NC Buries Head in Sand to Einstein Disproofs
NoEinstein
final word regarding those things that students in the various
disciplines are taught. The publishers of texts and reference books
have panels of university "experts" who act as clearing houses for,
and sometimes are the authors of, the "facts" that get included in
such. The National Science Foundation--an agency of the Federal
Government--has a governing body, The National Science Board, that is
composed of university "experts" from across the country. The latter
board is given the final word regarding which science research
projects, at our universities, will get recommended for funding. And
our local, state and federal governments, consider our institutions of
higher learning to be the final word in setting the ever higher
budgets that the trusting... taxpayers must pay each year.
Obviously, our institutions of higher learning have been trusted
for too long, and without oversight, to make most if not all of the
decisions about what students get taught, as well as dictating how the
learning processes will be implemented. This writer has gleaned these
facts from a lifetime of watching higher education become: What
average students must endure so that they can "earn a good living"
without their having to do any physical labor.
Over the past three decades, the State of North Carolina has been
a leader in getting a high percentage of its populace to enter, if not
pass-on-through its higher education mills. As a result, 'rust belt'
industries, as well as high tech industries flock to NC. Certainly,
the mild climate, and the lure of both mountain and beach beauty
that's within easy drives contribute to industry decisions. But it is
the lure of that waiting "pool of college graduates" that has become
the kicker.
Over the past several months, NC Governor Mike Easley has been
running TV ads. With the smiling face of a good PR man, or of a
successful used car salesman, he urges high school students to enroll
in college. Lately, Easley is urging students, while they are still
in high school, to sign up for AP, or Advanced Placement college
credit courses. The latter is a new program sanctioned by the College
Board, which also administers SATs, nationally.
Few would argue that having a well-educated populace is a valid
lure for high tech industries. But what if it is learned that at
least 25% of what is being taught in universities across America is
outdated; i.e., just plain wrong? Is it worthy to brag about the
'quality' of education, if only the QUANTITY of education is used in
making the assessment? Governor Mike Easley, the leading PR man
luring industries to NC, apparently thinks so. He is most interested
in getting 'the statistics' to favor NC over other states competing
for the same industries.
"Einstein's Theories Disproved!" should have been headline news
years ago--because of my efforts. But the majority of universities see
such a headline as an embarrassment to them. After all, haven't
universities "taught" Einstein; and used the "difficult to understand"
Einstein theories as lures to get more students to attend college? If
any university confirms that Einstein has been disproved--as a naïve
populace might well insist--not only is that university embarrassed if
it does so, but by its confirmation it undercuts the billions of
dollars, annually, being granted to universities to 'research'
anything and everything to do with Einstein's theories.
Folks our universities have long since risen past the level of
their own competence; quite literally: they're dragging this country
to ruin! However, they're not doing such alone. The media is using
its power to make sure that the USA falters. After all, the media
loves disasters... But this time, THEY are at the center of it.
As one of numerous tests of the condition of the media, I twice
contacted, via emails, about 90% of the newspapers in NC to inform
them that Governor Mike Easley doesn't value QUALITY in education
enough to insist on such. What I have learned is MORE important than
my having disproved Einstein; to wit: "The media" isn't a huge news
coverage collective. Rather, it is a clearing house for the modicum
of news subjects that it will allow the overly trusting... citizens to
learn. Those in the media believe that it's their primary
responsibility to uphold the political or sociological ideals of the
manages and/or the advertisers. In the case of those NC newspapers:
Like Governor Easley, the newspapers don't care one wit about quality
in education... But they would LOVE to have new industries to buy more
advertising, and they would LOVE to see the population of NC continue
to increase--so that the potential number of subscribers to their
"essentially meaningless" (Quote me on that!) publications will
increase.
Governor Mike Easley has been in the public light long enough to
realize: "What the citizens of NC don't know... can't hurt him." When
universities in NC, and others all across our nation, request funding
from their respective state governments, heretofore, governments, and
the citizens, have assumed that those requests have been well
intended. But "well intended" budget requests have always had QUALITY
implied! The citizens of North Carolina, and the nation, assume that
their best interests are being served both by the governments that
they finance, and by the universities to which they trustingly send
their sons and daughters. Now, NC universities, and many others have
been found not to care about insisting on quality, as long as the
citizens are none the wiser.
To obtain funds from a government--that must come from the
trusting citizens--and doing so under the false pretenses of providing
quality in education, is committing FRAUD. And it is fraud being done
for personal gain--NEVER to be excused because a university may be...
state run. And when a Governor like Mike Easley doesn't correct the
problem, when it is pointed out: He is aiding and abetting fraud that
is being committed on an on-going basis against the citizens of North
Carolina. Send the man to jail? I have never seen prisons as the
best solutions to any of society's problems. Instead, I believe that
no public official should remain in a position of trust; and on the
public payroll; and with public pensions, who has violated the best
interests of the populace--as Mike Easley has shown that he has done,
or is "willing" to do. Therefore, Governor Mike Easley should
resign. Or he should be fired by the citizens via a vote of no
confidence. And NC universities should be purged of administrators
and teachers--top to bottom--who value quantity of education over
quality of education.
Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --
A footnote: Thoughtful and well-explained replies are solicited from
those in North Carolina; from the media across this country; or from
those with connections to the failing cultures... in any of the
universities in America. However, replies that relate to the SCIENCE
of my Einstein disproofs should be made at THREE PROBLEMS FOR MATH AND
SCIENCE http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
__________
Sam Wormley
> Heretofore, our institutions of higher learning have had the
> final word regarding those things that students in the various
> disciplines are taught. The publishers of texts and reference books
> have panels of university "experts" who act as clearing houses for,
> and sometimes are the authors of, the "facts" that get included in
> such.
They is we... Get a grip NoEinstein... do some self education.
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: "They" may be you, but I function without university
affiliation. You hint being a teacher. That's all I know. If you
are replying about my post finding fault with education, would you
volunteer more of your background? This is no "<laughing>" matter. --
NoEinstein --
Sam Wormley
You can find a vita for me on the web if you must, but that is
unimportant. It is not uncommon for the uneducated (untutored fools
in some cases) to be unhappy with the "institutions of higher learning".
Most cranks and crackpots make similar statements.
Many of NoEinstein's posts, however, invoke laughter.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: I'm not much for surfing the WEB, but I did learn that you
are from Iowa, not NC; have a math and electronic background; took
early retirement from ISU; and are now teaching astronomy. Also, you
worked in non destructive testing. Such suggests that you know that
sound analysis is one arm of non destructive testing. Impact some
structure, material, or component and the sound will give "clues" to a
failure, or pending failure.
Conclusions reached from impacting objects is part of my disproof
of Coriolis, that is described in my Copyrighted research paper: Force
of Persuasion. If you might like to see the paper, simply request
such, and give me a "complete" email address (or the missing
letters). Thanks. -- NoEinstein -- :-]]
Sam Wormley
I particularly like direct-sequence spread-spectrum ultrasonics (which
I helped pioneer) for monitoring complex structures.
Proofs are for mathematicians. I have yet to see NoEinstein make
a scientific case (argument) for any claim or assertion he has
posted on sci.physics. NoEinstein more often than not, pulls a
Potter... attempting to disparage the other posters.
NoEinstein makes me laugh most often when getting the physics wrong,
having no clue that he did so. What is sad... is when such
errors are pointed out to NoEinstein, he goes into his "attack" or
"belittling" mode... instead of learning from the mistake... a
characteristic of many cranks and trolls.
Tell us what Coriolis learned!
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Heretofore, our institutions of higher learning have had the
> final word regarding those things that students in the various
> disciplines are taught. The publishers of texts and reference books
> have panels of university "experts" who act as clearing houses for,
> and sometimes are the authors of, the "facts" that get included in
> such. The National Science Foundation--an agency of the Federal
> Government--has a governing body, The National Science Board, that is
> composed of university "experts" from across the country. The latter
> board is given the final word regarding which science research
> projects, at our universities, will get recommended for funding. And
> our local, state and federal governments, consider our institutions of
> higher learning to be the final word in setting the ever higher
> budgets that the trusting... taxpayers must pay each year.
> Obviously, our institutions of higher learning have been trusted
> for too long, and without oversight, to make most if not all of the
> decisions about what students get taught, as well as dictating how the
> learning processes will be implemented. This writer has gleaned these
> facts from a lifetime of watching higher education become: What
> average students must endure so that they can "earn a good living"
> without their having to do any physical labor.
Well, since in NC what they call a good living is pitching
baseballs.
That's why Turing Machines, DNA, Computers, Robots, CD,
The Accelerated History Channel, and
English-as-a-Tenth-Language were invented for the motons.
> SCIENCEhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
> __________
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: If you will request such, I will send you my mathematical
disproof of Einstein showing that M-M can be explained, simply, by
using algebra to calculate the times required for the light to circuit
each of the light courses at all azimuths of apparatus rotation. The
times never change, because M-M didn't have a CONTROL! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can you elucidate so I better know your position? -- NoEinstein --
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear Sam: If you will request such, I will send you my mathematical
> disproof of Einstein showing that M-M can be explained, simply, by
> using algebra to calculate the times required for the light to circuit
> each of the light courses at all azimuths of apparatus rotation. The
> times never change, because M-M didn't have a CONTROL! -- NoEinstein --
I would request that you post the same (or a link to the same)
here so that all may scrutinize your work... If you want me to
stick it onto a server for that purpose, I can do so.
-Sam
PD
>
> Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --
>
> A footnote: Thoughtful and well-explained replies are solicited from
> those in North Carolina; from the media across this country; or from
> those with connections to the failing cultures... in any of the
> universities in America. However, replies that relate to the SCIENCE
> of my Einstein disproofs should be made at THREE PROBLEMS FOR MATH AND
> SCIENCEhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
> __________
Why is it so many cranks find that the root of their discontent is
being ignored?
"I sent them letters! NOTHING!"
"I invited them to be part of a revolution in science! NOTHING!"
"I invited them to drive to my house and step into my backyard to see
a demonstration! NOTHING!"
"I urged them to care about what I care about! NOTHING!"
PD
Eric Gisse
Do you know what an interferometer is?
Randy Poe
James Harris has left a gaping hole in crank-land since he
stopped contributing to sci.math. You hit most of the right
notes to be a replacement, though he had years of
practice to get his rants just right. I suggest you study
the JSH opus to polish your game a little. You're missing
dark threats about the end of the human race if people won't
listen to you, for instance.
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=L8dkAxAAAACZ63f7ITWN4uvM5EGLQ8qb
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=1m_rwQ4AAAAOpY6faaffF1_Ah3A_lFfd
- Randy
NoEinstein
Dear PD: To make friends, try being nice. Sadly, you are
competitiveness personified. That's why you have few friends. Like
Einstein, you are a very unhappy and disagreeable personality. I have
no suggestions for you, but you might consider: Getting counseling;
going out in public; and... getting some religion that's based on
"love thy neighbor as thyself". -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eric: You've got to be kidding! For starters, I know more about
M-M that any person who ever lived. What do YOU know about
interferometers from personal experience? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Randy: I don't copy anyone else's style. Based on your
teetering quality of replies, you should quality to fill some "hole",
I am sure. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: Coriolis goofed and died centuries ago. Learning can't
help him, nor you... with your disease. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: Due to our recent sparring, I have made another post,
today: "How to Replicate NoEinstein's M-M Invalidation". Such lays
the parameters for my mathematical (algebraic) disproof. If I sent
you my own math article, you would have do your own checks, anyway.
So, it is best that you try "to see" if you can do what I have done.
Give it your best shot! You should be able to confirm for yourself
that M-M was wrongly designed. I can tell you that same thing a
million times, but at some point, you must do some calculations for
yourself.
I see no point in sending you my research paper disproving
Coriolis, until we are both on the same page regarding M-M. So, it's
up to you now! -- NoEinstein --
Randy Poe
>
> > - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dear Randy: I don't copy anyone else's style.
I agree that you didn't study JSH to arrive at your style.
However, your opening rant had about 80% overlap with
one of his typical tirades.
- Randy
Sam Wormley
You did not disappoint me NoEinstein, for I knew you would
find a way for me and other not to scrutinize your paper!
Sending your paper to me... or posting it on the newsgroup
would be fatal for you as flaws would be pointed out... you
can afford to be shown to be wrong, NoEinstein. You can't
handle that!
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear Eric: You've got to be kidding! For starters, I know more about
> M-M that any person who ever lived. What do YOU know about
> interferometers from personal experience? -- NoEinstein --
Spoken like a true troll.
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear Sam: Coriolis goofed and died centuries ago. Learning can't
> help him, nor you... with your disease. -- NoEinstein --
Tell us what Coriolis learned!
Rock Brentwood
> Dear Sam: "They" may be you, but I function without university
> affiliation. You hint being a teacher. That's all I know. If you
> are replying about my post finding fault with education, would you
> volunteer more of your background? This is no "<laughing>" matter. --
20-somethings are too caught on in absolutism (especially the males
ones) to learn. That's why the US Constitution explictly forbids any
of them from ever becoming president, so long as they suffer the
condition of being under 30 (tacking on an extra 5 years, just to be
safe on the side of caution).
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: Don't mistake "conviction" for "loosing it". I've been
most patient to put up with Einsteiniacs this past year. Instead of
personal put-downs, try discussing a single science concept at a
time. Then, maybe good can come out of it. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: It is your "sight unseen" attitude of wrongness that
disqualifies you from giving a fair assessment of anything. My offer
to show my paper to you was for your EDIFICATION, not your approval.
My disproof of Einstein from--every conceivable angle--is unequivocal.
That 'teacher mentality' of yours makes you think you can "grade" the
works of others. But you don't have the aptitude, nor the attitude to
do that without being biased to your status quo ideas. My guess is
that you still have that physics text, or texts that you had in
college, and use those as your standard of "correctness".
If you would like to impress me, see if you can write 8 algebraic
equations to calculate the TIME required for a photon to circuit the M-
M apparatus. But you probably can't do it. Why? Mainly because you
are a "skimmer" and a wise cracker, not a scientist who must be
patient by nature. It is much easier for you to disparage the works
of others, than it is for you to understand the truths that they tell.
To gain some respect from me, take two days off from wise
cracking on the groups and do some algebra. Then, when you verify
that M-M lacked a CONTROL, I'll let you, too, proclaim that that moron
Einstein has been dethroned.
-- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Sam: You are like one who resides under a bridge in the forest. Your
joy is to jump out and frighten passersby. But when they see you,
you're just a wrinkled and mutated excuse for a human being. --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Sam: If he could come back from the grave, he would be sorry for how
his KE = 1/2mv^2 equation set science back over a century. --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Rock: You insights should be read by Eric Gisse, who is about to
graduate in physics, if he hasn't already. Sam Wormley and PD are too
far gone to realize that humans have phases of acuteness that don't
develop until a person has survived in the real world for fifteen or
twenty years. In the case of Sam and PD, after graduating, they
figured they "knew it all" and proudly closed their minds to new ideas
in physics. Unfortunately, the US Constitution doesn't protect us
from academic bias. But it should! -- NoEinstein --
PD
Good idea. Let's go over your paper that you sent me, one single
science concept at a time. Then, maybe good can come out of it. You up
for that? Or or you just talking?
PD
PD
OK, so let me get this straight. You say you want to discuss science
concepts, so that good will come out of that. But the science concepts
in your paper are not up for discussion, because they are beyond
examination, to be learned from and not discussed. And this is because
you are the most brilliant human being that has ever existed and
you're doing us all a favor to release this valuable information to
us. Do I have that about right?
> My disproof of Einstein from--every conceivable angle--is unequivocal.
> That 'teacher mentality' of yours makes you think you can "grade" the
> works of others. But you don't have the aptitude, nor the attitude to
> do that without being biased to your status quo ideas. My guess is
> that you still have that physics text, or texts that you had in
> college, and use those as your standard of "correctness".
> If you would like to impress me, see if you can write 8 algebraic
> equations to calculate the TIME required for a photon to circuit the M-
> M apparatus. But you probably can't do it. Why? Mainly because you
> are a "skimmer" and a wise cracker, not a scientist who must be
> patient by nature. It is much easier for you to disparage the works
> of others, than it is for you to understand the truths that they tell.
> To gain some respect from me, take two days off from wise
> cracking on the groups and do some algebra. Then, when you verify
> that M-M lacked a CONTROL, I'll let you, too, proclaim that that moron
> Einstein has been dethroned.
> -- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
PD
>
> Dear Rock: You insights should be read by Eric Gisse, who is about to
> graduate in physics, if he hasn't already. Sam Wormley and PD are too
> far gone to realize that humans have phases of acuteness that don't
> develop until a person has survived in the real world for fifteen or
> twenty years. In the case of Sam and PD, after graduating, they
> figured they "knew it all" and proudly closed their minds to new ideas
> in physics. Unfortunately, the US Constitution doesn't protect us
> from academic bias. But it should! -- NoEinstein --
I don't think you understand something. Science is certainly open to
new ideas. New ideas are pushed forward all the time, and dramatic
ones at that. A lot of them end up being wrong, but they're examined
seriously first.
So the question is, why aren't your ideas being examined seriously?
And here is where it's important to listen: The new idea needs to be
presented with some measure of care and thought, with some homework
and preparation having been done in an plainly careful manner on the
part of the author. If the first couple of paragraphs of a paper are
sprinkled with errors -- not heretical ideas, but outright and
demonstrable errors -- then it is plain that the author has not taken
sufficient care with the new idea, has not done sufficient preparation
in checking and rechecking the ideas for gaffes and blunders.
Your ideas aren't being examined seriously not because they're
heretical but because they are grossly sloppy and full of obvious
blunders that even a semi-intelligent amateur would catch and correct.
Now, if you like, I can take one of your papers and point out to you
the difference between a heretical idea and a stupid mistake. And we
can do this over and over and over again, until all the mistakes are
scrubbed from the paper and the heretical idea remains, if there is
anything left. Then, once you have a paper that has a heretical idea
or two and no mistakes, then it will be looked at seriously. It might
still be wrong, but it will get looked at seriously.
Unless, of course, you have a thin skin and don't want to have the
difference between heretical ideas and stupid mistakes pointed out for
you.
PD
Sam Wormley
Coriolis studied mechanics and engineering mathematics, in
particular friction, hydraulics, machine performance, and
ergonomics. He introduced the terms "work" and "kinetic
energy" with their present scientific meaning.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Work.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/KineticEnergy.html
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, who wrote in his book
"Six Easy Pieces": If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge
were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next
generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most
information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic
hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it)
that
"all things are made of atoms - little particles that move around in
perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little
distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another".
In that one sentence, there is an enormous amount of information
about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are
applied.
:-)
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear Rock: You insights should be read by Eric Gisse, who is about to
> graduate in physics, if he hasn't already. Sam Wormley and PD are too
> far gone to realize that humans have phases of acuteness that don't
> develop until a person has survived in the real world for fifteen or
> twenty years. In the case of Sam and PD, after graduating, they
> figured they "knew it all" and proudly closed their minds to new ideas
> in physics. Unfortunately, the US Constitution doesn't protect us
> from academic bias. But it should! -- NoEinstein --
Scientist definitely have open minds and a good balance of skepticism.
What NoEinstein fails to realize is that scientists draw conclusions
based on empirical evidence... and other's generally replicate the
observations and experiments before the conclusions become widely
accepted.
New ideas are certainly a necessary part of the scientific process.
Incorrect ideas are contradicted by the data... as is the case with
your ideas, NoEinstein. Do some self education!
Sam Wormley
Let's see your paper, NoEinstein. You are a chicken-shit, afraid to
post it! I'm not surprised.
none
but it is funny nonetheless.
none
about noeinsteins bluster. We pointed out math mistakes and we got
only ????
You have not presented any proofs and what math you have tried to
produce is wrong. You need to talk to Androcles, Henri Wilson and
Ken Seto to get a better story.
none
experiment. It is you who claim they are wrong yet you refuse to
produce any analysis that supports this. The only comment you made
about average velocity was wrong. So that means it is up to you to
produce something. So far, you have produced nothing.
none
believing his nonsense. There is nothing behind the curtain.
He has posted opinions trying to push them across as facts.
Unfortunately there are no facts backing him and he has just
shown his ignorance. The only fun left would be for one of
the other trolls to start arguing with him.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear PD: Been there; done that! Entertain yourself as you like. --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear PD: My posts explain my disproofs of Einstein. I will clarify
areas of misunderstanding, but I'm not interested in discussions
(talk) for the sake of discussing. Since you have shown yourself to
be totally biased for the status quo, you disqualify yourself as an
evaluator of anything. Get a open mind. Then, stop arguing for
arguing's sake! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear PD: Been there; done that! Entertain yourself as you like. --
NoEinstein --
PD
That's what I suspected. You're just talking.
PD
NoEinstein
Dear PD: Try this: Get any textbook; find a chapter that you like;
then grade the science on those pages. Pretty pointless, huh. But
not as pointless as my having to waste hours a week replying to your
condescending garbage. But I do that just so some naïve visitors
won't think PD 'got me' in your childish paintball game.
Check your own posts, if you have any. I haven't visited, and
wouldn't waste my time. You're just a blood sucking leech who has
nothing to offer science. You never did have; and you never will. --
NoEinstein --
PD
> On Jan 13, 3:12 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD: Try this: Get any textbook; find a chapter that you like;
> then grade the science on those pages. Pretty pointless, huh.
No, it's not pointless at all. It helps to know *how* to grade the
science on those pages. Interestingly, it can't be done from an
armchair. It requires experimental verification, and that's the
purpose of teaching laboratories, where students verify that nature
really does work the way that the book claims.
Let me emphasize that any attempt "grade the science" by perusing a
post on Usenet, and without the benefit of substantial familiarity
with extant experimental evidence, is pointless.
In the case of your posts, however, what you say is obviously and
painfully inconsistent with experimental evidence, in one sentence
after another. And in that event, no examination of logic or force of
argument or quality of verbal skills is necessary. If it's wrong, no
matter how eloquently argued, then it's wrong.
> But
> not as pointless as my having to waste hours a week replying to your
> condescending garbage.
I'm not suggesting that you have to reply. Indeed, most of your
replies lately are completely contentless, amounting to "Go away", and
that certainly has been a waste of time on your part. Now, if pointing
out errors in your papers and offering to help you clean those errors
out of your papers is something you consider "condescending garbage",
then so be it. You will be ill-fitted for reviewer comments that need
to be addressed before an editor will approve publication in a
journal, of course, but that's your choice. If you don't want to hear
about errors in your papers, then you've just told me everything I
need to know about you.
As it is, you leave your readers only two response options -- endorse
what you write, or round-file it. Given the frequency of errors in
your papers, round-filing is the only available option you would leave
readers, since you are not interested in thoughtful comment. If you
should change your position on whether you are interested in actual
discussion of what you write, then you have the option to engage in
discussion.
PD
NoEinstein
> On Jan 14, 9:58 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13, 3:12 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear PD: Try this: Get any textbook; find a chapter that you like;
> > then grade the science on those pages. Pretty pointless, huh.
>
> No, it's not pointless at all. It helps to know *how* to grade the
> science on those pages. Interestingly, it can't be done from an
> armchair. It requires experimental verification, and that's the
> purpose of teaching laboratories, where students verify that nature
> really does work the way that the book claims.
(PD) The "book" claims that the KE of a falling object increases
exponentially with respect to velocity. And the many books imply that
acceleration due to gravity, 'g', is an exponential increase in
velocity, with respect to time. I have conclusively disproved both of
those huge errors--without which there would never have been any
theories of relativity by Einstein. It's all or nothing, PD. Having
a straw isn't the same as having a scarecrow. I blew the scarecrow to
smithereens, remember?
>
> Let me emphasize that any attempt "grade the science" by perusing a
> post on Usenet, and without the benefit of substantial familiarity
> with extant experimental evidence, is pointless.
Often, over-familiarity with "existing" anything biases a person
toward the status quo. Sometimes it is best to examine everything
from square one, then to see where the chips may fall.
>
> In the case of your posts, however, what you say is obviously and
> painfully inconsistent with experimental evidence, in one sentence
> after another. And in that event, no examination of logic or force of
> argument or quality of verbal skills is necessary. If it's wrong, no
> matter how eloquently argued, then it's wrong.
Thanks for the compliment, PD! Your inclination for misunderstanding
stems from over-generalization. You take my words and paraphrase such
in ways that aren't at parity. Then, you poke fun at my errors, when
the only error was how you read, then paraphrased, then generalized my
statements outside of the context of my explanations. I'll give you
credit for trying! But your desire to prove me wrong at every turn
causes you to read poorly, and generalize worse. Try this: Does M-M
have a CONTROL or doesn't it? No, it doesn't have a control. So, L-F
wasn't needed. Without 'the model' of L-F there is no SR nor GR. Is
that issue too complicated for you, PD?
>
> > But
> > not as pointless as my having to waste hours a week replying to your
> > condescending garbage.
>
> I'm not suggesting that you have to reply. Indeed, most of your
> replies lately are completely contentless, amounting to "Go away", and
> that certainly has been a waste of time on your part. Now, if pointing
> out errors in your papers and offering to help you clean those errors
> out of your papers is something you consider "condescending garbage",
> then so be it. You will be ill-fitted for reviewer comments that need
> to be addressed before an editor will approve publication in a
> journal, of course, but that's your choice. If you don't want to hear
> about errors in your papers, then you've just told me everything I
> need to know about you.
PD: Other than the fact that you took a physics course or two in
college, what qualifies you to evaluate me on anything?
>
> As it is, you leave your readers only two response options -- endorse
> what you write, or round-file it. Given the frequency of errors in
> your papers, round-filing is the only available option you would leave
> readers, since you are not interested in thoughtful comment. If you
> should change your position on whether you are interested in actual
> discussion of what you write, then you have the option to engage in
> discussion.
Dear PD: Other than my "convention error" of the reference point for
stating acceleration--which I readily and publicly acknowledged, the
only "errors" you think you point out are to compare what I have
written about mechanics to the status quo ideas which I have proved to
be wrong. M-M has no CONTROL, so SR and GR are dead. Try to
generalize yourself out of that one sentence! -- NoEinstein --
>
> PD
>
>
>
> > But I do that just so some naïve visitors
> > won't think PD 'got me' in your childish paintball game.
> > Check your own posts, if you have any. I haven't visited, and
> > wouldn't waste my time. You're just a blood sucking leech who has
> > nothing to offer science. You never did have; and you never will. --
> > NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -