Newton's law of gravitational attraction
Mister X
So, Newton postulated:
F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
Why 1/(r*r)
Why not 1/r
Why not 1/r-dot
Why this form.
I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
time - then current) experiments.
I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
1/(r*r)
I, for example, (in my ignorance) would have assumed 1/r because that is how
a spring acts.
Or I might have used 1/r-dot to bring in damping of some sort.
Anyone?
eric gisse
[...]
> I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
> time - then current) experiments.
Then you are being an idiot. Newton's work was based on observation.
[...]
Argir Pandev
and you are very wise (jackass)... if |m1| <> |m2| then |d1| <> |d2|
in d1/d2 = m2/m1; d being the barycentral distances. but if |d1| <> |
d2| and presumably f21 = (d1/d2) f12 then shouldn't |f12| <> |f21|
which contradicts newton's claim that sun pulls earth with opposite
the force of earth pulling sun?
Mister X
experimentally.
Was he?
I have not read about any experiments like this that he did.
Please explain.
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h4rag5$in4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Hi again
>
> So, Newton postulated:
>
> F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
Well, Newton built all his force theories on the
aummption that action-at-a-distance is self-evident assurdity.
All the Classical Physics cranks always forget that he
also assumed that both time and space are infinite in extent
in all directions. Both backwards and forward in time.
Which is also the only reason that Classical Fourier Analysis even
works.
So, that's also the reason the people with educable post 1700
Brains
work on DSP, Microcomputers, Optical Computers, Desk Top
Publishing, Holograms,
Laser-Guided Phasors, Multi-Plexed Fiber Optics, Atomic Clock
Wristwatches,
Light Sticks, Compact Flourescent, Laser Disk Libraries, Electronic
Books, HDTV,
Home Broadband, Cyber Batteries, Self-Replicating Machines, Self-
Assembling Robots,
On-Line Banking, On-Line Shopping, On-Line Publishing, Cruise
Missiles, Phalanx,
Drones, UAVs, AAVs, GPS, Weather Satellites, Digital Terrain
Mapping, Data Fusion,
Gas Turbine Engines, Pv Cells, Biodiesel, and Hybrid-Electric
Engines.
Rather than their idiot theories of Ballistics, Thermodynamics,
and Statistical Dynamics.
Timo Nieminen
> Hi again
>
> So, Newton postulated:
>
> F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
>
> Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
>
> Why 1/(r*r)
>
> Why not 1/r
>
> Why not 1/r-dot
>
> Why this form.
>
> I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
> time - then current) experiments.
> I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
> 1/(r*r)
At the time, it wasn't particularly natural to assume 1/r^2. Newton went
for 1/r^2 because (a) it fit observational data (acceleration of the Moon,
and gravitational acceleration near the Earth's surface) and (b) because
only for n=2 does 1/r^n gravity gives Kepler's laws for orbits. Newton
wasn't the first to suggest 1/r^2, but he was first to show (b).
From a modern perspective, 1/r^2 is what we expect. Look at Gauss's law.
The usual version for electrostatics will do, but there is an equivalent
version for gravity. The total "amount of gravity" coming out from a body
doesn't change, it just gets spread over a larger area. Since the surface
area of the spherical area over which it is spread increases as r^2, the
strength of gravity falls as 1/r^2.
> I, for example, (in my ignorance) would have assumed 1/r because that is how
> a spring acts.
> Or I might have used 1/r-dot to bring in damping of some sort.
Lots of possibilities were suggested at the time, and then when the same
thing was done for electrical forces, various possible force laws were
suggested.
As for bringing in damping, you might like to read about the "Yukawa
potential".
--
Timo
eric gisse
> OK... I was under the assumption that Newton was not able to verify this
> experimentally.
> Was he?
> I have not read about any experiments like this that he did.
>
> Please explain.
First, stop top posting. It fucks up the flow of conversation - this ain't
email.
Second, review basic history. Newton's works were based on the observations
of Tycho Brahe.
Androcles
"Mister X" <ju...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:Tp9cm.34654$0z7....@newsfe07.iad...
Simple:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/InverseSquare.jpg
The area is quadrupled when the distance is doubled for any pyramid or
cone.
Androcles
> OK... I was under the assumption that Newton was not able to verify this
> experimentally.
> Was he?
> I have not read about any experiments like this that he did.
>
> Please explain.
Newton verified Kepler's laws which were based on observations.
The history is:
1) Ptolemy says the Earth is the centre of the Universe.
He accounts for retrograde motion by assuming planets move in epicycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicyclic_gearing
http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html
This idea lasts for 1400 years, during which period we see the
rise and fall of the Holy Roman Empire which discouraged
mathematics. There are no famous Roman mathematicians.
All the famous mathematicians were Greeks before them.
Along comes printing, and with that the spread of books throughout
Europe. This leads to Protestantism, people can now read the bible
for themselves and they challenge Catholic doctrine.
2) Copernicus says "Hold on, things are much simpler if the Sun
is the centre of the Universe and the planets move in perfect circles."
But that meant the Earth was just another planet and it moves, which is
against Catholic doctrine. Such heresy will destroy society. So
Copernicus, a Catholic, keeps his big mouth shut or he's likely to
be burnt for witchcraft. But he tells all on his deathbed.
Along comes Kepler and Galileo, both mathematicians, and say
"Looks like old Nickelarse Copperknickers was about right",
but Kepler goes a step further and says the orbits of planet are
not circular but elliptical. Galileo is told to shut up or he'll
get kicked out of heaven.
3) Newton, another mathematician and strongly religious but not
a Catholic, develops calculus and verifies Kepler's observations.
Then along comes John Goodricke and it all goes pear-shaped again,
but that's another story.
PD
No, it was *purely* an experimentally derived relationship, tying
together the known acceleration of things near the surface of the
earth and the acceleration of the moon, 60 times further away.
There is no ab initio motivation for the power of r to be 2, and in
fact there have been a number of experimental tests to see if it
really is 2.
The power turns out to be *related* to some other considerations, such
as the mass of a purported force carrier, but that's just swapping one
conjecture for another.
PD
Uncle Al
1/r^2 is the surface of a sphere. Given a point source of "fluid,"
that is how concentration varies with distance.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Richard Tobin
Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>From a modern perspective, 1/r^2 is what we expect. Look at Gauss's law.
>The usual version for electrostatics will do, but there is an equivalent
>version for gravity. The total "amount of gravity" coming out from a body
>doesn't change, it just gets spread over a larger area. Since the surface
>area of the spherical area over which it is spread increases as r^2, the
>strength of gravity falls as 1/r^2.
This is all very well for, say, the intensity of light from a light
bulb. Energy is being radiated and spreading out. But what is
spreading out in the case of gravity? What is the basis for assuming
that there is an "amount of gravity" that has to be conserved as it
moves out from the source?
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
PD
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Mister X wrote:
> > Hi again
>
> > So, Newton postulated:
>
> > F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
>
> > Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
>
> > Why 1/(r*r)
>
> > Why not 1/r
>
> > Why not 1/r-dot
>
> > Why this form.
>
> > I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
> > time - then current) experiments.
> > I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
> > 1/(r*r)
>
> At the time, it wasn't particularly natural to assume 1/r^2. Newton went
> for 1/r^2 because (a) it fit observational data (acceleration of the Moon,
> and gravitational acceleration near the Earth's surface) and (b) because
> only for n=2 does 1/r^n gravity gives Kepler's laws for orbits. Newton
> wasn't the first to suggest 1/r^2, but he was first to show (b).
>
> From a modern perspective, 1/r^2 is what we expect. Look at Gauss's law.
> The usual version for electrostatics will do, but there is an equivalent
> version for gravity. The total "amount of gravity" coming out from a body
> doesn't change, it just gets spread over a larger area.
The above sentence is deceptive because it sounds so simple and
plausible. It's useful to elaborate more carefully why it hold in this
case but does not hold in the Yukawa potential, which you mention
below. That is, what does "damping" mean in this context? You can also
talk briefly about QCD anti-damping.
Y.Porat
> Mister X wrote:
>
> > Hi again
>
> > So, Newton postulated:
>
> > F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
>
> > Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
>
> > Why 1/(r*r)
>
> > Why not 1/r
>
> > Why not 1/r-dot
>
> > Why this form.
>
> > I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
> > time - then current) experiments.
> > I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
> > 1/(r*r)
>
> > I, for example, (in my ignorance) would have assumed 1/r because that is how
> > a spring acts.
> > Or I might have used 1/r-dot to bring in damping of some sort.
>
> > Anyone?
>
> 1/r^2 is the surface of a sphere. Given a point source of "fluid,"
> that is how concentration varies with distance.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
--------------
it means the number of force lines
per unit of aria
and brings us to think
about real force messengers
that are epread evenly in alldirections starting from the
mother mass
and that is again another sighn
that we are dealing here with force messengers
that stem out of mass
and not any idiotic
curved space dependence
iow
it showes clearly that mass
and force messengers of mass
are doing the job
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
PD
Porat, you will notice that the electrostatic force has the same 1/r^2
form that gravity does.
You will also notice that the electromagnetic interaction is described
*either* by field lines or by force messengers, with equal
satisfaction of the 1/r^2 law.
This is understood by most freshman physics students. I don't know why
you have such difficulty with it.
DanB
> Mister X wrote:
>> Hi again
>>
>> So, Newton postulated:
>>
>> F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
>>
>> Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
>>
>> Why 1/(r*r)
>>
>> Why not 1/r
>>
>> Why not 1/r-dot
>>
>> Why this form.
>>
>> I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
>> time - then current) experiments.
>> I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
>> 1/(r*r)
>>
>> I, for example, (in my ignorance) would have assumed 1/r because that is how
>> a spring acts.
>> Or I might have used 1/r-dot to bring in damping of some sort.
>>
>> Anyone?
>
> 1/r^2 is the surface of a sphere. Given a point source of "fluid,"
> that is how concentration varies with distance.
>
To wit:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/forces/isq.html
Best, Dan.
Y.Porat
-------------
yes
anyway
i was wrong in expressing myself
above
actually what i wanter so say
is even more meaninful:
it is not a constant number of lines 'per unit volume around th emass'
IT IS CONSTANT NUMBER OF LINES() STEMMING OUT OF THE MASS!!!
i guess you guess why it is more meaningful (ie
the number of force lines not influenced
by the space around !!!
(generally you read my thoughts
not always (:-)
2
i am not a freshman .......
i am an old man ...
ie
not negligible experience ...
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------
hhc314
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not to rain on Porat's Parade, I tend to think of him as one of those
clueless individuals who believes science is like art, where the
masterpieces are simply the result of inspiration springing from
within the brain of a gifted genius.
Fact is, it is anything but. Newton digestes and analyzed the works
accomplished before his time, and his genius what his amazing ability
to digest them into generalized equations through his application of
simple calculus, invented by him as simply a tool for the purpose. Do
note that prior to calculus, Newton's Principia Mathematica also
contains magnificient graphic constructions that he also employed as
analytical devices.
James Clerk Maxwell made similar accomplishment using his mathematical
skills to fully analyze and extend the works of Farraday and others,
going on to explain the nature of electromagnic wave propagation, and
obviating the need for an Aether.
As someone once noted, science build and grows by scientists standing
on the shoulders of those what went before, not by divine inspiration
while under the influence of mind altering substances.
Because he has not yet spent the years of scientific study to realize
this is the source of Porat's confusion.
Harry C.
Y.Porat
-----------------
confusion ???
(:-)
in case you still dont know
youare right that much of science
is by people who stand on the shoulders of others
the other thing you dont know is
that a lot of scientific advance
was done **accidentally**
and even by' outsiders'!!
espacially while the situation is
IN a dead lock!!
you are not talented enough to notice
that a lot of 'our modern physics
IS IN A dead lock!!!
(virtual particles without mass
Higgs bosons
and the list is long !!!)
kep well
Y.P
PD
I'm sure you can think of 5 examples. Please:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I realize this is where you hang your hope -- that you are one of the
outsiders, trying to land on something accidentally.
hhc314
>
> - Show quoted text -
Getting desperate?
As PD asked you, name 5 scientific advancement that were based on
"accidental discover".
Usually, a layman's answer with begin with Willhelm Rontgen's
discovery of the X-ray, or Hahn Meiter and Streissman's first
obervation of nuclear fission were accidental, they weren't. Read a
littlefact for a change:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1901/rontgen-bio.html
http://chemheritage.org/classroom/chemach/atomic/hahn-meitner.html.
So please, my curious friend, cite even one accidental discovery of a
scientific fact, and un-substantiated speculative theory does not
count. Better still, as PD suggested, name 5.
Harry C.
p.s., Have you considered moving you posts to one of the alt
newsgroups, where they properly belong?
Timo Nieminen
Here is where some real fun can start!
If you're the type who believes that everything is quantised, that all
forces are due to force carrier quanta, then the graviton gives you all
that, with the graviton flux density being the field strength.
From a pre-GR classical field theory perspective, empty space is not a
source for gravitational fields, and thus cannot be a sink either.
Immediately, one has Gauss's law, while remaining agnostic about the
nature of gravity.
But those are modern views.
Hooke argued for 1/r^2 by analogy with the intensity of a light source.
His contemporaries didn't buy it.
A Fatio/le Sage theory [1] of course gives 1/r^2, in the weak absorption
limit, but it doesn't look like Newton thought his contemporaries would
buy it either, although did consider it [2].
All of the above assume that mass is the source/sink of "something" that,
because mass is the only source/sink (at least in our region of the
universe), must be conserved in mass-free space. Given the first
assumption, the 2nd (conservation of flux) is natural. I don't think
there's any real a priori reason to assume the 1st (that there is a flux
in the first place), which could well be why [1,2] were never widely
convincing.
The (pre-GR) classical field can be accepted as a simplest mathematical
model that agrees with observation, and the idea of "field energy", with
conservation of energy, suggests that the field, in some sense, might
really be "real". But this is very heavily dependent on observation and
experiment, and was not historically suggested as an a priori
justification.
I wonder if GR gives any insight (considering the weak field limit to get
the 1/r^2)?
[1] George Louis le Sage
"Lucrèce Newtonien"
Nouveaux Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences et
Belles-Lettres 1782, 404-432 (1784)
Nicolas Fatio de Duillier
"De la cause de la pesanteur"
Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 6(2), 125-160
[2] E. J. Aiton
"Newton's aether-stream hypothesis and the inverse square law of
gravitation"
Annals of Science 25, 255-260 (1969)
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://espace.uq.edu.au/list/author_id/1189/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
hhc314
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2009, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0907301629060.11775-100000@localhost>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Try again, none of these names are know to actual physicists nor have
they made the textbooks..
Harry C.
Timo Nieminen
> On Jul 30, 7:07 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > But those are modern views.
> >
> > Hooke argued for 1/r^2 by analogy with the intensity of a light source.
> > His contemporaries didn't buy it.
> >
> > A Fatio/le Sage theory [1] of course gives 1/r^2, in the weak absorption
> > limit, but it doesn't look like Newton thought his contemporaries would
> > buy it either, although did consider it [2].
> > [1] George Louis le Sage
> > "Lucrèce Newtonien"
> > Nouveaux Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences et
> > Belles-Lettres 1782, 404-432 (1784)
> >
> > Nicolas Fatio de Duillier
> > "De la cause de la pesanteur"
> > Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 6(2), 125-160
> >
> > [2] E. J. Aiton
> > "Newton's aether-stream hypothesis and the inverse square law of
> > gravitation"
> > Annals of Science 25, 255-260 (1969)
>
> Try again, none of these names are know to actual physicists nor have
> they made the textbooks..
Ask around. You might find that Newton and his work is known to at least
some actual physicists, and his work did find its way into the textbooks.
True, le Sage and Fatio didn't make it into the modern science textbooks.
There's a reason why Fatio's work saw print in modern times in a journal
on the _history_ of science, not in a science research journal. For much
the same reason, Aiton's paper is in a _history_ journal. Are you really
complaining about _history_ papers being cited in a discussion about the
_history_ of science?
Science textbooks are generally rather poor sources for the history of
science, so it isn't much of a surprise, if any, that the works cited as
[1] are not well known by actual physicists. Still, I know of at least 2
actual physicists around here who know [1], so they not entirely unknown.
eric gisse
[snip all]
Man you can't even talk about high school physics without getting bent out
of shape.
Rock Brentwood
> F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
> Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
> Why 1/(r*r)
> Why not 1/r
> Why not 1/r-dot
> Why this form.
> I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
> time - then current) experiments. I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
> 1/(r*r)
I retranslated and rewrote the Scholium, adding in an extra piece
which addresses this very question (i.e., the third paragraph)
This is an excerpt from the revision:
Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our
sea, by the power of Gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of
this power. This much is certain: whatever the cause may be, it
penetrates to the very core of the Sun and planets and cannot be
shielded; it does not act in accordance of how much of only the
surface there may be of the particles it acts on (as mechanical causes
would), but according to how much of the solid matter it contains in
its volumes; and it propagates its virtue in every direction on all
sides, to immense distances in a way that decreases as the square of
the distance.
Gravitation towards the Sun, is made up out of the gravitations
towards the several particles which make up the Sun; and in receding
from the Sun, its decrease is accurately described as being inversely
as the square of the distance; this manner of decrease appearing to
hold as far as the orb of Saturn, as evidently appears from the
quiescence of the aphelions of the Planets; nay, and even to the
remotest aphelions of the Comets, if those aphelions are also
quiescent.
We may question, too, whether this has not been devised based on the
wise council of grand design. For, it displays a most remarkable
quality which has not previously been noticed: were a star to be
fashioned, like the Sun, but to a proportionately larger size, were a
world, fashioned like the Earth, to be placed a proportionately larger
distance from that star, then the star would appear to be of the same
size in the sky as the sun, with the same amount of light shining onto
the world, and the world would circle the star in the same one year of
time that the Earth rounds the Sun, if the star were composed as the
Sun with the same density of matter and with the same degree of
luminosity as the Sun.
But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those
properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses. For
whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an
hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether
of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental
philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred
from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus
it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force
of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered.
And to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist, and act
according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves
to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our
sea.
And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle
Spirit, which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force
and action of which Spirit, the particles of bodies mutually attract
one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric
bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting
the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected,
refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited,
and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will,
namely, by the vibrations of this Spirit, mutually propagated along
the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to
the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things
that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that
sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate
determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and
elastic spirit operates.
Rock Brentwood
> 3) Newton, another mathematician and strongly religious but not
> a Catholic, develops calculus and verifies Kepler's observations.
This history (which is the simplistic, but prevalent account in modern
times) seriously needs to be fixed.
In fact, Newton's professor, Isaac Barrow, taught what we now call the
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, as well as much of what is now
covered in a 200 level Calculus course; and Newton was in those
lectures. The modern notion that Newton somehow pulled this rabbit out
of the hat, in vacuuo, is completly wrong.
Otherwise, we'd have a mystery on our hands: how is it the case that
after thousands of years of nobody doing anything of the like
(supposedly), that two individuals suddenly come along and pull off
the apparent miracle of "discovering the Calculus"?
The answer is "only by the convenient amnesia of 300+ years of
forgotten history".
The first Calculus text, in fact, was published when Newton was a
teenager and Leibnitz a pre-teen -- De Arithmetica Infinitorum (i.e.
the calculus of infinitesimals). Its coverage is all of what is
treated in any 200 level college calculus course series (infinite
series, convergence, integrals, tangents and derivatives, etc.). There
were a host of other publications both before and during the time
"Newton and Leibnitz discovered calculus" that developed the field,
gradually, in an evolution of thought that Newton and Leibnitz were a
part of -- not the originators of.
The simplest answer to how Newton and Leibnitz could have "come up
with the equivalent thing at the same time" is that they both read De
Arithmetica Infinitorum.
Rock Brentwood
> First, stop top posting. It fucks up the flow of conversation - this ain't
> email.
(Most people, in this day and age, have screens larger than 5", so
it's no longer an issue. The very comment "stop top-posting" is little
more than a translation of "I'm that FRICKING old!" It's like people
who still go around "correcting" others on the "proper" use of "can"
versus "may" -- 50 years after the language has evolved away from that
ancient chronolect, living fossils notwithstanding.)
> Second, review basic history. Newton's works were based on the observations
> of Tycho Brahe.
To dispel any notion (as conveyed in the above) that Newton was
somehow some kind of hard-headed scientist (itself, a holdover from
the Cold War era a century ago and all the big defense contractors and
big government entanglements in the sciences), this is an excerpt from
Andrew Motte's 1729 translation of Newtron's Scholium
"... it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give
birth to so many regular motions: since the Comets range over all
parts of the heavens, in very eccentric orbits. For by that kind of
motion they pass easily through the orbits of the Planets, and with
great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest,
and are detain’d the longest, they recede to the greatest distances
from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their
mutual attractions. This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets,
and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an
intelligent and powerful being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers
of other like systems, these, being form’d by the like wise counsel,
must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light
of the fixed Stars is of the same nature with the light of the Sun,
and from every system light passes into all the other systems. And
lest the systems of the fixed Stars should, by their gravity, fall on
each other mutually, he hath placed those Systems at immense distances
from one another."
"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as
Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called
Lord God PantokratorII, or Universal Ruler. For God is a relative
word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God,
not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul
of the world, but over servants. The supreme God is a Being eternal,
infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without
dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God,
the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not
say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of
Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: These are titles
which have no respect to servants."
"The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It
is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God; a true,
supreme, or imaginary
dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true
dominion it follows that the true God is a Living, Intelligent, and
Powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is Supreme or
most Perfect. He is Eternal and Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient;
that is, his duration reaches from Eternity to Eternity; his presence
from Infinity to Infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things
that are or can be done. He is not Eternity and Infinity, but Eternal
and Infinite; he is not Duration and Space, but he endures and is
present. He endures forever, and is every where present; and, by
existing always and every where, he constitutes Duration and Space.
Since every particle of Space is always, and every indivisible moment
of Duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things
cannot be never
and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different
times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same
indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-
existent parts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the
person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be
found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a
thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole
life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God,
always and everywhere. He is omnipresent, not virtually only, but also
substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In himb
are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God
suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance
from the omnipresence of God."
)And note the irony, above, when Newton basically says below, that the
ultimate agent behind all forces neither acts on matter nor is reacted
on by matter in this Universe -- violating the very creed behind his
own philosophy).
"‘Tis allowed by all that the supreme God exists necessarily; and by
the same necessity he exists always and every where. Whence also he is
all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to
perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human,
in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us.
As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the
manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things.
He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore
neither be seen, nor heard, not touched; nor ought he to be worshipped
under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his
attributes, but what the real substance of anything is we know not. In
bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the
sounds, we
touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste
the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known, either
by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds; much less then have
we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise
and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him
for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his
dominion. For we adore him as his servants; and a God without
dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and
Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same
always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that
diversity of natural things which we find, suited to different times
and places, could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being
necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to
speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to
rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build. For all
our notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind, by a certain
similitude which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And
thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of
things, does certainly belong to..."
(you get the idea)
And then there's the footnotes:
a Dr. Pocock derives the Latin word Deus from the Arabic du (in the
oblique case di,) which signifies Lord. And in this sense Princes are
called Gods, Psal. lxxxii. ver. 6; and John x. ver. 35. And Moses is
called a God to his brother Aaron, and a God to Pharaoh (Exod. iv.
ver. 16; and vii. ver. 1. And in the same sense the souls of dead
princes were formerly, by the Heathens, called gods, but falsely,
because of their want of dominion.
b This was the opinion of the Ancients. So Pythagoras in Cicer. de
Nat. Deor. lib. i. Thales, Anaxagoras, Virgil, Georg. lib. iv. ver.
220. and Aeneid. lib. vi. ver. 721. Philo Allegor. at the beginning of
lib. i. Aratus in his Phænom. at the beginning. So also the sacred
Writers, as St. Paul, Acts xvii. ver. 27, 28. St. John’s Gosp. chap.
xiv. ver. 2. Moses in Deut. iv. ver. 39; and x. ver. 14. David, Psal.
cxxxix. ver. 7, 8, 9. Solomon, 1 Kings viii. ver. 27. Job xxii. ver.
12, 13, 14. Jeremiah xxiii. ver. 23, 24. The Idolaters supposed the
Sun, Moon, and Stars, the Souls of Men, and other parts of the world,
to be parts of the supreme God, and therefore to be worshiped; but
erroneously.
So, before you go on extolling the virtues of Newton as the herald of
your creed of "nothing but observation, philosophy and other bible-
thumping or theocratic or superstitutions be damned", first learn who
the man actually was and what he actually said.
For, if he were to return to this world and post the very exerpt which
I've just written -- as a reply to the query -- you'd be jumping all
over on his ass for going completely Republican Conservative White
Suburban Reaganite with the religious or evangelical nonsense.
Y.Porat
---------------------
not accientally at all!!
it is decades of phisics atudy:
2
i was working on my Atomic and nuc model
about tem years!!
somethimes day and night
based on experinetal data
the books of nuclear chemical and physical data
were 'on my knees' day and night
all along that time
th eworkitsef was
indeed an trial and error unhuman efort
by the data i was fiddling'' with
WAS ALL THAT EXPERIMENTAL DATA "
then step by step in 'Ants work'
some law and order started to d'drip down'
to my control
and as a went on with it
that stream of law and order
became bigger and bigger!!
that is an experience you will never in your life
experience !!
and will nerveunderstand !!
becaue yo wasnever (and i doublt if you will ever be there
it was a coincidence of circumstances
that i wonder if it will be found soon!!
for example
it started with anaccidental data thati found in a scientific magazine
that
*the Carbon nuc is composed of 3 Alpha particles!!
someone like you will read such a thing
and it will inter through one ear
and get imediately throught the other ear
may be because you aere a mathemariciam
not as it was for me!!
it is rathe because i am astructural engineer
that is well trrained in 3d geometry
that is for me bread and butter in my day job!!
do i took
the chemistry book of the great chemist
Linus Pauling that he was as well one of the pioneers of advance in
the conection between
chnisrty and geometry
and looked at his 3d description of the
Carbon Atom - a tetraheder
for you a tetraheder if a inice picture
for me it is a wonderful uniqyue structre
in which allits four 'armes are seprated
*by the same exact Angle of about 108 degrees
and i understood imediately that this 3d structure
is one of the secrets for the uniqu styrenth and stabilty of that
Alpha particle
then i went on and tried many ways
**to combine that 3 of those Apha structure
TO ANOTHER BGGER STRUCTURE
TAH WILL BE AS WELL A TETRAHEDER
in order of doing it eveni had to do 3d sketches
and even built to yself a 3d model from simple iron
wires
and Voilaa and Huray !!
i found how 3 Alpha can be connected to
anotherstructure (the Carbon)
and i found that in order to doit
i musr coect them linearily !
with only one of each Alpha connected to theother
and sooni founf that since i have ther
two arms that are protons and two that are
neutrons (marking seprately by a different sighn
the protons and a diffe4rnt say 'co lour for the neutrons
i foud that i get not only anothe bigger tetraheder
i get
4** free** arms of 'PTOTONS'
two of them belong to the alpha aty thr edges
of the Carbon
and two free Proton Arms that belong to the Alpha
tha belongs to the middle Apha
all the four free arms
directed to ...
4 directions in space that are seprated by the same 108 degrees
between eachteo of them
AND THAT WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF A DAY AND NIGHT WORK THAT LASTED TO
ACTYALLY 10 TEN YEARS !
and the rest id histotry !!
so Mr PD
will you from now on dare to call my work and stsrem of work
outside accidental achievement??
btw
i didnt tell you here all the accidental circumstances
that enabled me to do all that work
for instance
at that time i was working far from home and my
wife and cildren
with no television to waist my time and no other
comforts so out of that bordm' i foud a new important promising work
ie to work on tha t model
something exciting that will fill all my spare time
so that inly some of theunique spacial circumstances
that enabled me todvote a lot of time and eforths
concentration in a 'unhumane' efforth
onone ver specific
btw
my tactics in my lfe is
**to concentrate efforths on a very limited
point parget
that is a way in amny cases to penetrate deeper than anyone else
besides
by ahrsh life lerned me and gave me the sense
( i would say good intuition)
tofeel right from the beginning
what is promising
and what is dead by arival !!
while keeping in mids always
the
NEED TO BE ORACTICAL
and alway look for paractial results
and if not to quick as possible to drop it
in order of not wastind my precious' leaking quickly beneath my
fingers .....) time
so is that for
you not a scintific outsider worth less work
(provided you know something about my model
or about my discussions say
about the mass of the photon )
2
you was flowing alog many years ny struggle
to prove that
the photon has mass!
and the only single mass that exist
will you call such a work as a n outsde work
of an outsider' that is 'worth nothing !!
and thats motre than enough for one post (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
the pigshit dirthy clown Gisee
that is not good even for a gangster can be seen
hhttp://www.facebook.com/eric.gisseere
(he was idiotic enough to publishhis idiotic face )
so this ridiculous psychopathic clown
sothis piggshit tryed again to
diver me to the [place he belongs
to the moron ng
but that psycho still didnt leran
the way he is unable tp learn anything new
didnt learn that he cant do it again to me!!
(:-)
so
unlke that dumnb pigg
i will go on with my physics claimes:
littke nast piggi
could not understand that
since thegravitation law is
!/R^2 proportional
it means that
there are some force messengers that
have a constant sun of gravitons '
that is stemming from the mass
THAT SUM OF GRAVITINS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE SPACE AROUND THE MASS
ie
the same quantity (or number of them gravitins)
bo matter if it is closer or further
from the mass!!!!!!!
iow
IT IS NOT SPACE DEPENDENT
IT IS MASS DEPENDENT !!!!
hope the other cleaver
peole will get it
as jsut another indication
tha there is nocurvature
and no schmervature of space
todo ant work
the work of gravitaion
IS A NET MASS PROPERTY !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
and now
he ralized that he is a clown face
is published again by me
so he abolished his picture there
and that is the only cleaver deed he did
in his life
to cover his real face
as quickly as possible (:-)
Y.P
---------------------
Whoever
news:d9157ef0-2c6e-4b36...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 8:04 pm, > Y.P
>
>
> the pigshit dirthy clown Gisee
> that is not good even for a gangster can be seen
>
> hhttp://www.facebook.com/eric.gisseere
>
> (he was idiotic enough to publishhis idiotic face )
> so this ridiculous psychopathic clown
> sothis piggshit tryed again to
> diver me to the [place he belongs
> to the moron ng
What a nasty piece of work you are Porat. Truly an evil and disgusting
little man. Hopefully your age will mean we don't need to put up with your
behavior for much longer.
Whoever
More lies by pathetic sad little Porat ... Eric's happy smiling face is
still there on his facebook page. Thankfully we don't need to see Porat ..
I can't imagine it being a friendly hapyp face.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------------
to try again and again
todivert me to his nasty moron ng
is not a nasty behaviour ??
i am sure that
after you was defeated by me
agin and again
you are ful of revenge feeling..
so be it
and i understand you wished me
already dead
right
that is surely a civilized scientific behavior
never mind
i sill defeat you again and again
yet actually you defeated yourself not only by me
Google banned you
anyone can see it byclicking your profile
keep well
and dont forget to see your
psychiatrist
i just woner who is the
psycho clown
whom some people here use to fight me !!!
and hide behind their psych
figures .....
and how about some science claimes ??
not from you of course !!!
..
Y.P
--------------------------
Whoever
> On Jul 31, 8:30 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d9157ef0-2c6e-4b36...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 30, 8:04 pm, > Y.P
>>
>> > the pigshit dirthy clown Gisee
>> > that is not good even for a gangster can be seen
>>
>> > hhttp://www.facebook.com/eric.gisseere
>>
>> > (he was idiotic enough to publishhis idiotic face )
>> > so this ridiculous psychopathic clown
>> > sothis piggshit tryed again to
>> > diver me to the [place he belongs
>> > to the moron ng
>>
>> What a nasty piece of work you are Porat. Truly an evil and disgusting
>> little man. Hopefully your age will mean we don't need to put up with
>> your
>> behavior for much longer.
>
> --------------------
> to try again and again
> todivert me to his nasty moron ng
> is not a nasty behaviour ??
Not really .. just appropriate
> i am sure that
> after you was defeated by me
> agin and again
> you are ful of revenge feeling..
That's never happened .. you're a poor old deluded fool
> so be it
> and i understand you wished me
> already dead
> right
> that is surely a civilized scientific behavior
Sure is
> never mind
> i sill defeat you again and again
Never happened
> yet actually you defeated yourself not only by me
> Google banned you
> anyone can see it byclicking your profile
That never happened either
> keep well
> and dont forget to see your
> psychiatrist
Don't need one
> i just woner who is the
> psycho clown
You are
> whom some people here use to fight me !!!
> and hide behind their psych
> figures .....
> and how about some science claimes ??
> not from you of course !!!
Because you can't handle it when i discuss physics .. you resort to name
calling.
Well .. i'm happy to know that most likely you'll be dead before me .. only
have to wait a short while .. then no more insults from that pathetic excuse
for a man Porat.
eric gisse
[...]
> More lies by pathetic sad little Porat ... Eric's happy smiling face is
> still there on his facebook page. Thankfully we don't need to see Porat
> .. I can't imagine it being a friendly hapyp face.
Porat would smile more if he owned the world's largest pine cone.
Whoever
news:h4uc2s$pfj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Or sat on it ;);)
PD
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Where is your list of 5 examples?
Y.Porat
>
> read more »
i ddint understood
and didnt botherwhat did you mean
now suince you started with insults
you are going to realize that you did
a taclical mistake
by 'starting with me
(that i restricted myself untill now
so :
since non of the 3 pattots
PD
The mug face pigg shit Gisse
and the psycopth who calles himsenf
Whatever
could not understand my hints
i would like to ask other peiole
not the 3 above pompous mathematics parrots
th e folowing question::
Uncle Al
reminded us jsut above
the 'old' excplanation to the
1/R^2 law of gravitation(thank you al for reminding it to us !!
you see i am not stingy in giving credits
as the others ...
so)
considring Uncle Als explanation to that law
can someone get out of it some
*new breakthrough insight**
of that 'primitove' explanation ???!!
(again
the question is not to the above parrots
who no matter waht will be
are unable to do it)
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
> On Jul 31, 4:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > -----------------
> > > > > confusion ???
> > > > > (:-)
> > > > > in case you still dont know
> > > > > youare right that much of science
> > > > > is by people who stand on the shoulders of others
>
> > > > > the other thing you dont know is
> > > > > that a lot of scientific advance
> > > > > was done **accidentally**
> > > > > and even by' outsiders'!!
>
> > > > I'm sure you can think of 5 examples. Please:
> > > > 1.
> > > > 2.
> > > > 3.
> > > > 4.
> > > > 5.
>
> > Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Where is your list of 5 examples?
Still no answer to this, Porat? Why not?
Jim Black
> I retranslated and rewrote the Scholium, adding in an extra piece
> which addresses this very question (i.e., the third paragraph)
So in other words you made something up, contradicting what Newton actually
wrote, inserted it into the text it contradicts, and are now offering your
made-up text as an explanation for Newton's reasoning. Is that about
right?
--
Jim E. Black (domain in headers)
How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog:
!markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>"
[X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads
Jim Black
> So, before you go on extolling the virtues of Newton as the herald of
> your creed of "nothing but observation, philosophy and other bible-
> thumping or theocratic or superstitutions be damned", first learn who
> the man actually was and what he actually said.
>
> For, if he were to return to this world and post the very exerpt which
> I've just written -- as a reply to the query -- you'd be jumping all
> over on his ass for going completely Republican Conservative White
> Suburban Reaganite with the religious or evangelical nonsense.
And we'd be right to do so -- if it was a reply to the OP's query.
Newton's religious beliefs have nothing to do with how he came up with the
inverse square law.
David Bostwick
Actually, we all know that the law of gravitational attraction is really a
metaphor for love. Bob told us that a long time ago.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Mister X: Newton's (pretty good first effort) Law of Universal
(sic) Gravitation has the attractive force being directly proportional
to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the SQUARE
of the distance between their centers. The latter is an example of
what is known as: The Inverse Square Law. In the case of a luminous
source lighting a plain white, flat surface, the brightness of the
illuminated surface is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance of the surface from the light source. When anything
increases as a 'square' factor, that means that the (say) distance is
influencing the resultant in TWO separate ways that multiply to become
a... SQUARE.
Newton's law failed to take into account that gravity is due to ***
flowing ether (down, or from 'behind' the two bodies). Because the
ether flow between two bodies is directly proportional to the photon
(or high energy particle) exchange between the two bodies, very HOT
and thus more luminous bodies will have a much higher gravity than the
identical mass of a colder body. A correct "temperature adjustment"
to Newton's equation will eliminate the need to search for the
"missing mass" in the Universe believed to necessary to... stop it
from expanding (sic; It ISN'T expanding!). My realizing that gravity
is flowing ether, explains much of what astronomers have been trying
to figure out for over a century. — NoEinstein —
Andrew Usher
> From a modern perspective, 1/r^2 is what we expect. Look at Gauss's law.
> The usual version for electrostatics will do, but there is an equivalent
> version for gravity. The total "amount of gravity" coming out from a body
> doesn't change, it just gets spread over a larger area. Since the surface
> area of the spherical area over which it is spread increases as r^2, the
> strength of gravity falls as 1/r^2.
What is the 'amount of gravity'? It can't be gravitrons because they
get absorbed, so if the Warth were made of of gravitons , it would be
only part of it s mass because it would self absorb most of its
gravitrons.
I figure the inverse square law must have been put in because the
universe ca't work any other way.
Andrew Usher
PD
> On Jul 30, 12:34 am, "Mister X" <j...@junk.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mister X: Newton's (pretty good first effort) Law of Universal
> (sic) Gravitation has the attractive force being directly proportional
> to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the SQUARE
> of the distance between their centers. The latter is an example of
> what is known as: The Inverse Square Law. In the case of a luminous
> source lighting a plain white, flat surface, the brightness of the
> illuminated surface is inversely proportional to the square of the
> distance of the surface from the light source. When anything
> increases as a 'square' factor, that means that the (say) distance is
> influencing the resultant in TWO separate ways that multiply to become
> a... SQUARE.
>
> Newton's law failed to take into account that gravity is due to ***
> flowing ether (down, or from 'behind' the two bodies). Because the
> ether flow between two bodies is directly proportional to the photon
> (or high energy particle) exchange between the two bodies, very HOT
> and thus more luminous bodies will have a much higher gravity than the
> identical mass of a colder body.
This is already disproven in astronomical observations of blue dwarfs
and red giants. Try again.
Y.Porat
are you readt for a deal??
i have read back your post
and a ithink i can give some examples
just beleive me
i didnt think about it more than two minutes
and here are results of jsut two minutes
of an old man with an old mans memory
so
it starts with medicine
the peniciline
the vaxination as whole
the electric batery of volta
(the story of the frogg)
Eddisons inventions
Michael Faradys dynamo
and electro dynamics
if you m\like
my model of the Atomand nuc (:-)
the Tuneling efect by Ivar giaever
he was an engineer
and you can immagine that the list is much longer than i can tell you
in 5 minutes!!
and now is your turnn to tell us
does the gamma factor
apply to the photon or not
2
i dont expect you and i dont wahnt you to answer my above question
about Uncle Al explanation
let other try to answer
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------
Y.Porat
Bostwick) wrote:
> Actually, we all know that the law of gravitational attraction is really a
> metaphor for love. Bob told us that a long time ago.
-----------------
but i was much more specific
i asked whether th e old explanation that Al brought
can tell us much more about modern paradigm
of gravitation
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
PD
OK, but that's not a scientific advance. That is finding a drug.
Antibiosis was a scientific principle discovered in the 1870s.
Penicillin was discovered in the late 1920's.
There was a whole slew of work done in this era long before
penicillin. Look it up.
>
> the vaxination as whole
Was not an accident. Nor was it found by outsiders.
>
> the electric batery of volta
> (the story of the frogg)
Volta was not an outsider -- he was a physicist -- and he'd been
working with electricity storage devices for 20 years prior to his
experiments with frog legs. That was no accident.
>
> Eddisons inventions
You seem not to know the difference between the discovery of a new
scientific principle and a technological invention. Quantum mechanics
was discovered in the 1930s. Solid state chips, based on quantum
mechanical principles, were invented in the 1950s. Solid state chips
are not a scientific discovery, they are an invention.
> Michael Faradys dynamo
> and electro dynamics
Again, not an outsider, not an accident. He'd been tinkering with this
stuff and doing active investigation with electricity and electricity
generation for 20 years. Not an accident.
>
> if you m\like
> my model of the Atomand nuc (:-)
>
> the Tuneling efect by Ivar giaever
> he was an engineer
Yes, he was, and he was working with Esaki (a physicist), while
another physicist Josephson shared the Nobel with them for parallel
work. And the physics behind tunneling had been worked out in 1928,
approximately 32 years before the work that Giaever did.
>
> and you can immagine that the list is much longer than i can tell you
> in 5 minutes!!
I'm still waiting.
So far you've listed a bunch of technological inventions, not
scientific principle discoveries.
>
> and now is your turnn to tell us
>
> does the gamma factor
> apply to the photon or not
We've talked about this at length. If you do not remember those
conversations, I'm not about to give you another one to forget.
Y.Porat
do you want me to call you
an ungreatful lier ???
it was not fiscovered by theoreticians
it was discovered by a doctor
not a physicist!!
That is finding a drug.
> Antibiosis was a scientific principle discovered in the 1870s.
> Penicillin was discovered in the late 1920's.
do you dent that it was an acidental discovery??!!
ie*** not** by theory ??
> There was a whole slew of work done in this era long before
> penicillin. Look it up.
>
>
>
> > the vaxination as whole
>
> Was not an accident. Nor was it found by outsiders.
so you are an ignorant lier
it was discovered by a doctor
that worked as a practialdoctor
he was not a theorist
the theoretists didnt predict it
luis Paster was not a physicsit
nore a mathematician!!
>
>
>
> > the electric batery of volta
> > (the story of the frogg)
>
> Volta was not an outsider -- he was a physicist
he was not a physicsit
HE WAS A DOCTOR !!
ntoa physicist
and without him
you woudnt know a fuck about
what is an electric circuit
or electric voltage etc etc
you are an ungeatful lier !!
and deciever !!!
-----------
dont lie !!!!!!--
and he'd been
> working with electricity storage devices for 20 years prior to his
> experiments with frog legs. That was no accident.
faraday was not a tthat time
a elerticphysicist
allyou pomous physicsit
and mathematician
knew nothing about
electrodymamics
AND COULD VEVER DO IT
UNLESS THE ACCIDENTAL
CASE
IN WHICH fARADWY WAS FROSTRATED AND ANGREE
AND THROUGH ACIDENTALLY
THE MAGNET INTO THE
WIRE COIL
AND NOTICED THA THE
MAGMETOMETER GAGE
STSTED YO MOVE!!
if you was you or somepne elese than you you would not
notce and advance it
to the gerates electricity
revolusion of our moden life!!
ungeateful moron lier
------------
i can add here
the accidental discovery of x rays
again
ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY !!
nothing was there in theory about it
and the radioactivity discovery
nothin was ther in theory
it was net acidental finding
done by EXPERIMENTAL SCIENTISTS
NOT BYPOMPOUS MATHEMATICIANS
got it
ungreateful lier !!
the MRI done by experimental engineers
the semiconductir
done by engineers not fucken
matrhematicians
the radio !!
not by theoreticians
there was nothing there at that time!!!
***again you are decorating youself with others feathers !!!**
--------------
the steam engine !!
not by theotretists
the discovery of connection
between work and heat
WAS NEVER BEFORE IN THEORY !
it was done by a gun producer !!
you are a complete ignorant
about the history of science
and a self decorator of yourself
and your cast by featers
OF OTHERS
-------------
> > Eddisons inventions
>
> You seem not to know the difference between the discovery of a new
> scientific principle and a technological invention. Quantum mechanics
you seems not to know
what wa sleading science
theory or acidental findings of
acidental scintists
while there was
NO THEORY ABOUT IT BEFORE THATACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY
i can recall
the galvanization effect that was discovered
**acidentally* with nothing in theory about it
**chemist can give you thousants of examples
of accidental example of discoveries
**that LEADING A THE THEORY !!
so again
you are a pompous moron abot
science advance and how it was done !!
-----------------
and now about my question:
does ther gamma factor apply to
the photon or not??
why are you smartguying
and cannot answer simply whae
even the crook Gisse naswered
correctly
that it was understood 100 years
ago??
why cant you spill it out??
but still that is not themain point now
the main point is todo
THE NEXT INSIGHT
that if so
**there was never a real rason
to 'invent' the relativistic mass !!!
> was discovered in the 1930s. Solid state chips, based on quantum
> mechanical principles, were invented in the 1950s. Solid state chips
> are not a scientific discovery, they are an invention.
>
> > Michael Faradys dynamo
> > and electro dynamics
>
> Again, not an outsider, not an accident. He'd been tinkering with this
> stuff and doing active investigation with electricity and electricity
> generation for 20 years. Not an accident.
i am talking about his
dsicovery of the dymamo
it was not predicted by ant thoery!!
the theory came after that
faraday discovered that
THERE IS A NEED FOR MECHANICAL MOTION
IN THAT COIL
IT WAS NEVER IN THEORY
A YOU ARE A MORON
ungreatful LIER !!
and a coward to answer questions
ihe telescope was discovered
based on accidental discoveries
about the magnifying glass
ther was nothing before in theory
the theory came only later
**based on those accidental discoveries
and the pompus mathematicians
took a ride on it much later !!
ungreatful pompous lier !!
and the other examples
are endless !!
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Y.Porat
and another little punch question:
i am just' and engineer!!!
*can you call me
AN OUTSIDER TO SCIENCE??!!
2
now litte example to show the differnce
between an 'outsider ;
Bsc like me
and an insider Phd like you :
i initiated the insight explanation that
it should be
not
F=Gamma ma a
but rather
F/Gamma = m a
and that cancels the relativistic
understanding of mass
and you quoted that
without mentioning me
as originatir of that
revolutionary insight
if you dont undestand it its your
problem
anyway
you tried later to claim that
it was understood 80 years before
but could never document that lie!!
iow in much simpler blant words
you tried to steal it from me!!
can you say now
that i am a senile person
who does not remember ??
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Meenken
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:7279f073-083e-47ca...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------\
well, Porat,
Newton apparently was an modest man,as he was a brilliant scientist
he could not understand why the moon was attracted and kept in orbit by
earth on a distance like that,
and he once said "i hope and expect that in the future someone will come and
explain that",
and that someone came, his name was Einstein,
and Porat i am sure, that Newton would have been very pleased by einsteins
explanation,
and his explanation was/is,
"mass dictates spacetime how to curv, and space in turn ,dictates mass how
to move"
it can be said Porat in a few words, not like yours!,
you know Occams razor!!
and I am sure Newton,would have liked ik, (even he did not think about that
himself),
he was to big for that, same as his follower 100 dreds of years later,
both great men,the top of physics
and he would have been pleased, as he would have reckonized that that was
the answer,because it was/is brilliant,
look into those few words Porat and if possible become modest too, and try
to join the great by modesty ,
and come up with brilliant ideas as well,
as matter of fact ,
we indeed are bit in a slob , and it is about time, to get further
this is a anwers from holland!!
marten
Whoever
news:8fe8d825-a45a-426a...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 1:44 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> does the gamma factor
>> apply to the photon or not
In which formula?
As I've pointed out .. formulas which multiply by gamma (when v=c, it is
1/0) will lead to either infinite results (if multiplied by a non-zero
value), or indeterminate results (if multiplied by zero) If you divide by
gamma (multiply by zero) then you get zero (or indeterminate if you multiply
it by infinity).
The equations are still meaningful .. they are telling you about situations
that cannot exist (eg an object with non-zero rest mass travelling at c
would have infinite energy, so is not possible), or that the formula does
not give you a particular value. eg E = gamma.mc^2 is indeterminate when
m=0, meaning it does not yield any particular value for E. When formulated
as m = E / gamma / c^2 the formula is valid, and yields m=0 for any value of
E. So we need to go elsewhere in the physics for working out E .. eg E =
pc, or E = hf.
One can't just wipe out gamma from formulas because you happen to be talking
about a photon .. and say that the laws of physics that predict only
zero-masses can travel at c do not apply to photons, simply because one
doesn't like the idea of photons having a zero rest-mass.
> We've talked about this at length. If you do not remember those
> conversations, I'm not about to give you another one to forget.
I've also covered this with him many times. He thinks that if he ignores it
and instead pile insults onto us, and the repeats his nonsense again that
somehow he is defeating us .. but the only loser is him for missing an
opportunity to learn and remaining in ignorance. The positive is that maybe
someone else reading this thread will learn from what we post.
Whoever
[snip a slew]
> and now about my question:
>
> does ther gamma factor apply to
> the photon or not??
You STILL on about that?
> why are you smartguying
> and cannot answer simply whae
> even the crook Gisse naswered
> correctly
> that it was understood 100 years
> ago??
Perhaps if you explain what you mean by "the gamma factor applying to the
photon" .. the gamma factor is formula whose value is dependant on speed ..
how to you apply a calculated value to that to a quantum entity like a
photon? Do you stick it on with glue? Perhaps you should show what uses of
the gamma value in what equations are valid or not.
> why cant you spill it out??
> but still that is not themain point now
> the main point is todo
> THE NEXT INSIGHT
> that if so
> **there was never a real rason
> to 'invent' the relativistic mass !!!
Its a sometimes-useful concept. There is debate whether it should be used
as a term in its own right .. many saying one should just refer to momentum
and energy and rest mass. But it keeps turning up in equations, so its
probably sensible to give it a name.
Whoever
That's a pretty useless rewrite of the same formula .. it doesn't give a
value for F, or m, or a
> and that cancels the relativistic
> understanding of mass
It doesn't cancel anything
It's like saying the
KE = 1/2 m.v^2
has 1/2 mass in it (which is obviosuly silly as we know mass is in units of
1 kilogram), and that writing it as
2.KE = m.v^2
cancels the Newtonistic understanding of mass.
> and you quoted that
> without mentioning me
> as originatir of that
> revolutionary insight
There is no insight there .. you're deluded
> if you dont undestand it its your
> problem
> anyway
Nothing there to understand.. you just wrote the formula in a useless manner
> you tried later to claim that
> it was understood 80 years before
> but could never document that lie!!
Its the same formula as F = gamma . ma, or m = F / gamma / a, or a = F /
gamma / m .. except those are useful rewrites.
> iow in much simpler blant words
> you tried to steal it from me!!
Why would anyone try to steal your nonsense?
> can you say now
> that i am a senile person
> who does not remember ??
Yes .. yes you are senile.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------
since you wrote in somewhat civilized manner
i will answer about your question
'where does the gamma factor
**does apply**
it applies as along as
v is not c!!
the moment v=c
the gamma becomes INFINITE
and has no room in a useful physics formula !!!
(full stop!! and as simple as that
nothing more-- no additional smart guying
even Gisse told you that
it was undestood 100 years ago
no need to be a genius in order to understand it !!!
on the other hand
PD could not spill it out
because of personal politics !!
or may be stupidity and over smart guying...
------------------------------
Y.P
----------------------
Y.Porat
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------
infinie times zero is an indeterminate number !!
and therefore
has no room
in a sane useful physics equation
full stop !!
it is undetermined and meaninlees
and worthless for physics !!!
Y.P
----------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
imbecile crook psychopath moronmay be try betetr
i am quite sure you are unable for more !!
Y.P
--------------
Whoever
I always do .. you on the other hand seem to have problems with remaining
civilised.
> i will answer about your question
> 'where does the gamma factor
> **does apply**
>
> it applies as along as
> v is not c!!
> the moment v=c
> the gamma becomes INFINITE
> and has no room in a useful physics formula !!!
1/gamma is zero, however .. and that is quite valid. I thought I'd already
told you all this
so you can use
m = E / gamma / c^2
to show that m = 0 when v=c
In other words, no object with mass (rest mass) can achieve speed c.
> (full stop!! and as simple as that
> nothing more-- no additional smart guying
> even Gisse told you that
> it was undestood 100 years ago
> no need to be a genius in order to understand it !!!
I've said all along that multiplying by gamma gives you infinite or
indeterminate values. The infinite ones show impossiblity .. so
E = gamma . mc^2
Shows that energy becomes infinite when mass is non-zero, hence further
showing that nothing with a non-zero rest mass can travel at c.
> on the other hand
> PD could not spill it out
> because of personal politics !!
> or may be stupidity and over smart guying...
You seem to think that saying 'gamma does not apply' over and over makes
your position right .. whereas instead it is part of what justifies my
position (and that of physicists supported by experimental evidence) that
the mass of a photon is zero.
Whoever
That's right .. X = infinity x 0 works for any number.
> and therefore
> has no room
> in a sane useful physics equation
> full stop !!
Yeup .. and, as I've said, that means an equation that uses that does not
give any result. Maybe you're finally getting it.
But 1/gamma is not infinity .. it is zero, so the formula
m = E / gamma / c^2
gives m = 0 when v=c
> it is undetermined and meaninlees
> and worthless for physics !!!
Which is why I am not using it. I've pointed this out many times. You are
a little slow on the uptake though.
Whoever
Try better at what? I'm doing just fine, thanks.
> i am quite sure you are unable for more !!
More what? I have just had a meal, so I don't really want any more just
now.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
you ddint notice that
i didnt use the c velocity situation
i wrote
E/Gamma =m a (a not c !!!!!!)
it is while V is not c
and gamma **is not infinite !!!
dont you give me that littl e credit
that i know well
tha the devil is in the details (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:7279f073-083e-47ca...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------
Newton was a genious
but at his time
none claimed the nonsense physics
that curves spcae is dictation gravity
it is you who do it
2
Einstein was a genius
but that was not an insurance card that
anything he guessed
will not ne nonsense physics
2
please
go to my other thread
'nocurvature and no schmervature of space
i think that thread is more appropriate
i wil answer you there !!!
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
Whoever
Then you made a mistake .. its
F = Gamma . m a
so
F / Gamma = m a
> it is while V is not c
> and gamma **is not infinite !!!
Its fine for v < c AND for v =c
For v = c, 1/Gamma = 0, so you get m = 0 .. no mass again
Thanks for showing once gain that I'm right
> dont you give me that littl e credit
> that i know well
> tha the devil is in the details (:-)
Nope .. you've not done anything credit-worthy .. other than show I'm right.
But I was right already, so no prize for that.
Whoever
Who said they did? Physics was not yet advanced enough in its development
for anyone to come up with it.
> it is you who do it
Not only .. it is the bulk of physicists who do. You know . .the one who
take time to study and experiment and think.
> 2
> Einstein was a genius
> but that was not an insurance card that
> anything he guessed
> will not ne nonsense physics
Quite true .. he made quite a few mistakes at various times. He was only
human. The name 'Einstein' on something doesn't in any way mean it has to
be right. Each theory has to be taken on its own merit and on experimental
evidence.
> 2
> please
> go to my other thread
> 'nocurvature and no schmervature of space
>
> i think that thread is more appropriate
> i wil answer you there !!!
I'm sure you'll just end up swearing at him, like you do everyone who
actually tries to discuss physics with you and points out the flaws in what
you say.
Y.Porat
E/Gamam while v=c
is E/zero --->
------>is infinite!!
and you have no way to change the left side of the
formula !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
even if you stand on your head
and if the left side of the formula is infinit
the right side is infinite as well !!
even if you stand on your haed
and that is nonsense physics
got it
and infinite energy is nonsens physics
and that is why it does not apply
tor reality physics
and sorry
i have no more patience for you ???
Bye Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.Porat
sorry typo
while v=c
gamma is infinite
so
E/gamma is zero
and zero energy is nonsense physics !!!!!
ie nothing practical
so the right side is zero as well
and all the formula becomes nonsens physics
so \ conclusion
while Gamma is infinit
it is uselsss to any physics
so gamma is useful **as long** as
V< c!!!
and i have no more patience for you
Bye
Y.Porat
------------------------
Whoever
Gamma = 1 / sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)
so
1/Gamma = sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)
so
E/Gamma = E * 1/Gamma = E * sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2) = E * sqrt(1-1) = E * 0 = 0
I think you need to brush up on the difference between multiplication and
division
> ------>is infinite!!
Zero is not infinite
> and you have no way to change the left side of the
> formula !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yet you just tried to .. sorry .. it doesn't work
> even if you stand on your head
>
> and if the left side of the formula is infinit
Zero is not infinite
> the right side is infinite as well !!
Zero is not infinite
> even if you stand on your haed
> and that is nonsense physics
Yes .. what you wrote is nonsense physics
> got it
Oh yeah .. I've got that what you wrote is nonsense physics.
> and infinite energy is nonsens physics
Which is exactly why a photon cannot have mass. Got it?
> and that is why it does not apply
> tor reality physics
Yes .. your claim of a photon with mass do not apply to reality physics
> and sorry
> i have no more patience for you ???
I'm the one who has been showing a great deal of patience here. How many
times do I need to write the correct equations for you to ignore them?
Whoever
Rubbish .. We get zeros all the time. An object at rest has zero velocity
and zero momentum and zero kinetic energy.
You do realize, that the E in the equation is not zero
But m = E / gamma / c ^ 2 IS zero
zero mass when v=c.
If something is moving at c it can have energy, and momentum, but its rest
mass MUST be zero
> ie nothing practical
It is very practical .. you just don't like that you are wrong.
> so the right side is zero as well
Yeup .. and so you are wrong
> and all the formula becomes nonsens physics
No .. it shows that the mass is zero, even when the energy is NOT zero, and
so you are wrong
> so \ conclusion
Conclusion: You are wrong
> while Gamma is infinit
> it is uselsss to any physics
> so gamma is useful **as long** as
> V< c!!!
> and i have no more patience for you
How on earth did you manage to do anything useful with engineering if you
can't understand the importance of zero?
Sad .. very sad. And .. in case you missed it .. you are WRONG !! :):)
Y.Porat
--------------
actually i forgot my orriginal expalntion
from afew year ago
(PD adopted it!!)
so my original interpretationof it wa sthis
actually there id no dispute that
while V=c
the formula is useless
solets take the case of
V<c
while
E/gamma =ma (not mc never !)
so if v starts to grow
gamma starts to grow as well
and
E/Gamma could be shrink
but no !!!
**siace m is constant then a grows
and e isnot constant !!!
E is not The constant
THAT IS MY MAIN POINT !!
in order to keep the right growing side
in ballance with the left side
E MUST GROW !!
** in order to ballance the ma growing **side
and i even explained it by every day practice
if you push a care *in order to ignite it
as the car satrt to 'run away from you
you need to run fater and faster after it
iow
YOU HAVE TO INVESTMORE ENERGY
tokeep adding accelaration to the accelerated car
you the differnce betwwen
an armchair physicsit
whonever in his life pushed a car
and a simple engineer that
pused cars many times in his life
OHYSICS IS BETWEEN MY AHNDS AND FINGERS
got is ?? (:-(
i said that
pushed his car' not onlypractically
but as a metaphor of a physicist
who was not just scrambling formulas
on papers
anyway than ks whoever for
forcing me to remember *in details my
historic new explanation and insight for
E =gamma m a
and some hints about my way
of thinking physics !!! (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
Oh sorry again
i am in rudh to somewhere
and you lean on me
another typo
it is not
E=m a
it is F = m a !!
and actuallly we could demonstate it more clearly with
momentum formula
M (momentum)/gamma = m v !!
it is v and not c
and now really i am in rush (:-)
BYE
Y.P
----------------------
Jimmy Niznick
Jul 31, 1:20 am, Eleaticus <scribe...@aol.com> wrote:
A Fulcrum Quantity in Relativity
2
To state the famed equation E = MC
We must appreciate the fundamentals of Einstein's theory
of relativity.
It holds together universal quantities quite amazingly.
But it falls apart in this coupling:
1) Quantum Mechanics (QM) suggests a deviation from
special Relativity (SR) and contradiction
indicative of several paradox.
(The Twin Paradox, and other what Einstein conceived,
as 'spooky action at a distance')
2) The idea behind the 'God' particle and objectivism
in physics is the notion what we see we cannot
without influence to it. The notion why Higg's Boson
hides and eludes us.
If we tack on Occham's flaming sword, to borrow a
a character from bible (to this tree of knowledge)--
Theory: It is sensible to assume what is fundamentally
wrong here is neither the laws of the universe
are wrong, or the theories basis. It is much
cleaner to assume the problem lies at a
fundamental lack in perception to quantify.
Here is how I develop the theory into further study;
Consider the perhaps missed differential between the
two equations below:
2
E = MC or E = MC^2 (Equation 1)
E = MCC or E = M2C or E = MC2 (Equation 2)
If we plug in the constant value for the speed
of light we note:
C = 299 792 458 m / s
E = M89 875 517 873 681 764 m /s
as 89 875 517 873 681 764 m /s is c^2 or c*c
(this holds for both equation 1 and 2)
BUT
..............here is the subtle key.....
If we write and note:
E = MCC
We currently hold true:
E = M(2C)
.......................................
Fundamental mathematics tells us
multiplying any number by 2 is different
than squaring the number for all numbers
except 2.
........................................
But how much of an impact might
this actually cause?
2
C OR C*C = 89 875 517 873 681 764
BUT
2 C = 599 584 916
Defference: 89 875 517 274 096 848
2
C OR C^2 = 149 896 229 % > 2C
2
*As we have established CC is equivalent to C OR C^2 BY CURRENTLY
HELD STANDARDS
but this violated CC =/= 2C!
...........................................
What are the implications?
A) Twins 'CC' complete an oval wide circle.
B) Not only square inverse relationship.
C
C ( EM )C
C
distant conjecture:
C) There must be a circular route, outside
this square.
4 * 4 = 16.00
4 * 3.14 = 12.56
--------
3.48
To preserve linear qualities.
(sqrt) 3.48 = 1.8654758106177630091108951084641
............................................WILD THEORY
What might the effect be on physics?
a) the math suggests a great deal of
matter actually moves through us
and all matter very fast in swift
lined circles largely
b) it would suggest part of your hand
is actually part of the moon in 12
seconds, and part of the moon is
largely a shadow of the earth in masse.
c) the moon would be an echo of light-mass.
----------------------------------------------
I am supposing all of this with the aim
this will reach those individuals with more
study in the are to develop into scenarios
for mutual exchange of ideas in this forum.
M.M.M.
AND HERE IS OUR 'SPOOKY' ACTION AT A DISTANCE, AS EINSTEIN WOULD SAY
> > > >> >> >> I've also covered this with him many times. He thinks that if he
> > > >> >> >> ignores
> > > >> >> >> it
> > > >> >> >> and instead pile insults onto us, and the repeats his nonsense
> > > >> >> >> again
> > > >> >> >> that
> > > >> >> >> somehow he is defeating us .. but the only loser is him for missing
> > > >> >> >> an
> > > >> >> >> opportunity to learn and remaining in ignorance. The positive is
> > > >> >> >> that
> > > >> >> >> maybe
> > > >> >> >> someone else reading this thread will learn from what we post.
>
get READY FOR SOME amazing interesting theory and discovery
from an arm chair Physicist who is actually right
> -----------------------
>
>
M.M.M.
videos relevant to proof thread/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdYMghrvxNo&feature=channel_page
-hedron + visual
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbr-Xb4-Zeo&feature=channel
-p and np (halts)
Musatov
The below text is a derivate provable directly by comparison and the
repeated phrases/similarity
Leverian Primality Checker
Excellency Dedanoe Unlishnidaos
1251 #26 1060 Skopje, MKD
ded...@gmail.com
The common version of the lever law bcaddcbaW−=⎥⎦⎤⎢⎣⎡= shows to
describe division very well because for instance ()dabcWmodmod∨−≡.
That's why here we will try to offer leverian solution for primality
checking. First to eliminate the dependence of W on c and d we will
make the vector [c, d] to be orthogonal for which the condition 21dc−
±= is obligatory. Then the lever law gets the form: 2211dbadddbaW
−=⎥⎦⎤⎢⎣⎡−±=m. Now we are checking: ⎟⎠⎞⎜⎝⎛=⇒=∧⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎝⎛−
±=⇒=aWdbbWda01022. We equalize the two values for d and we get: 22ababW
+±=. Now we go back at 21dbadW−=m to solve d: ()()2221dbadW−=− or ()
0222222=−+−+bWWaddba so the solution for d is: ()()()
22222222244221babWbaaWWad+−+−±= ()()
22222222222222244221babababbaaababaababd+⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎝⎛−⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎝⎛++−⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎝⎛+±
+±= ()⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝⎛+++++±=⇒=∨+⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎝⎛++++
±=2242222224221111111112121kkkkdkabbaabababd
Now we return that value in the lever law: ⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎝⎛−=
−=ddkddkdaW11122mm ()()()⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝⎛+++⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎝⎛++−+++−+++++
±=4222224222421111111111111kkkkkkkkkkkaW
So for abk= first must be ()()0111114222≠+++⎟⎠⎞⎜⎝⎛++kkkkk in order the
last equation to return finite real result for aW and the only way
that W can become full product of 'a' with is the case of (
aWmod0≡ ) ()()011111222242=⎟⎟⎠⎞⎜⎜⎝⎛++−+++kkkk. If k meets that
condition then W is composite dividable with 'a', otherwise W should
be prime. This is a blind knowledge with prove alone that should be
further tested and confirmed. End of story!
Whoever
Which formula?
> is useless
> solets take the case of
> V<c
> while
>
> E/gamma =ma (not mc never !)
Wrong formula again
E = gamma.mc^2 is the formula for energy
> so if v starts to grow
> gamma starts to grow as well
> and
> E/Gamma could be shrink
> but no !!!
Yes it does
> **siace m is constant then a grows
> and e isnot constant !!!
> E is not The constant
Who said it was? m is
> THAT IS MY MAIN POINT !!
>
> in order to keep the right growing side
> in ballance with the left side
>
> E MUST GROW !!
Yes it does .. it tends to infinity
> ** in order to ballance the ma growing **side
> and i even explained it by every day practice
>
> if you push a care *in order to ignite it
> as the car satrt to 'run away from you
> you need to run fater and faster after it
> iow
> YOU HAVE TO INVESTMORE ENERGY
> tokeep adding accelaration to the accelerated car
Hence the Newtonian F = ma .. becomes even MORE force required in
relativity as speed gets closer to c
> you the differnce betwwen
> an armchair physicsit
> whonever in his life pushed a car
> and a simple engineer that
> pused cars many times in his life
>
> OHYSICS IS BETWEEN MY AHNDS AND FINGERS
So how long have you them amputated?
> got is ?? (:-(
> i said that
> pushed his car' not onlypractically
> but as a metaphor of a physicist
> who was not just scrambling formulas
> on papers
BAHAH .. you think YOU are explaining things to ME. What a joke
> anyway than ks whoever for
> forcing me to remember *in details my
> historic new explanation and insight
Historic stupidit
> for
> E =gamma m a
Wrong formula
> and some hints about my way
> of thinking physics !!! (:-)
Your way is nonsense. You should learn.
Whoever
In Newtonian physics.
In relativity it is
F = (Gamma^3).m.a
> and actuallly we could demonstate it more clearly with
> momentum formula
>
> M (momentum)/gamma = m v !!
OK .. use that . .though it is a silly way to write it
> it is v and not c
Yes it is. As opposed to energy which it
E = gamma.mc^2
And the 'v' only appear there as part of gaama
> and now really i am in rush (:-)
So m = M/gamma/v
when v=c
So m = M/gamma/c = 0
Mass must be zero when v=c
No matter which formula you use, you end up with m=0 when v=c and is m is
not zero, you get infinities (so that cannot happen, which is obvious
because it tell us m=0)
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD, the Parasite Dunce, has taken a "shot in the dark" at my
New Science truths. If that FOOL can show that there is any
experiment or observation, done at any time or any place, which can
disprove what I say, PD is invited to elucidate. But because his
brain has so few neurons he has never stayed on a given subject long
enough to elucidate about anything. — NoEinstein —
>
> On Jul 31, 11:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 12:34 am, "Mister X" <j...@junk.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Mister X: Newton's (pretty good first effort) Law of Universal
> > (sic) Gravitation has the attractive force being directly proportional
> > to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the SQUARE
> > of the distance between their centers. The latter is an example of
> > what is known as: The Inverse Square Law. In the case of a luminous
> > source lighting a plain white, flat surface, the brightness of the
> > illuminated surface is inversely proportional to the square of the
> > distance of the surface from the light source. When anything
> > increases as a 'square' factor, that means that the (say) distance is
> > influencing the resultant in TWO separate ways that multiply to become
> > a... SQUARE.
>
> > Newton's law failed to take into account that gravity is due to ***
> > flowing ether (down, or from 'behind' the two bodies). Because the
> > ether flow between two bodies is directly proportional to the photon
> > (or high energy particle) exchange between the two bodies, very HOT
> > and thus more luminous bodies will have a much higher gravity than the
> > identical mass of a colder body.
>
> This is already disproven in astronomical observations of blue dwarfs
> and red giants. Try again.
>
>
>
> > A correct "temperature adjustment"
> > to Newton's equation will eliminate the need to search for the
> > "missing mass" in the Universe believed to necessary to... stop it
> > from expanding (sic; It ISN'T expanding!). My realizing that gravity
> > is flowing ether, explains much of what astronomers have been trying
> > to figure out for over a century. — NoEinstein —
>
> > > Hi again
>
> > > So, Newton postulated:
>
> > > F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
>
> > > Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
>
> > > Why 1/(r*r)
>
> > > Why not 1/r
>
> > > Why not 1/r-dot
>
> > > Why this form.
>
> > > I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
> > > time - then current) experiments.
> > > I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
> > > 1/(r*r)
>
> > > I, for example, (in my ignorance) would have assumed 1/r because that is how
> > > a spring acts.
> > > Or I might have used 1/r-dot to bring in damping of some sort.
>
> > > Anyone?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! — NoEinstein —
>
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:7279f073-083e-47ca...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Whoever
news:d05624aa-e626-49e3...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
> Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
> greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
BAHAHAHA .. given that no such ether has ever been detected (yet alone a
flow in it), and there is no requirement for photon exchange for gravity to
work .. that really is a joke.
Whether the GR explanation of gravity as curved space is entirely correct,
we don't really know .. but it is well supported experimentally .. there is
a lot of theoretical research (which hopefully would lead to further
experimental tests and observations) on various descriptions of the
mechanism of gravity. In particular trying to reconcile the quantum notion
with the relativistic one. It may well be they are (to 'coin' a phrase) two
sides of the same coin :):)
Uncle Al
>
> On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
> >
> Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether
idiot
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------
let the guy i addressed my answer speak
or respond to me
he didnt nominate you as his speaker !!!
untill now
you hand waved only personal politics
and propaganda tricks
Y.P
--------------------------
Y.Porat
-------------------
lets do it again:
(we can do it on many formulas of force and energy)
if you take for instance for
E=gamma times 1/2 m V^2
e can write it as
E/Gamma = 1/2 m V^2
(while V<c !!)
have you ant objection to that ??
so
while v becomes bigger gamma becomes smaller
now V becomes bigger on the right side as well
and ??
m remains constant !!
if more balace is needed
it is done by
***more Energy invested in !!
iow
sticking the gamma only tothe mass
IS AN ARBITRARY PREJUDICE !!!
sowe can stick it to the energy as well
do you have experimental
justifications to stick it only to the mass??
the similar way if you take the
F= gamma m a
i say
F/gamma = m a
F is growing with faster motion
not the mass!!
and m remains constant !!
do you have experimental evidence
to stick that Gamma just to the mass
while experimentally
my equation
gived exactly the same results
as 'yours' ??
or may be it is jsut and arbitrary prejudice
explanation
if not please explain
why to stick it just to the mass
and not to the force ???!!!
(just a btw --additional to the above- remark in order of getting
ACCUMULATIVE EVIDENCE )
we know from say chemistry
the mass is conserved !!!
do you have* accumulative evidence* that mass is inflating by motion
or by anything else )
2
(just an btw question
though the analysis of above is enough)
if mass inflated with motion
were does all that excess of mass dsiapear ??
th e moment movement stops ??
or may be you want to say that
while two bodies collide
SOME OF ONE MASS IS TRANSFERRED
TO OTHER ONE (that was accelerated
by coliding with the other one ??!!)
Y.Porat
-------------------------
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jul 31, 1:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD, the Parasite Dunce, has taken a "shot in the dark" at my
> New Science truths.
No, they are demonstrations of john's complete lack of any
science knowledge. He is a willing fool.
If that FOOL can show that there is any
> experiment or observation, done at any time or any place, which can
> disprove what I say, PD is invited to elucidate.
There is more than a century's evidence. John is too stupid to
read or understand any textbook so he comes here and demonstrates
his stupidity and his jealousy of scientists.
But because his
> brain has so few neurons he has never stayed on a given subject long
> enough to elucidate about anything. � NoEinstein �
John has never done any thoughts properly.
>>>to figure out for over a century. � NoEinstein �
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
> greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
> science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! � NoEinstein �
No, john is a science fool. He understands no science and only comes
here to look stupid. He is getting very good at being the village
fool.
Y.Porat
> On Jul 30, 10:54 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 5:28 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > > Mister X wrote:
>
> > > > Hi again
>
> > > > So, Newton postulated:
>
> > > > F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
>
> > > > Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
>
> > > > Why 1/(r*r)
>
> > > > Why not 1/r
>
> > > > Why not 1/r-dot
>
> > > > Why this form.
>
> > > > I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
> > > > time - then current) experiments.
> > > > I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
> > > > 1/(r*r)
>
> > > > I, for example, (in my ignorance) would have assumed 1/r because that is how
> > > > a spring acts.
> > > > Or I might have used 1/r-dot to bring in damping of some sort.
>
> > > > Anyone?
>
> > > that is how concentration varies with distance.
>
> > > --
> > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
>
> > it means the number of force lines
> > per unit of aria
>
> > and brings us to think
> > about real force messengers
> > that are epread evenly in alldirections starting from the
> > mother mass
>
> > and that is again another sighn
> > that we are dealing here with force messengers
> > that stem out of mass
> > and not any idiotic
> > curved space dependence
> > iow
> > it showes clearly that mass
> > and force messengers of mass
> > are doing the job
>
> Porat, you will notice that the electrostatic force has the same 1/r^2
> form that gravity does.
>
> You will also notice that the electromagnetic interaction is described
> *either* by field lines or by force messengers, with equal
> satisfaction of the 1/r^2 law.
>
> This is understood by most freshman physics students. I don't know why
> you have such difficulty with it.
-------------------
i have nothing against that
1/r^2
quite the contrary!!
it is just this point that gives my claims more evidence !!!
it means that
each quantity of mass
has some exact specific
quantity of force messengers
THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF
THE VOLUME OF SPACE
AROUND IT !!!
does it mean something new for you ???!!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
marc
news:9973301a-dfbd-45c9-9ecf-
The first Calculus text, in fact, was published when Newton was a
teenager and Leibnitz a pre-teen -- De Arithmetica Infinitorum (i.e.
the calculus of infinitesimals). Its coverage is all of what is
treated in any 200 level college calculus course series (infinite
series, convergence, integrals, tangents and derivatives, etc.). There
were a host of other publications both before and during the time
"Newton and Leibnitz discovered calculus" that developed the field,
gradually, in an evolution of thought that Newton and Leibnitz were a
part of -- not the originators of.
The simplest answer to how Newton and Leibnitz could have "come up
with the equivalent thing at the same time" is that they both read De
Arithmetica Infinitorum.
Thanks for that. Just shows the danger of treating glib packaging of history
as gospel, speaking of which....
Marc
Y.Porat
> Whoever wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > More lies by pathetic sad little Porat ... Eric's happy smiling face is
> > still there on his facebook page. Thankfully we don't need to see Porat
> > .. I can't imagine it being a friendly hapyp face.
>
> Porat would smile more if he owned the world's largest pine cone.
-------------------
i would smaile better
**if you bring back you fucken mug face
to your face book (:-)
do you hope to ever get married with such a
pin cone face::
or may be your boy friend
does not mind if he is fucking
such a mug ??? (:-)
why ddi you take it away from there
is it because youlook like
a pin cone ?? (:-)
i gues woever dies not look much betetr
and that is why he is keeping his identiry
secrete
and was Band by Google... (:-)
2
youare both of you are
great physicists
with a wide education about pin cones ... (:-)
keep well
and dont forget both of you to see
your psychiatrists
he wil tell both you how to **start** to talk about
pin cones in a science ng (:-)
----------------------------------------
Y.Porat
and to those who still didnt see Gisse
here is him
as he volunteered to publish
(that was the most clever deed of his life (:-)
http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
now Gisse
please leave that face of yours on the net
it will give much joy to our dry bore some ng
(:-)
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
PD
> On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
> greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
> science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! — NoEinstein —
Nope. What determines which is fact and which is fiction in science is
whether numbers calculated from the explanation match measured values.
Einstein's calculation lets you do those calculations and the results
match the measurements. It is therefore taken to be accepted. Your
explanation provides no mechanism to calculate anything at all, and so
it can't be compared to experimental measurements. It is therefore
taken as spurious noise.
PD
> On Jul 31, 1:22 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD, the Parasite Dunce, has taken a "shot in the dark" at my
> New Science truths. If that FOOL can show that there is any
> experiment or observation, done at any time or any place, which can
> disprove what I say, PD is invited to elucidate. But because his
> brain has so few neurons he has never stayed on a given subject long
> enough to elucidate about anything. — NoEinstein —
Sure. Your idea is not new. Lesage had the same idea long before you,
and unlike you, he developed the theory to produce necessary
consequences from the idea, in terms of real calculations. Those
calculations were put to experimental test, and the theory was shown
to be incorrect. You can look up Lesagian gravity yourself.
David Bostwick
>
>"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
>On Jul 31, 6:10 pm, david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David
>Bostwick) wrote:
>> Actually, we all know that the law of gravitational attraction is really a
>> metaphor for love. Bob told us that a long time ago.
>
>-----------------
>but i was much more specific
>i asked whether th e old explanation that Al brought
>can tell us much more about modern paradigm
>of gravitation
>
>TIA
But Bob's makes more sense than all of the other junk that's been in this
thread.
Whoever
So .. your only resort now to physics arguments is to poke fun at someone's
face .. and with no justification .. he has a nice friendly face and smile.
Truly you are a sad little old man. Hopefully we won't need to endure you
for too much longer.
BURT
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Elliptical orbits do not constitute attraction rather the curvature of
motion.
Mitch Raemsch
John Polasek
>Hi again
>
>So, Newton postulated:
>
>F = G * (m1 * m2) / (r * r)
>
>Forgetting m1, m2 and G for a moment (they cause me enough grief)...
>
>Why 1/(r*r)
>
>Why not 1/r
>
>Why not 1/r-dot
>
>Why this form.
>
>I am NOT asking for justification based upon current (or even in Newton's
>time - then current) experiments.
>I am asking for a justification from the mind. Why was it natural to assume
>1/(r*r)
>
>I, for example, (in my ignorance) would have assumed 1/r because that is how
>a spring acts.
>Or I might have used 1/r-dot to bring in damping of some sort.
>
>Anyone?
It's 1/r^2. I think that's a question you are asking.
If Newton had had a bit more foresight he would have included the
factor 4pi in the denominator along with the r^2. Then it would have
been clear that he recognized that there was a spherical symmetry and
the strength of the gravity was logically spread over larger and
larger surfaces that increase as 4pi* r-squared.
John Polasek
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> and you are very wise (jackass)... if |m1| <> |m2| then |d1| <> |d2|
> in d1/d2 = m2/m1; d being the barycentral distances. but if |d1| <> |
> d2| and presumably f21 = (d1/d2) f12 then shouldn't |f12| <> |f21|
> which contradicts newton's claim that sun pulls earth with opposite
> the force of earth pulling sun?
Sigh. Your "presumably" part is rubbish. You have wandered
into tofulation.
You hear words in another language, a language you have
zero understanding. And the words sound like English to
you, and you just fill them in.
But your filled in words are rubbish. Funny rubbish, but still,
rubbish.
Socks
NoEinstein
>
Dear "Whoever...": You come from out of nowhere, and like the
majority who reply on these groups, you use the status quo as your
"authority". So that the readers can understand your mind-set, would
you please give links to your 'new posts' on these groups? Attached
are a few of mine. — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:d05624aa-e626-49e3...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> > time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether that is
> > greater on the opposed sides of the Earth and Moon. The ether flow is
> > replenished via photon exchange between the two bodies. The former is
> > science FICTION. The latter is science FACT! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
truths. — NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 5:29 am, "Meenken" <mdmeen...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Dear Marten: Einstein's explanation for gravity was warped space and
> > time (Ha!). My explanation for gravity is flowing ether
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> idiot
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
> <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
> No aether
>
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
> No Lorentz violation
>
> --
Whoever
> On Aug 1, 9:10 pm, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
> Dear "Whoever...": You come from out of nowhere,
I've been around for a while
> and like the
> majority who reply on these groups, you use the status quo as your
> "authority".
I use experimentally supported and consistent physics
> So that the readers can understand your mind-set, would
> you please give links to your 'new posts' on these groups? Attached
> are a few of mine. � NoEinstein �
[snip spam]
Whoever
> On Aug 1, 9:55 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
> Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
> as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
Your site is full of errors and lies .. you fail to acknowledge them .. that
is dishonest
NoEinstein
>
PD, the Parasite Dunce, doesn't know how to stay-on-subject and
elucidate, he only knows how to sidestep backing-up his own
assertions. — NoEinstein —
David Bostwick
>On Aug 1, 9:55=A0pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>Dear Uncle Al: Like a coward you attack, me, the messenger. You sure
>as hell don't have the counter-arguments to attack my New Science
>>
"New Science," or something similar, is usually code for, "The rest of the
world knows I'm wrong, but I refuse to accept it." Since your Old Nonsense
has no truths, there are no counter-arguments.
PD
> On Aug 3, 9:25 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PD, the Parasite Dunce, doesn't know how to stay-on-subject and
> elucidate, he only knows how to sidestep backing-up his own
> assertions. — NoEinstein —
What sidestepping? I gave you an excellent pointer to both the prior
development of your idea, and the experimental data that precludes it.
What about that is sidestepping?