaciated corpses of typhoid victims pushed into a pit:

One wonders why the idiot hater does not even *try* to address the
three bits of evidence above?

</quote>

BernardZ

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 7:43:19 AM2/26/07

to

In article <1172479042.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
nighth...@googlemail.com says...
> Ask yourself who is The World's Most Evil Manâ=3F¢ and The World's Most
> Brilliant Mindâ=3F¢ according to popular culture, then ask yourself who

> controls the media.
>
> By Rory Carroll in Rome
> The Guardian - London
>
> The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was
> discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert
> Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was
> claimed yesterday.
>
> Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the
> equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto
> Bartocci, a mathematical historian.
>

> Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published
> in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of
> the University of Perugia.
>
> De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of
> relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe,
> said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal
> Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.
>
> A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research
> and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It
> took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally
> dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went
> on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in
> 1921.
>
> "De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he
> was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also
> believe, though it's impossible to prove, that Einstein used De
> Pretto's research," said Prof Bartocci, who has written a book on the
> subject.
>
> Einstein's theory held that time and motion are relative to the
> observer if the speed of light is constant and if all natural laws are
> the same. A footnote established the equivalence of mass and energy,
> according to which the energy (E) of a quantity of matter (m) is equal
> to the product of the mass and the square of the velocity of light
> (c). Now known as: E=mc2 .
>
> The influence of work by other physicists on Einstein's theory is also
> controversial. A German, David Hilbert, is thought by some to have
> been decisive.
>
> Edmund Robertson, professor of mathematics at St Andrew's University,
> said: "An awful lot of mathematics was done by people who have never
> been credited - Arabs in the middle ages, for example. Einstein may
> have got the idea from someone else, but ideas come from all sorts of
> places.
>
> "De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so,
> it should not detract from Einstein."
>
> http://www.rense.com/general19/ital.htm
>
>

Actually fact De Pretto's was hardly a novel idea and was quickly
ignored as it is not relativity at all.

Basically he stated that matter consists of tiny particles (of what he
does not say), agitated by their exposure to the ultra-mundane ether
particles of George LeSage's "shadow theory" of gravity. Since the
particles in every aggregate of matter are in motion, every quantity of
mass contains an amount of energy equal to Leibniz's "vis viva", the
living force, which Leibniz defined as mv^2. Oddly enough, De Pretto
seems to have been under the impression that mv^2 was the kinetic
energy
of macroscopic bodies moving at the speed v.

Nor did De Pretto know that the speed of light is a physically limiting
speed, but he noted that LeSage's ether particles were thought to move
at approximately the speed of light, and so (he reasoned) the particles
comprising a stationary aggregate of matter may also be vibrating
internally at the speed of light. In that case, the vis viva of each
quantity of mass m would be mc^2.

And it is in fact wrong! No mass can travel at c. And it is quite
different to Einstein's formula E=mc^2 as this energy refers to the
energy of the mass.

Needless to say, this bears no resemblance at all to the path that
Einstein actually followed to mass-energy equivalence.

--
Blogging is very time consuming.

Observations of Bernard - No 110

Aage Andersen

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 9:05:35 AM2/26/07

to

Classically a particle moving at c has a kinetic energy of E = 1/2 mc^2.

Why did De Pretto state E = mc^2 ?

Aagee

Richard Hachel

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 9:14:23 AM2/26/07

to

Aage Andersen wrote:

> Classically a particle moving at c has a kinetic energy of E = 1/2 mc^2.

????

>
>
> Why did De Pretto state E = mc^2 ?

????

>
>
> Aagee

Eg=mc^2[Vr/Vo]

Ec=Eg-mc^2

Ec= mc^2 [sqrt(1+Vr^2/c^2)-1] or Ec=mc^2 [sqrt(1/(1-Vo^2/c^2)) - 1 ]

If Vo=c then Ec=mc^2 [Oo]= Oo

Energie cinetique infinie.

Logique.

R.H.

Androcles

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 9:20:22 AM2/26/07

to

<Gris...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172492659.2...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

No, you are just a fuckhead.

Aage Andersen

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 9:46:22 AM2/26/07

to

"Richard Hachel" >
> Aage Andersen>> Classically a particle moving at c has a kinetic energy of

> E = 1/2 mc^2.
>
> ????
>
>>
>>
>> Why did De Pretto state E = mc^2 ?
>
> ????
>

> Eg=mc^2[Vr/Vo]
>
> Ec=Eg-mc^2
>
> Ec= mc^2 [sqrt(1+Vr^2/c^2)-1] or Ec=mc^2 [sqrt(1/(1-Vo^2/c^2)) -
> 1 ]
>
> If Vo=c then Ec=mc^2 [Oo]= Oo
>
> Energie cinetique infinie.

That is relativistic not classically.

Aage

Richard Hachel

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 10:18:07 AM2/26/07

to

Aage Andersen wrote:

That is classical relativity.

Ec=Eg-mc^2

Ec=mc^2 [sqrt(1/(1-Vo^2/c^2)) - 1 ]

If Vo=c then Ec=mc^2 [Oo]= Oo

Where not?

>
>
> Aage

R.H.

Douglas Berry

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 10:21:31 AM2/26/07

to

On 26 Feb 2007 00:37:22 -0800 there was an Ancient "5,999,999"
<nighth...@googlemail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy

>Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the

>equation E=3Dmc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto
>Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

Except that he didn't come up with the Theory of Relativity, which was
the major part of Einstein's work. Hell, at least a dozen physicists
had come up with models for the potential energy of matter, but
Einstein was the first to show how it worked.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784

Puppet_Sock

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 12:21:19 PM2/26/07

to

I think you mean "in Newton's theory" or some such.
That is, pre-relativity. The thing that is usual as "non
classical" is "quantum" not "relativistic."
Socks

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 12:48:59 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 7:21 am, Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
wrote:
> "5,999,999" wrote:

> >Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the
> >equation E=3Dmc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto
> >Bartocci, a mathematical historian.
>
> Except that he didn't come up with the Theory of Relativity, which was
> the major part of Einstein's work. Hell, at least a dozen physicists
> had come up with models for the potential energy of matter, but
> Einstein was the first to show how it worked.

Neither did Einstein.

** Lorentz transformation was first derived by Larmor based on
Voigt's work. Einstein's derivation without referring to MMX is total
garbage.

** Special relativity was first conceptualized by Poincare.
Einstein's two postulates are already properties of the Lorentz
transformation. The constancy of the speed of light was first
proposed by Voigt to address the null results of the MMX. The
principle of relativity was the reason why Larmor modified the Voigt
transformation.

** (E = m c^2) is actually no big deal. What is important is (E = m
c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)). Without that explicit form, there is no
atomic weapon. Lorentz predated Einstein on that one. However,
Lorentz did not show proper derivation of it. Einstein's derivation
of (E = m c^2 / ...) went through a series of mistakes. If you like,
I can go through it. This means Einstein copied it from somewhere
else.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 12:53:58 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 6:05 am, "Aage Andersen" <aaa(REMOVE)@email.dk> wrote:

> Classically a particle moving at c has a kinetic energy of E = 1/2 mc^2.

No. Leibniz stated the kinetic energy is the following.

E = m v^2 / 2

> Why did De Pretto state E = mc^2 ?

Of course, there is no such thing as the kinetic energy.

If

** E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
** 1 >> v^2 / c^2

Then

** E - m c^2 = m v^2 / 2

If

** E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
** 1 >> v^2 / c^2

Then

** m c^2 - E = m v^2 / 2

This is where the kinetic energy comes from.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 12:59:21 PM2/26/07

to

"Koobee Wublee"
aka Australopithecus Afarensis
aka Scholarly Fungi
aka Time Traveler
aka Lordly Amoeba
aka Ibn Battuta
aka Marco Polo
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172512139.2...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 26, 7:21 am, Douglas Berry <penguin_...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
> wrote:
>> "5,999,999" wrote:
>
>> >Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the
>> >equation E=3Dmc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto
>> >Bartocci, a mathematical historian.
>>
>> Except that he didn't come up with the Theory of Relativity, which was
>> the major part of Einstein's work. Hell, at least a dozen physicists
>> had come up with models for the potential energy of matter, but
>> Einstein was the first to show how it worked.
>
> Neither did Einstein.

How on Earth would a self-inflicted retard like you have
any idea about that?

>
> ** Lorentz transformation was first derived by Larmor based on
> Voigt's work. Einstein's derivation without referring to MMX is total
> garbage.

Well, here's how you understand that transformation:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
See my point, retard?

Dirk Vdm

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 1:00:16 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 4:43 am, BernardZ <berna...@Nospam.com> wrote:

> Actually fact De Pretto's was hardly a novel idea and was quickly
> ignored as it is not relativity at all.

It should not matter if relativity or not. After all, relativity did
not gain too much acceptance until the formulation of GR.

> Basically he stated that matter consists of tiny particles (of what he
> does not say), agitated by their exposure to the ultra-mundane ether
> particles of George LeSage's "shadow theory" of gravity. Since the
> particles in every aggregate of matter are in motion, every quantity of
> mass contains an amount of energy equal to Leibniz's "vis viva", the
> living force, which Leibniz defined as mv^2. Oddly enough, De Pretto
> seems to have been under the impression that mv^2 was the kinetic
> energy of macroscopic bodies moving at the speed v.

Thanks.

> Nor did De Pretto know that the speed of light is a physically limiting
> speed, but he noted that LeSage's ether particles were thought to move
> at approximately the speed of light, and so (he reasoned) the particles
> comprising a stationary aggregate of matter may also be vibrating
> internally at the speed of light. In that case, the vis viva of each
> quantity of mass m would be mc^2.

Yes, De Pretto hand-waved it.

> And it is in fact wrong! No mass can travel at c. And it is quite
> different to Einstein's formula E=mc^2 as this energy refers to the
> energy of the mass.

Einstein's derivation of (E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)) went
through a series of errors. Einstein fudged it.

> Needless to say, this bears no resemblance at all to the path that
> Einstein actually followed to mass-energy equivalence.

Both are trash.

> --
> Blogging is very time consuming.

Agreed.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 1:07:04 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 9:59 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@More-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> Except that he didn't come up with the Theory of Relativity, which was
> >> the major part of Einstein's work. Hell, at least a dozen physicists
> >> had come up with models for the potential energy of matter, but
> >> Einstein was the first to show how it worked.
>
> > Neither did Einstein.
>
> How on Earth would a self-inflicted retard like you have
> any idea about that?

Didn't Confucius say a retard would think everyone else as a retard.

> > ** Lorentz transformation was first derived by Larmor based on
> > Voigt's work. Einstein's derivation without referring to MMX is total
> > garbage.
>
> Well, here's how you understand that transformation:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html

That is very correct. I am proud of it.

> See my point, retard?

I do see your point in accordance to Confucius's saying.

karand...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 1:13:11 PM2/26/07

to

You are smelling too much of the ASS fumes emmanating from the guy in
front of you at your local Irvine, CA mosque. Get a life, towelhead.

hanson

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 2:45:30 PM2/26/07

to

[VD Spermer]
news:1172513222.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@More-SperM.hotmail.com> was
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... So you, dirk Van De moortel, who refers to
yourself as Dirk, the "Kacksacker", is thirsty for More hot Sperm
again... AHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> per VD

aka Australopithecus Afarensis
aka Scholarly Fungi
aka Time Traveler
aka Lordly Amoeba
aka Ibn Battuta

aka Marco Polo wrote in message
>
[Nighthawk]

> >Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the
> >equation E=3Dmc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903,
> >said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.
>

[Berry]

>> Except that he didn't come up with the Theory of Relativity, which was

>> major part of Einstein's work. Hell, at least a dozen physicists
>> had come up with models for the potential energy of matter, but
>> Einstein was the first to show how it worked.
>>

[KW]
>> > Neither did Einstein.
>>
[VD Spermer]

>> How on Earth would a self-inflicted retard like you have
>> any idea about that?
>

[KW]

> Didn't Confucius say a retard would think everyone else as a retard.
>

[KW]

** Lorentz transformation was first derived by Larmor based on
Voigt's work. Einstein's derivation without referring to MMX is total
garbage.

** Special relativity was first conceptualized by Poincare.

Einstein's two postulates are already properties of the Lorentz
transformation. The constancy of the speed of light was first
proposed by Voigt to address the null results of the MMX. The
principle of relativity was the reason why Larmor modified the Voigt
transformation.

** (E = m c^2) is actually no big deal. What is important is (E = m
c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)). Without that explicit form, there is no
atomic weapon. Lorentz predated Einstein on that one. However,
Lorentz did not show proper derivation of it. Einstein's derivation
of (E = m c^2 / ...) went through a series of mistakes. If you like,
I can go through it. This means Einstein copied it from somewhere
else.
>>

[hanson]
... worse, the idea and manuscript for the 1905 paper was written
anyway by Albert's 1st wife, a Christian, by name of Mileva Maric.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fcc7fb13a66d2439
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fcc7fb13a66d2439
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fcc7fb13a66d2439
>>
[VD Spermer to KW]

>> Well, here's how you understand that transformation:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
>

[KW]

> That is very correct. I am proud of it.
>

[VD Spermer]
>> See my point, retard?
>
[KW]

Oncle Dom

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 3:25:20 PM2/26/07

to

5,999,999 dans son message
1172479042.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com,
nous a fait l'honneur d'écrire:
> Ask yourself who is The World's Most Evil Man™ and The World's Most
> Brilliant Mind™ according to popular culture, then ask yourself who

> controls the media.
>
> By Rory Carroll in Rome
> The Guardian - London
>
> The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was
> discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert
> Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was
> claimed yesterday.
>

> Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the

> equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto
> Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

According to Jules Leveugle, Henri Poincaré knew this formula in 1900
Battocci did a [Ctrl][C] / [Ctrl][V] ;-)
--
Oncle Dom
_________
http://perso.orange.fr/oncle.dom/

JanPB

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 4:18:57 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 1:59 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
> "5,999,999" <nighthawk6...@googlemail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172479042.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

>
> [snip crap]
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
>
> Whoopee, I derived E = mv^2.

No, that was Leibniz (his "vis viva").

--
Jan Bielawski

JanPB

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 4:20:38 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 12:37 am, "5,999,999" <nighthawk6...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ask yourself who is The World's Most Evil Man™ and The World's Most
> Brilliant Mind™ according to popular culture, then ask yourself who
> controls the media.
>
> By Rory Carroll in Rome
> The Guardian - London
>
> The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was
> discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert
> Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was
> claimed yesterday.

This is not terribly consequential. Writing an equation is a different
thing than developing a theory containing that equation. The two are
nowhere near comparable.

As a historical footnote it's mildly interesting and should have been
reported as such.

--
Jan Bielawski

Androcles

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 4:48:45 PM2/26/07

to

"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172524737....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Yes I did, Mr. A-A <> 0. Admittedly I used Leibniz's integration of momenta
but I don't divide-by-zero like you and your stupid hero. You don't even
know what a square is, do you?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy3.gif

Laidback

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 5:55:27 PM2/26/07

to

"Aage Andersen" <aaa(REMOVE)@email.dk> wrote in message
news:45e2e933$0$52151$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...

>
> Classically a particle moving at c has a kinetic energy of E = 1/2 mc^2.
>
> Why did De Pretto state E = mc^2 ?
>
> Aagee
>
>

The facts are all velocities are at "c"
This may be hard to comprehend at first, specially if one has not researched
and gained knowledge in the dynamics of Relativity..

A good beginning in understanding relative velocities is the comparison of
"c" in a relative Near vacuum medium to a relative solid medium..

The velocities are not relatively the same and yet they are the same if we
consider how two or more velocities at "c" from two or more different
directions interact with each other via exchanging kinetic energy to
Potential energy {compression} seen as an area that is much denser to which
these meeting velocities (forces) gives one the impression of a relative
solid area postulated as Mass, Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and Galaxy Clusters
and our Greater Universe.. and its for this very reason Electron flow and or
Electromagnetic waves are propagated much slower in solids... And why Mass
and Energy are one and the same..

All variables used in the formula "E=MC^2" should be seen as the following..

If a given area in our universe is to be grid'ded out to Space-Time, Err
that's Relative C^2 areas ( I should point out here that I treat "C^2" as
"c"x("c"x"c") Any~who, we would more than likely have a NEAR Vacuum for each
cubic area...

In each cubic grid we would have one mass and therefore this mass has only
one unit of energy, any less and it would not be a relative mass and as a
result would be less than a relative Near Vacuum (Dark matter and or
Energy), now as we are aware a near vacuum is with very little force in any
given direction, also note force is the result of velocities, so how does
all this fit or tie in with what mass is?

The trick to understand is that only one mass is the minimum that can exists
in a relative area of C^2, and if we had two masses (compressed) within such
an area surrounded by C^2 areas with only a single mass within them,
Obviously - The two mass area would be with a higher potential seen as twice
the energy (compressed more) and therefore its Potential energy would be
exchanged to kinetic energy until all of the surrounding area was with the
same potential as it - To which all relative velocities are again without
changing references, heres something to consider as evidence for this..
should we have the means to trap a hydrogen atom at sea level so that when
we released it at our upper atmosphere what velocities would be the outcome,
let me suggest an electromagnetic Pulse! Because we should note solid areas
such as our Planet contain much more of a Potential energy ratio the closer
we go to the core of it (Space-Time is with progressively smaller
magnitudes), and increases in potential energy at the expense of kinetic
energy, keep in mind compression suggests a velocity has or is being pushed
backward somewhat by two or more {directions}of opposing Velocities seen as
exchanging the kinetic energy to Potential energy..

Lets now Briefly look at the Black-Hole in our galaxies core that we are
being compressed into, I should point out proof that we are is our
perception of an accelerating expansion of our Universe as our local
Space-Time is compressed and should we plot out our grids to Space-Time
{progressively smaller compression grids and slower "c"} we hopefully should
understand how our galaxy is merely an area that is being compressed by our
Universes Velocities, and there is our gravity, relativity and just about
anything you wish to discuss which all can be easily explained via the
reference to a single basic formula "E=MC^2", and what's more as you can see
Unification has already been achieved!

One more thing I have to say. And that is - Attraction is not a force! But
rather a perception, that's if we correctly consider what velocities are
involved...

Any questions?

Cheers

--
May the Universe give back
100 times what you give out.

JanPB

unread,

Feb 26, 2007, 9:01:23 PM2/26/07

to

On Feb 26, 1:48 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172524737....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> > On Feb 26, 1:59 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "5,999,999" <nighthawk6...@googlemail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172479042.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> [snip crap]
>
> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
>
> >> Whoopee, I derived E = mv^2.
>
> > No, that was Leibniz (his "vis viva").
>
> Yes I did, Mr. A-A <> 0.

I never said that.

> Admittedly I used Leibniz's integration of momenta
> but I don't divide-by-zero like you and your stupid hero.

Einstein didn't divide by zero. Just stop repeating this idiocy, it's
getting old.

--
Jan Bielawski

Androcles

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 12:35:32 AM2/27/07

to

"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172541683.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 26, 1:48 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172524737....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 26, 1:59 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "5,999,999" <nighthawk6...@googlemail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172479042.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> [snip crap]
>>
>> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
>>
>> >> Whoopee, I derived E = mv^2.
>>
>> > No, that was Leibniz (his "vis viva").
>>
>> Yes I did, Mr. A-A <> 0.

> I never said that.

"Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story." - Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.
You are an equally trivial stupid liar, Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.

>> Admittedly I used Leibniz's integration of momenta
>> but I don't divide-by-zero like you and your stupid hero.
>
> Einstein didn't divide by zero.

Did I mention Einstein?
At least you know who your stupid hero is, Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.

> Just stop repeating this idiocy, it's
> getting old.

Aww... Bilewacky, it was interesting to you to see how far I can go with this.
Right now we are reduced to elementary arithmetic, A-A = 0.
With no more work we've gotten down to the nitty-gritty of the empty set.

I'm having all the fun, Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski, and I'll go on embarrassing you until you say "uncle", dumbfuck.

According to Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski, Relativity works because
[an error in Relativity] "would be like Stephen Hawking dividing by zero or
something equally trivial." -- Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.

It's WAY too simple-minded.-- Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.

"would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer." -- Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.

"Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small",
what happens to c-v = dx'/dt, fuckhead who doesn't divide by zero or something equally trivial?

You don't even know what a square is, do you?

DO YOU, Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski the ignorant fuckhead?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy3.gif

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:27:10 AM2/27/07

to

On Feb 26, 8:37 am, "5,999,999" <nighthawk6...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ask yourself who is The World's Most Evil Man™ and The World's Most
> Brilliant Mind™ according to popular culture, then ask yourself who
> controls the media.
>
> By Rory Carroll in Rome
> The Guardian - London
>
> The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was
> discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert
> Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was
> claimed yesterday.
>

> Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the
> equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto
> Bartocci, a mathematical historian.
>

"Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures
in June-July 1915 on general relativity and his developing theory of
gravity (Sauer 1999, Folsing 1998). The exchange of ideas led to the
final form of the field equations of General Relativity, namely the
Einstein field equations and the Einstein-Hilbert action. In spite of
the fact that Einstein and Hilbert never engaged in a public priority
dispute, there has been some dispute about the discovery of the field
equations."
- Wikipedia

If you recall the expanding balloon concept, and gravity being the
expansion of the universe, in to hyperspace, you can also call
hyperspace Hilbert Space. That is what it used to be called.
And actually it did not originate with Hilbert either, but it all can
be traced back, to Robert Brown, a biologist who couldn't figure out
why little things where firing little things at other little things on
the surface of a liquid, under a rudimentary microscope.
And also to the person who came up with the first fractal, George
Cantor,

George Cantor, would be the most important, but least known. Without
him, you wouldn't have quantum mechanics,
or possibly relativity at all. Yet, his work doesn't seem all that
important it was.
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Cantor.html

Why was Brownian Motion so important? Well where was that energy
coming from? That was the question that got them thinking, and
Einstein eventually came up with this idea of perfect elasticity, to
explain it. And herein lies the important part.
What the explanations were, and what the reality of their beliefs
were, were always two different things. And Einstein became famous,
more-so because he knew how, to explain things, in a way, that was
acceptable, without actually explaining what the real situation was,
and that is critical in the sciences, because protecting your
knowledge, is part of being considered an expert in your field, and it
makes you useful, and valuable, whereas if you just give the
information away, you will put yourself and others out of job.
So Einstein was merely, the best of all possible scapegoats of his
era.

His work in the patent office also exposed him to the work of others,
and you can say he was influenced by Maxwell as well,
but Maxwell too, was influenced by others.

And in the end, it was the microscope. The simple invention of the
microscope, that got Robert Brown looking at Brownian Movement, and
led to all this modern physics.
http://www.brianjford.com/wbbrowna.htm

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:44:54 AM2/27/07

to

> important it was.http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Cantor.html

>
> Why was Brownian Motion so important? Well where was that energy
> coming from? That was the question that got them thinking, and
> Einstein eventually came up with this idea of perfect elasticity, to
> explain it. And herein lies the important part.
> What the explanations were, and what the reality of their beliefs
> were, were always two different things. And Einstein became famous,
> more-so because he knew how, to explain things, in a way, that was
> acceptable, without actually explaining what the real situation was,
> and that is critical in the sciences, because protecting your
> knowledge, is part of being considered an expert in your field, and it
> makes you useful, and valuable, whereas if you just give the
> information away, you will put yourself and others out of job.
> So Einstein was merely, the best of all possible scapegoats of his
> era.
>
> His work in the patent office also exposed him to the work of others,
> and you can say he was influenced by Maxwell as well,
> but Maxwell too, was influenced by others.
>
> And in the end, it was the microscope. The simple invention of the
> microscope, that got Robert Brown looking at Brownian Movement, and
> led to all this modern physics.http://www.brianjford.com/wbbrowna.htm

Botanist rather not biologist although in a way i suppose you might
consider him more than just a botanist.

"To this day the nature of Brownian movement is debated, and its cause
still argued; the mathematics of the phenomenon continues to occupy a
significant tranche of contemporary publications in physics. A search
through Current Contents for 'Brownian Motion' will often provide
several citations each month in the modern literature."

And dark energy, is really at the heart of this debate.

Koobee Wublee

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:57:52 AM2/27/07

to

On Feb 26, 10:27 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote:

> "Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures
> in June-July 1915 on general relativity and his developing theory of
> gravity (Sauer 1999, Folsing 1998).

It was more like Einstein asked Klein/Hilbert to do so.

Before this event, Einstein's professor Minkowski, who did not think
anything out of the ordinary with Einstein, had been working on GR
with Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and others for a long time. But due to
Minkowski's early demise and Schwarzschild's untimely departure from
Goettingen, the development of GR was put on hold.

In the meantime, Einstein being very piss-poor in math needed a
partner to work on GR. He enlisted his classmate Grossmann. Their
cooperation was totally based on the Einstein Equivalence Principle
which is mathematically the same as Galileo's principle of
Equivalence. Einstein tried to outdo Newton by fancying himself in a
free fall instead of Newton's observation of a free-falling apple.
With the mathematics of differential geometry, Grossmann was not able
to derive any field equations. Thus, Einstein's cooperation was a
dead end. Dumping Grossmann, he looked else where.

> The exchange of ideas led to the
> final form of the field equations of General Relativity, namely the
> Einstein field equations and the Einstein-Hilbert action.

The field equations would not have been formulated without the
Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian. Right after Einstein's lectures of
Goettingen, he bragged about how he was able to derive Mercury's
orbital anomaly. Mistaken that Einstein had already discovered
something wonderful, Hilbert revealed his Lagrangian to Einstein in
the hope of being the co-discoverer of GR. Einstein being a
plagiarist in the past saw that opportunity and ran with it.

> In spite of
> the fact that Einstein and Hilbert never engaged in a public priority
> dispute, there has been some dispute about the discovery of the field
> equations." - Wikipedia

Hilbert knew his Lagrangian was BS. The resulting field equations are
BS. Einstein sucked it up. The world sucked it up. Hilbert was not
even sure that Riemann's proposal that gravity was caused by the
curvature in space or in spacetime extending to what Hilbert knew but
Riemann did not. This is why he said "If I were to awaken after
having slept for a thousand years, my first question would be: Has the
Riemann hypothesis been proven?".

Hilbert was a genius unlike Einstein. I do pity Hilbert's anguish.

Vass...@webtv.net

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:59:57 AM2/27/07

to

Manfred the heat seeking oboe accomplished this in 1879 while sunning at
the Arthur Kill in Staten Island but forgot to write it down. Too bad.
It could have been a real claim to fame for the borough of Richmond and
Manfred could have been a contender.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 2:24:21 AM2/27/07

to

If you took the time to read that excellent biography of George
Cantor,
you will see at the bottom, what Hilbert had to say...

"Hilbert described Cantor's work as:-

...the finest product of mathematical genius and one of the
supreme achievements of purely intellectual human activity. "

"ll was not going well in other ways too, for in 1885 Mittag-Leffler
persuaded Cantor to withdraw one of his papers from Acta Mathematica
when it had reached the proof stage because he thought it "... about
one hundred years too soon". Cantor joked about it but was clearly
hurt:-

Had Mittag-Leffler had his way, I should have to wait until the
year 1984, which to me seemed too great a demand! ... But of course I
never want to know anything again about Acta Mathematica. "

What was so important about his work?
He was the first to come up with the concept of other dimensions.
Which led to Hilbert Space,
which led to GR.
He was the first to come up with set theory, which led to Heisenberg,
and quantum theory.
In 1932 Heisenberg was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for:-
The creation of quantum mechanics, the application of which has
led, among other things, to the discovery of the allotropic forms of
hydrogen.

And so who was this George Cantor, this nobody, who revolutionized the
world, to such a degree,
that to say his math was 100 years ahead of its time, is probably an
understatement.
Seriously, we have gone so far past where you would think we as humans
should be,
because of these things. Dimensions you can't see??? Preposterous!
Quantum theory too, how outrageous.
Monkeys typing Shakespeare indeed.
He was another Pascal. You know how Pascal attributed his genius, to a
flash of enlightenment,
and Pascal's Amulette, attests to that, well Cantor, said that he got
a flash of enlightenment while
in the mountains. And it must have changed him dramatically, because
after that, he was a stranger
in a strange land, and could not find anyone who understood him, felt
an affinity to Francis Bacon,
Bacon being another supposed enlightened one, and he fell into a
depression that lasted the rest
of his life. But he did come up with some ideas, that some might
suggest, could have come from
the future, or somewhere out there. If he had claimed he was abducted
by aliens, I would believe him.
His math changed the world that much.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 2:43:04 AM2/27/07

to

Its interesting that you should mention Riemann, because I still see
him,
as a sort of way to explain away the unexplainable.
That nagging little thing that sometimes gets explained away as quarks
these days, but back then it was well, how small is small, and how
can
this all work at Plank length. And really should these little flat
sections
be touching, and again, how does that all work?
I don't think we have ever really answered those nagging questions
properly, maybe someday we will. The question of infinities.
canceling them out, doesn't really answer the ultimate questions,
and quantum theory just says, well don't try to make things fit
a macro view, that doesn't explain it either, so I put Riemann and
Niels Bohr in the same camp.
"Anybody who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."
--Niels Bohr

I think this math, is still over our heads. Thats what I think.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 2:49:54 AM2/27/07

to

I have my own pet theory about all this and it goes like this...

God looked down on the earth in the 1800's and saw children
working in coal mines and said to Cantor 'get a pencil'
and Einstein built a bomb.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 2:58:47 AM2/27/07

to

And one of the reasons I think something weird happened there
was as far as I have been told, this...

"Cantor published a rather strange paper in 1894 which listed the way
that all even numbers up to 1000 could be written as the sum of two
primes. Since a verification of Goldbach's conjecture up to 10000 had
been done 40 years before, it is likely that this strange paper says
more about Cantor's state of mind than it does about Goldbach's
conjecture."

Describes the first fractal. Now there may be some dispute about that
but that is what I was told.

And well fractal math, is unique in that it describes the geometry of
life and growth of
biological organisms.
Like this fractal fern...
http://www.popmath.org.uk/rpamaths/imagesrpam/bfern.jpg

And such things as clouds, which we take for granted in
our flight simulator games.

So how do you just stumble upon all that?

Its no wonder that at the time, they didn't see him as being anyone
special,
but today, we appreciate his brilliance. Fractals, GR and quantum
theory.
Maybe they would have happened without him, but he managed to get
out there on that edge, and stretch his brain enough to do it.
Maybe he had help I don't know. I like to believe he did.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 3:32:51 AM2/27/07

to

> Like this fractal fern...http://www.popmath.org.uk/rpamaths/imagesrpam/bfern.jpg

>
> And such things as clouds, which we take for granted in
> our flight simulator games.
>
> So how do you just stumble upon all that?
>
> Its no wonder that at the time, they didn't see him as being anyone
> special,
> but today, we appreciate his brilliance. Fractals, GR and quantum
> theory.
> Maybe they would have happened without him, but he managed to get
> out there on that edge, and stretch his brain enough to do it.
> Maybe he had help I don't know. I like to believe he did.

I guess it would be heavily disputed, that he created the first
fractal,
he attended lectures by the person who supposedly formalized the math.
Karl Weierstrass - the father of modern analysis who probably
influenced Cantors work.

And the Cantor set, which isn't much to look at, is seen as a fractal
by today's standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_set

Recursive functions may be attributed to Leibniz and that is really
where
you find the concept of taking some small formula and just repeating
it and including the result.
And that is the foundation of all growing things, and obviously a key
factor in the way the universe works.
You just keep repeating the process, and things develop.
Finding what those little formula are though. That has been the trick,
and that is what everyone some day expects to find, with the GUT.
Something like that. A simple formula, that explains it all.
I hope its not a fractal, because then it would be too machine-like.
I hope it is more like E=mc2

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 4:08:18 AM2/27/07

to

To me, this has to be some of the most difficult math in the
universe...

[quote]
It is not difficult to see that this mapping is a homeomorphism from
2N onto the Cantor set, and hence that 2N is indeed a Cantor space.
A topological characterization of Cantor spaces is given by Brouwer's
theorem:
Any two non-empty compact Hausdorff spaces without isolated points
and having countable bases consisting of clopen sets are homeomorphic
to each other.
(The topological property of having a base consisting of clopen sets
is sometimes known as "zero-dimensionality".) This theorem can be
restated as:
A topological space is a Cantor space if and only if it is non-
empty, perfect, compact, totally disconnected, and metrizable.
It is also equivalent (via Stone's representation theorem for Boolean
algebras) to the fact that any two countable atomless Boolean algebras
are isomorphic.
[un quote] - Wikipedia on Cantor Spaces

but basically, the way I see it, is that what it says, is that things
can be discreet, and separate, and I suppose
go on to infinity.
You can reduce things forever, and never end up with completely
nothing.
And the multiverse concept comes from this, and even, the idea that
you can have a programming language,
and a Turing machine, a computer, that can answer every question
possible, using only 0 and 1.

So really, if Cantor wasn't talking to God, he must have been talking
to someone about this,
or else they were all that entire bunch at that time, really way ahead
of the curve.

Now the fact that he is deleting the middle 1/3 from the set, makes
you wonder if he shouldn't be
trying to get a little bit closer to a circle.
Now for me, I don't see 0 and 1 as being sufficient. I see yes no and
maybe so.
Whereas the boolean true false, describes our present computer logic.
I see that something undefined, should also have a value,and quantum
mechanics,
demands it.
The half dead cats, the moon landing, it all depends on where you
happen to be,
in the reference frame, as to what reality happens to be, at that
point in space and time.
I think we might have to throw out the notion, of a mechanical
universe that is linear.

How that works exactly, I don;t know. We just refer to it, as the
collapse of the wave function.
But I have seen it collapse, and then you go, hold on, its back up
again.
Strange as that may seem.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 4:22:34 AM2/27/07

to

So what has he done here, by removing the middle third?
He has removed the maybe so, and left us with yes or no.

That is to say, that if there is a reality, things fall into
two categories.
And the undefined part you can simple exclude, because the very
act of existence, demands a result.
And the result is obtained, by removing the undefined portion.

And thats all well and good, in a mechanistic universe.

And maybe that is how we got this far, by dealing in things which
are hard and fast and either true or false.
But we do of course, sweep the rest under the rug.

And well, out goes the baby with the bathwater as well.

Because we portend, that quantum effects, are real effects,
after the collapse of the wave function, yet we say that
the potential, is there, and a real possibility, and we do
that, by looking at statistics.

We say, sure, at this point, those cats may be dead,
in that box, or they may be alive in that box, but out of 100
such experiments, by extrapolating on that data, we
are 99% sure, they are dead.

Sooooo, as I say, we seem to be close enough to understanding
things, by expecting that the universe will behave in a somewhat
linear
fashion, so we can make statistical assumptions, and maybe that
is as far as can go, or as far as we want to go, because who
really would want, to know the mind of God?
Wouldn't that depress anyone?

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 4:40:23 AM2/27/07

to

> That is to say, that if there is a reality, things fall into
> two categories.
> And the undefined part you can simple exclude, because the very
> act of existence, demands a result.
> And the result is obtained, by removing the undefined portion.
>

Actually we have gone a bit further than this still, but people
are not all that comfortable taking responsibility for doing
the work of God at that point, with Bell's theorum.
And that is where we say, ok, we are 99% sure,
and so we are sure, and that decision, collapses the wave
function into some real result.

And it does work, we have tested it.

And you could I suppose say that an act of faith, might
also be considered as a way to collapse the wave function
to make things happen, or by believing a thing, you can help
make it so.

But reallly, at that point, it is not easy to measure.
Although a GUT should be able to explain all that.

You wouldn't want to jump out of an airplane, or make
mission critical applications based on speculation.
And you don't want to feel like you can think things
to happen, because then that sense of power,
would have a tendency to overwhelm a mere mortal.

So Pandora's box comes to mind.

And already, in a way, the bomb was just that.

Yet so far so good.

I wonder what knowledge we will have to live with,
100 years from now.

Marco Paulo

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 7:42:08 AM2/27/07

to

On 26 fév, 09:37, "5,999,999" <nighthawk6...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ask yourself who is The World's Most Evil Man™ and The World's Most ...
[...]
>
> http://www.rense.com/general19/ital.htm

Siko chari d'ali em too cass. Sodi glas, shoa yo, shima yu ? Esté
colita d'al ouaba eno kuid. Glaba Enstein gali nono opi Stari !

Soi Stari canou Enstein bla, hosos da, shomi pas.

ésisi.

fda

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 8:20:01 AM2/27/07

to

rick_...@hotmail.com wrote:

> And that is where we say, ok, we are 99% sure,

Il ne me viendrait pas ą l'idée de monter dans un avion qui ne soit qu'ą
99% sūr ! Vous, si ?

Richard Hachel

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 11:12:55 AM2/27/07

to

fda wrote:

> rick_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > And that is where we say, ok, we are 99% sure,
>

> Il ne me viendrait pas à l'idée de monter dans un avion qui ne soit qu'à
> 99% sûr ! Vous, si ?

Il suffit de ne monter que 99 fois, et la centième, au moment de monter,
tu peux feindre une gastro-entérite ou une hypoglycémie.

Puis tu montes dans le 101° et ainsi de suite.

Personne n'a jamais eu d'accident dans l'avion qu'il n'a pas pris.

R.H.

surrealis...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 11:37:15 AM2/27/07

to

On Feb 26, 1:37 am, "5,999,999" <nighthawk6...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ask yourself who is The World's Most Evil Man™ and The World's Most

> Edmund Robertson, professor of mathematics at St Andrew's University,
> said: "An awful lot of mathematics was done by people who have never
> been credited - Arabs in the middle ages, for example. Einstein may
> have got the idea from someone else, but ideas come from all sorts of
> places.
>
> "De Pretto deserves credit if his contribution can be proven. Even so,
> it should not detract from Einstein."
>
> http://www.rense.com/general19/ital.htm

If Olinto De Pretto was able on his own to speculate, apart from a
specfic theory to justify it (that is, apart from considerations of
electrodynamics, say), that E = mc^2, then he is a genius in his own
right. But that is not what physics is much about. Such leaps of faith
(by isolated hypotheses) themselves rarely push physics along. Indeed,
appearently De Pretto himself wasn't able to do much with it.

Physics is about the invention of theories that work, for three
reasons:

1) theories encapulate lots of information, which single, or even
uncoupled, hypotheses do not;
2) theories often produce testable deductions, not considered during
the formation of the theory, which, if confirmed by experiment, lead
to further confidence in the theory (at the very least that it will be
useful for a while);
3) theories satisfy the human desire for 'explanations' because they
contain cause-and-effect reasoning.

LET was one explanation of the laws of electrodynamics. It contained
an absolute velocity space that Einstein regarded as superfluous at
best (it couldn't apparently be observed) and philosophically ugly at
worst (it violated the strong PoR and represented a step backward from
the Galilean version of the PoR).

Einstein was NOT trying in 1905 to construct a theory that produced E
= mc^2. He couldn't have cared less about that. He asked himself this
simple philosophical question:

How can I replace LET with an electrodynamics that is a logically
simple generalization of Newton's mechanics, yet, same as in Newton's
mechanics, does not introduce an absolute velocity space? For such a
space plays no role whatsoever in Newton's mechanics.

His answer to that question was SR. And from SR he found the
unanticipated result that E = mc^2, which flowed naturally from the
equations of SR electrodynamics and had an electrodynamic
interpretation from the theory itself.

The presentation of E = mc^2 from within a theory of electrodynamics
adds a lot more credence to the hypothesis than does merely positing
it from the blue sky, that is, without having a theoretical context to
interpret it within and provide operational definitions for its
testing.

Great theorists get credit for great theories, not for great
hypotheses.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 12:52:21 PM2/27/07

to

On Feb 27, 4:12 pm, Richard Hachel <r.hac...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> fda wrote:

If, we were to say, that is a Cantor set, described a circle,
perfectly.
Suppose we use pi, well pi goes on for ever.
So that begs the question, does God even know then?
Is God even 100% sure?
Or does he play dice with the universe.
Einstein said of course God doesn't.

Now we could easily say, that its both, because if the result,
is that which God does not like, he merely changes it
using the brute force method to a result he is satisfied with.

We on the other hand, under most circumstances, appear to be,
subject to, that roll of the dice.
But, we can always believe that maybe we too, will get another
kick at the cat in some other quantum reality, or elsewhere
in the realm of all possibility, some other person, perhaps,
a refection of ourselves in some other universe in the multiverse
got it right. Not that that is any comfort at all.

But, using set theory, we can not only throw out infinity,
but we can say, well, since Socrates is a man, and all men
are made of atoms, therefore Socrates is made of atoms,
and atoms, are in the set of elements, and so then,
within that range of all possibilities, lies the possibilities
available to men made of atoms and that for all intents
and purposes is a finite set.
And so then a sufficiently capable Turing machine,
properly programmed, might return the correct answer
every time.
Barring acts of God.

Z 1 Y 0 N 3 X

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:09:10 PM2/27/07

to

Who gives a shit who did it? E equals MC2... damn. Everyone knows the
media has and will always be poisoned.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:18:40 PM2/27/07

to

Someone can take that and run with it, and say, well ok,
what if a Cantor set, was not yes no maybe so,
and remove the maybe so, but instead, was
yes no 'maybe so andwewillneverknow.14159...'

And so ok, looking at this, we see its not fair right away.
The world is not fair, and gambling is a losing game,
because you really can't even say, well its 50/50
because it is really, just a little bit less than 50/50.

Someone you know, will be brilliant enough,
to make this into something useful, I am almost sure of it.

Maybe just removing a little more than 1/3 might be the
way to go on that, so that what you are left with,
is something definite. It is either this or that.
I don't know but I think that it is not linear,
and so a quantum computer would not try
to calculate in linear fashion, it would run up and
down the time line more than just once,
taking the results of recursion and iteration,
into account. Then perhaps average out
the results using statistical mechanics.
And that is strange, because then you see,
you have gone past what would be normally in that set.
Of yes and no answers, and you have used some of that maybe so,
but as soon as you do that, your results may be
not correct.
But if you calculate a problem, and the result is yes,
but not only yes, but it has been yes statistically
over time as well.
Then that puts you into that maybe so realm
but just as an added bonus.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:34:52 PM2/27/07

to

And so then it becomes a huge philosophical argument.

If, the real universe, is within a finite set,
what about the possible quantum interference
from other universes?

Thats like saying does pure form exist?
Is a perfect circle just a concept, or is it real?
And so then, you can say, well we can conceive of it,
it exerts influence on us, and hence on the universe.

But then you can say, well so what, if this universe
of possibility, does not allow, for that influence to change
anything in any real way, and you would have changed a thing,
the same, had you used a Riemann sphere instead.

And so we attack a an aluminum target, with a linear accelerator,
whack, and low and behold, the element transmutes.
It stays with that set.

rick_...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:44:32 PM2/27/07

to

So that does not prove that God does not exist, it disproves
that if God did not exist, we would have had to invent him.

JanPB

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:45:24 PM2/27/07

to

On Feb 26, 9:35 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172541683.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

> > On Feb 26, 1:48 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172524737....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Feb 26, 1:59 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "5,999,999" <nighthawk6...@googlemail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172479042.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> [snip crap]
>
> >> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
>
> >> >> Whoopee, I derived E = mv^2.
>
> >> > No, that was Leibniz (his "vis viva").
>
> >> Yes I did, Mr. A-A <> 0.
> > I never said that.
>
> "Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story." - Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.

Of course it's not A-A. The photon travels from the light source at A
to the mirror at B and back, so the distance is equal to |A-B| + |B-A|
= 2|A-B|.

> You are an equally trivial stupid liar, Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.

No, you mis-paraphrased me. The actual quote is correct. I think we
need to have a beer together.

> >> Admittedly I used Leibniz's integration of momenta
> >> but I don't divide-by-zero like you and your stupid hero.
>
> > Einstein didn't divide by zero.
>
> Did I mention Einstein?

No, I assumed you were referring to your complaint about Einstein
"calculating" 0/0.

> At least you know who your stupid hero is, Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.
>
> > Just stop repeating this idiocy, it's
> > getting old.
>
> Aww... Bilewacky, it was interesting to you to see how far I can go with this.
> Right now we are reduced to elementary arithmetic, A-A = 0.

The point is you don't get "A-A" on the LHS, you get |A-B|+|B-A| which
is equal to 2*|A-B| which is nonzero. Your "A-A" is pulled out of thin
air and doesn't apply.

> With no more work we've gotten down to the nitty-gritty of the empty set.
>
> I'm having all the fun, Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski, and I'll go on embarrassing you until you say "uncle", dumbfuck.

Uncle Bob.

--
Jan Bielawski

JanPB

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 1:47:28 PM2/27/07

to

On Feb 26, 10:57 pm, "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The field equations would not have been formulated without the
> Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian.

Oh brother. You and that Lagrangian hobbyhorse of yours.

--
Jan Bielawski

Message has been deleted

Androcles

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 3:50:23 PM2/27/07

to

"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172601917....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 26, 9:35 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172541683.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 26, 1:48 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172524737....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Feb 26, 1:59 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> "5,999,999" <nighthawk6...@googlemail.com> wrote in messagenews:1172479042.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> [snip crap]
>>
>> >> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
>>
>> >> >> Whoopee, I derived E = mv^2.
>>
>> >> > No, that was Leibniz (his "vis viva").
>>
>> >> Yes I did, Mr. A-A <> 0.
>> > I never said that.
>>
>> "Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story." - Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.
>
> Of course it's not A-A.

No, Of course A-A = 0. We are at the nitty gritty of the empty set.

The photon travels from the light source at A
> to the mirror at B and back,

No, So it accelerates from A and decelerates to B, then reversing direction
and changes speed from |c-v| to |c+v|.

> so the distance is equal to |A-B| + |B-A|
> = 2|A-B|.

No, |A-B| is infinitessimally small. No, So is |B-A|.
No, The velocity from A to B is (c-v) = dx'/dt and
the velocity from B to A is (-v+c) = -dx'/dt,
so they are not both c. No, They are not even |c| and |-c| .

>
>> You are an equally trivial stupid liar, Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.
>
> No, you mis-paraphrased me.

No, I didn't. No, I copied you verbatim, wanna see it again?

"Distance travelled by photon from A to A is not A-A. End of story." - Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.

> The actual quote is correct. I think we

> need to have a beer together.

The best notion you've ever had. You pay.

>
>> >> Admittedly I used Leibniz's integration of momenta
>> >> but I don't divide-by-zero like you and your stupid hero.
>>
>> > Einstein didn't divide by zero.
>>
>> Did I mention Einstein?
>
> No, I assumed you were referring to your complaint about Einstein
> "calculating" 0/0.

No, I asked you how far it was from A to A, the nitty gritty of the empty set.

>
>> At least you know who your stupid hero is, Mr. "I didn't say that" A-A <> 0 Bielawski.
>>
>> > Just stop repeating this idiocy, it's
>> > getting old.
>>
>> Aww... Bilewacky, it was interesting to you to see how far I can go with this.
>> Right now we are reduced to elementary arithmetic, A-A = 0.
>
> The point is you don't get "A-A" on the LHS, you get |A-B|+|B-A| which
> is equal to 2*|A-B| which is nonzero. Your "A-A" is pulled out of thin
> air and doesn't apply.

No, Just stop repeating this idiocy, it's getting old.
No, "Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,
1/2 (1/ {d[dx'/dt]/dt} + 1/ {d[-dx'/dt]/dt}) dtau/dt =
dtau/dx' + 1/{d[dx'/dt]dt} * dtau/dt." - Einstein.

No, Because v-c = dx'/dt, v+c = -dx'/dt and the idiot Einstein didn't
reverse the sign of c, he reversed the sign of v instead, the stupid
fuckhead.

No, An error in *special* relativity "would have been caught immediately by the AdP reviewer." -- Bielawski.
No, Somehow I doubt the AdP reviewer was a mathematician, whomever nobody he was. It's not up to reviewers to suppress papers, he was probably a junior anyway.

No, Maybe Michel Besso bought Einstein a beer and he got drunk.
No, it was interesting to you to see how far I can go with this.
No, Right now we are reduced to elementary arithmetic, A-A = 0.
No, We'll get to elementary calculus when we know how infinitessimally
small it is from A to A and what the acceleration and decelleration of the
photon is, the point is.

No, THE POINT IS: Einstein divided by zero, light doesn't travel
two ways with one velocity.
No, "To me it's interesting - what are the limits of withstanding blatant
contradictions (infinite, apparently)." - Jan Bilewacky
No, I'm just pointing out Einstein's blatant contradictions to keep your
interest in withstanding them infinite.
No, I have an ulterior motive, that way you'll keep buying the beer, Uncle Bob :-)

Androcles

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 4:00:38 PM2/27/07

to

"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172602048.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

No, I thought that was your hobbyhorse. You were chortling
with Dork Van de psychopath over it.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
"We use 3 inertial reference frames" [because Dorks can't get the result
they want in two].
"In neither of these frames any form of acceleration is felt" [neither one of
all three].
"In order for the travelling twin to make HIS trip, SHE must be in frame S'
while going away".
"if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will have aged
10 years".

Belgium is where the farts blow.

Laidback

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 4:26:17 PM2/27/07

to

>If you recall the expanding balloon concept, and gravity being the
>expansion of the universe, in to hyperspace, you can also call
>hyperspace Hilbert Space. That is what it used to be called.
>And actually it did not originate with Hilbert either, but it all can
>be traced back, to Robert Brown, a biologist who couldn't figure out
>why little things where firing little things at other little things on
>the surface of a liquid, under a rudimentary microscope.
>And also to the person who came up with the first fractal, George
>Cantor,

If The Universe were expanding, Where does the increasing energy source
originate from?

I think a far better postulate would be that our local Space-Time is being
compressed!
I have therefore modelled our Universe to a Multinecked Klein Bottle.

Such a multi-necked Klein Bottle model for our universe would need our Local
area to be exerted towards one of these necks, which so happens every Galaxy
has at its core such a Blue-Shifted area (Black-Hole)..

If we compare the maximum speed of "c" when propagated through near vacuum
to a compressed medium (Solid) it takes longer RELATIVE to our Time rate.
The speed of "c" is still very much the same velocity relative to within the
compressed area and or medium, so therefore the time rate is still at the
same relative time rate locally, and should we be relative to this implied
area then the greater universe would seem to be expanding, and what's more
this expansion has alarmingly accelerated due to the slower time rate and or
slower local velocities.

And there you have a perfect and indisputable explanation of what's really
going on with respects to the perceived and measured Red-shift.(relatively
decompressed electromagnetic waves and or velocities)

Cheers,

--
May the Universe give back
100 times what you give out.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 5:16:27 PM2/27/07

to

"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message news:jQ0Fh.393507$MO2.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

[snip]

> No, Of course A-A = 0. We are at the nitty gritty of the empty set.

Dirk Vdm

Laidback

unread,

Feb 27, 2007, 6:47:45 PM2/27/07

to

A Photon is only a Postulate.. Therefore a Photon is not with a velocity but
rather electron charge is propagated for the electromagnetic Spectrum.

Just read on what is transmitted in the double slit experiment, and ask if
the postulated electron better termed as electron charge is what is fired or
not, so I ask when does the electron charge morph to a photon?
or ask yourself when does the electron charge morph to a photon at the onset
of the transmission of an electromagnetic wave?

As you can see Physicists who model Light {Part of the Visible
Electromagnetic Spectrum} as Photons, have huge problems that don't conform
to our basic Physical laws..

Electronic theory suggests that the electromagnetic spectrum (Including
Visible Light) is "PROPAGATED" in all mediums from solids right up to near
vacuum and even Dark matter, to which Dark matter, I believe is really the
same as our relative mass anyway!

Obviously for Light we have change and therefore we need to refer to
Velocities, and as we know - Velocities are inter~dependent on force.

So if we consider the makeup of all atoms CORRECTLY to conform with REAL
velocities, we should note the electron and neutrons can only be possible on
the backs of two or more Protons first being present, this is because the
Proton is the compressed area that is with outwardly velocities that meets
with inbound velocities which originate from its neighbouring Protons who
are likewise compressed and attempting to decompress.

Therefore no matter where we go in our universe we have all these Protons
fully in contact with its neighbours via their outwardly velocities err~
force or exertion in a decompressing manner..

For the astute one can quickly see how this now perfectly fits with E=MC^2,
as the more protons we find that are compressed into an area the more
Potential Kinetic Energy we have there.. but lets put our efforts as to how
a charge or a further compressed state is propagated from point A to point B
{velocities involved in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave within
given mediums}

In a near vacuum where each Proton may occupy "C^2" of an area an increase
and decrease in Potential energy may not need to traverse a compressed
(Space-Time) area, unless our point A to point B points are bridged or
separated via a compressed Space-Time area, remember if a Space-Time area is
compressed our velocities within would be slower as we should note -
Compression infers equal velocities are meeting and cancelling each other
out.

The evidence for this Space-Time compression is evident in a solid where the
speed of light so happens is the same speed as electron flow and or the
speed of light in a solid, for the astute this equates to the electron is
only a postulate and therefore not a Particle.. and yet in theory we depend
on a particle termed as an electron..

Lets briefly look at how and why, by depicting a postulated single line
drilled out of the core of a couple of atoms so that one can understand the
involved velocities..

\=======\
<o>o<o>
\=======\

The above depicts, a postulated core sample of velocities of two hydrogen
atoms.. ** Note ** I have not inferred the area of occupancy or relative
Potential so we may be referring to a near vacuum potential or solids at sea
level..

In the above model it depicts three neutron areas "o"
Two proton areas "<o>"
And one electron area ">o<".

Now lets postulate that the ">" is a velocity to the inferred direction and
the "<" is also towards its inferred direction.
Note how a protons area is with an outwardly exertion (positive charge) and
the electron area is with an inward exertion (negative charge) and where the
forces or velocities meet we have a compression area that we have postulated
as neutrons (neutral charge) where we should note the velocities are still
at the same relative speeds and or velocities to its Space-Time, this is
extremely important to note and ties in very closely to relativity.. so read
this paragraph again and again until you have grasped this important
construct where we must understand in such a neutron area - A Black hole
would be the best way to describe the area..

Lets introduce an increasing potential to one of our Protons, simply seen as
Potential energy exchanged to kinetic energy or as an exertion that is
speared into it so that it is spearing this velocity onward by spearing into
its neighbours, to which compresses its neighbours increasing their
Potential, and because their potentials are greater than another of its
neighbouring Proton, its Potential is speared into them, so on and so on!
and it should be noted and imagined this is all via proper forces Err~
velocities..

Any questions?

Cheers,
--
May the Universe give back
100 times what you give out.

"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jQ0Fh.393507$MO2.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

"JanPB" <fil...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Androcles

unread,

Feb 28, 2007, 1:01:12 AM2/28/07

to

"Laidback" <mend...@telpacific.com.au> wrote in message news:45e4c31e$1...@news.rivernet.com.au...

>A Photon is only a Postulate..

Energy is only a postulate... the entire universe is only a postulate.
<yawn>