Are physics cranks employed?
PD
If you find it OT, ignore it.
I find it interesting that most of the cranks that post here have
similar sentiments:
- Teachers only want to squash students and brainwash them.
- Teachers are afraid of thinkers with original ideas that the teachers
did not come up with themselves.
- The common rejection of the ideas posed by amateurs is a sign of
cronyism and an effort to maintain the static quo.
- Original thinkers did best by *rejecting* the teachings of their
teachers.
- Original thinkers revolutionize science by *exposing* the
brainwashing and cronyism of their teachers.
I wonder how many of these people have gainful employment and how they
are doing in their careers. Employers have to train junior employees,
just as teachers have to train students. And if someone seeks
employment, I would think that it would be implicit that the employee
expects to receive some on-the-job training and supervision by a senior
employee. Mind you, this is not to keep the employee under foot, it's
to make the employee better at their job. If I were an employer and I
had an employee that consistently questioned what I was saying, I don't
think I would have a problem with that, especially if s/he showed
promise in some way. But if they suspected everything I said *because
of* the employer-employee relationship, then I think I would ask them
why they sought employment here in the first place.
There are several here that are unemployed (aside from those retired)
and several that are barely employed. Most know who they are. I won't
venture names.
Thoughts?
PD
hhc...@yahoo.com
PD wrote:
> This is post more about the sociology of the group than about physics.
> If you find it OT, ignore it.
>
> I find it interesting that most of the cranks that post here have
> similar sentiments:
> - Teachers only want to squash students and brainwash them.
> - Teachers are afraid of thinkers with original ideas that the teachers
> did not come up with themselves.
> - The common rejection of the ideas posed by amateurs is a sign of
> cronyism and an effort to maintain the static quo.
> - Original thinkers did best by *rejecting* the teachings of their
> teachers.
> - Original thinkers revolutionize science by *exposing* the
> brainwashing and cronyism of their teachers.
PD, I'm now a retired/physicist/engineer and to be honest with you I
have never seen any of the items you suggest come into play...even
after 40 years.
The reality of the situation is this. My professor of physics aided me
in getting my first professional papter published, which in reality
dealt only with the instrumented then currently employed in optical
emission spectroscopy. My second submitted paper which dealt with
Mossbauer Spectroscopy was never published, due to faults entirely my
own.
I can assure you that no one was a theif of my ideas, although a
subsequent paper was published on Mossbauer spectra that fully
attributed it to my original research as its basis.
I suspect that, for some reason, you're off on a witch hunt that in
reality doesn't exist.
'Nuff said.
Harry C.
Sam Wormley
Of the cranks that infest this newsgroup...
o the majority are poorly educated--my guess is they attempted
to study physics--it was too hard for them. This is a faceless
forum where they can shout as loud as they like without real
consequence...
o some from academia can't let go of their wrong theories...
(Van Flandern, Stolmar, Lockyer)
o some from academia suffered from decaying brains....
(Abian)
o some are a mystery (Stowe)
o and then there are the attention seeking trolls (Relf)
cnctut
Tut writes:
Many fans at professional ball games yell and scream insults at the
players--and I've never understood why--but I suppose that's part of
the game. The real problems start when the the fans take the
field--the real players don't appreciate that type of "support."
Oil your feathers up and let it rain--I (and many others) appreciate
your efforts to contribute meaningful dialog. ;-))
VR
Tut
bi...@eskimo.com
PD wrote:
> I wonder how many of these people have gainful employment and how they
> are doing in their careers.
Here's one clue to crackpot employment:
"It is not uncommon for engineers to accept the reality of phenomena
that are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to
disbelieve the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict
contemporary
beliefs of physics" - H. Bauer
((((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( (o) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty Research Engineer
be...@chem.washington.edu UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
bi...@eskimo.com Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
ph425-222-5066 http//staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1155679182.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
It is clear that one third of them are retired engineers.
You can tell them by their abuse of equations.
Another third consists of school kids. You can tell
them by their abuse of spelling and grammar.
I estimate that another third are just unemployed, or
will be soon.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > This is post more about the sociology of the group than about physics.
> > If you find it OT, ignore it.
> >
> > I find it interesting that most of the cranks that post here have
> > similar sentiments:
> > - Teachers only want to squash students and brainwash them.
> > - Teachers are afraid of thinkers with original ideas that the teachers
> > did not come up with themselves.
> > - The common rejection of the ideas posed by amateurs is a sign of
> > cronyism and an effort to maintain the static quo.
> > - Original thinkers did best by *rejecting* the teachings of their
> > teachers.
> > - Original thinkers revolutionize science by *exposing* the
> > brainwashing and cronyism of their teachers.
>
> PD, I'm now a retired/physicist/engineer and to be honest with you I
> have never seen any of the items you suggest come into play...even
> after 40 years.
Are you really saying that you've never seen any of
these accusations in sci.physics?
> I suspect that, for some reason, you're off on a witch hunt that in
> reality doesn't exist.
I suspect you misread what this post was about.
- Randy
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:pUBEg.24552$8o3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| It is clear that one third of them are retired engineers.
| You can tell them by their abuse of equations.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
xi = x' /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Abuse of equations... HAHAHAHAHA
Is that what you think you are, shithead? A retired engineer?
You are funnier than Wilson Rabbidge!
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:_yGEg.60$fV1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
From a retired engineer:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
a short list of documented abuse of equations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
xi?
PD
Now, why do you suppose that only non-cranks (aside from one notable)
have responded?
Where is Seto? Is he employed?
Where is TomGee? Is he employed?
Where is Henri Wilson? Is he employed?
Where is Savain? Is he employed?
Where is David Thomson? Is he employed?
PD
Sorcerer
Wilson is retired, he's older than me.
As far as teachers go (at High School level) in my experience
(with 20-20 hindsight) the majority are unthinking parrots guiding
the student through a curriculum, which is not tailored to each
individual. Practically, of course, it cannot be.
I had an excellent math teacher and a piss-taking history teacher.
The other students thought the history teacher was funny, I considered
him a jerk. Matters were reversed when it came to the math
teacher, the other students were bored, three or four of us delighted.
Careers are decided on by the level of interest the teacher awakens
in the student, there are definitely good teachers and bad just as
there are good drivers and bad, good cooks and bad, and yes, good
engineers and bad.
Engineers, though, are team players, they have to be, and the bad
soon get weeded out. So are surgeons. Lives are endangered when
engineering is bad, the engineer takes on an awesome responsibility,
as does the surgeon.
Those that can, do. Those that cannot, teach.
My definition of a crank is someone that unthinkingly accepts
such garbage as the "Lorentz" cuckoo transformations without
examining thoroughly their derivation. PD is a crank.
Androcles
PD
Sorcerer wrote:
> My definition of a crank is someone that unthinkingly accepts
> such garbage as the "Lorentz" cuckoo transformations without
> examining thoroughly their derivation. PD is a crank.
> Androcles
Yes, I know what your idea of a crank is.
Unfortunately, "examining thoroughly their derivation" means to you
ONLY looking at the original paper and the particular choice of words
in that paper, and if you find something wanting there by your
standards then there is apparently no need to think or examine any
further. Fortunately, others do not share that feeble-minded approach
and they do see if they can recreate the arguments on their own (guided
by, but not restricted by, the original paper) and they do check
whether experimental evidence matches the predictions, and so on. This
is what enables a theory to be built upon and developed. You, however,
obsess about an odd-colored spot on a completely sound root and fret
that it must be mold. That's because you are a crank.
PD
Sorcerer
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > My definition of a crank is someone that unthinkingly accepts
| > such garbage as the "Lorentz" cuckoo transformations without
| > examining thoroughly their derivation. PD is a crank.
| > Androcles
|
| Yes, I know what your idea of a crank is.
| Unfortunately, "examining thoroughly their derivation" means to you
| ONLY looking at the original paper and the particular choice of words
| in that paper,
I don't care about words, the equations are what matter. You can prattle
on about words until the cows come home because you are a crank.
FORTUNATELY, I'm not a crank.
Androcles
PD
Then do describe, using equations only and not words (because they
don't matter), the difference between x' and xi in Einstein's 1905
paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.
PD
Sorcerer
x' = x-vt
xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi-x' = xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
x'-xi = -xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
Androcles
|
| PD
|
PD
I knew you couldn't do four lines of algebra without making a mistake.
How the nail on which you hang your math diploma holds together with
all that rust, I'll never know.
OK, so you can't describe it -- this you've established -- neither in
words (which you don't care about) nor in equations (which you can't
manipulate with any reliability). It appears you're not in any position
to be considering the Lorentz cuckoo transforms and "examining
thoroughly their derivation", nor lecturing anyone else about whether
they have unthinkingly accepted them. That is because -- this you've
established -- you are a crank.
PD
Sorcerer
You don't know anything. Show the mistake, doofus.
You asked for the difference, I gave you the difference.
I knew you couldn't find a mistake, crank, and you never will.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:WO2Fg.109451$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Fantastic:
"Show the mistake, doofus."
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Doofus.html
PD, how on Earth did you know he was going to make a fool
of himself again?
Congratulations - Gasp.
But please, *don't* show the mistake? Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
PD
You can't even check your work to find a mistake when it's pointed out
to you?
I'll give you a hint. It's somewhere in those four lines of algebra
upstairs.
I'll give you another hint. A 9th grader could find it.
PD
cnctut
Can some one tell me, was it an entrance question to IIT--the greatest
Indian university in the world? Where is ispirant2009 when we need him?
:-))
Sorcerer
Lying shit. You can't find it because it isn't there. You are a troll,
and a stupid one at that.
Androcles
PD
It's amusing to watch you turn red and splutter when you can't find (or
admit) your mistakes. Dirk and cnctut found the mistake quite easily
without my pointing it out to them, and yet you can't find it when led
by the hand.
Let's take that as an object lesson, shall we? Perhaps this is one of
the reasons why you make so many short trips to Wrong. Perhaps this is
also one of the reasons why your long-standing hobby of foaming and
blathering about Einstein is a prodigious waste of time. Sort of like
trying to poke holes in a piece of paper with a strand of overcooked
vermicelli.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1155912208.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Appended to:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Doofus.html
GASP!
>
> It's amusing to watch you turn red and splutter when you can't find (or
> admit) your mistakes. Dirk and cnctut found the mistake quite easily
> without my pointing it out to them, and yet you can't find it when led
> by the hand.
>
> Let's take that as an object lesson, shall we? Perhaps this is one of
> the reasons why you make so many short trips to Wrong. Perhaps this is
> also one of the reasons why your long-standing hobby of foaming and
> blathering about Einstein is a prodigious waste of time. Sort of like
> trying to poke holes in a piece of paper with a strand of overcooked
> vermicelli.
:-))
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
ROFL!
I met a mistake upon the stair,
a small mistake that wasn't there.
It wasn't there again today,
oh how I wish it'd go away.
Let's start with the first line.
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." -- Albert Phuckwit
Einstein.
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
x' = x-vt.
Next line:
"Substituting for x' its value, we obtain" -- Albert Phuckwit Einstein.
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
where
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif
xi = x' * beta
Anything wrong so far?
Put up or shut up, amusing moron, or turn red and splutter.
Androcles
Randy Poe
Why don't you plug in test values for x, v, t and see what
happens?
Let's try, oh, v=0.9c, t = 1, x = 0.
x' = x-vt = -0.9*300000 km/sec*1 = 270000.
xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = x'/sqrt(1-0.81) = 2.29x' = 618300
xi-x' = 348300
But xi*[1 - 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)] = xi*[1 - 2.29] = xi*(-1.29) = -797607.
Hmm, the left sides and right sides of your third line don't
seem to be the same. In fact, they aren't even the same
sign.
Are you sure you want to claim your algebra is correct?
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1155914270....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Ah come on, Randy, don't spoil it now :-(
Dirk Vdm
PD
Note the stunning silence where just a moment before there was
spluttering and blathering. Less likely to open the mouth when one's
face has been rubbed in the crap deposited on the carpet.
The question is, will he learn something from this and cease crapping
on the carpet or at least deposit the crap someplace outside? Or is he
so dimwitted and unteachable that he must be dropped off at the local
pound?
PD
PD
On the plus side, through his responding in this thread, we have firmly
established why Androcles is not employed.
I see that many of the other cranks have suddenly found a small parcel
of wits and have chosen not to answer and similarly demonstrate why
they are also not employed.
PD
Randy Poe
Well, he's got me killfiled (or so he says), so I didn't expect
a direct response.
> The question is, will he learn something from this and cease crapping
> on the carpet or at least deposit the crap someplace outside?
Do you even need to ask about "learning" when discussing
Androcles?
More likely he'll claim victory.
- Randy
edpr...@gmail.com
Sorcerer wrote:
[]
> As far as teachers go (at High School level) in my experience
> (with 20-20 hindsight) the majority are unthinking parrots guiding
> the student through a curriculum, which is not tailored to each
> individual. Practically, of course, it cannot be.
>
> I had an excellent math teacher and a piss-taking history teacher.
> The other students thought the history teacher was funny, I considered
> him a jerk. Matters were reversed when it came to the math
> teacher, the other students were bored, three or four of us delighted.
> Careers are decided on by the level of interest the teacher awakens
> in the student, there are definitely good teachers and bad just as
> there are good drivers and bad, good cooks and bad, and yes, good
> engineers and bad.
> Engineers, though, are team players, they have to be, and the bad
> soon get weeded out. So are surgeons. Lives are endangered when
> engineering is bad, the engineer takes on an awesome responsibility,
> as does the surgeon.
>
> Those that can, do. Those that cannot, teach.
This phrase has been used as a putdown for teachers for decades. It
shows the bias of the speaker. It shows that you have never tried to
teach. Molding minds, and instilling interest is a hell of a lot harder
than molding steel and instilling artificial flavors.
In engineering, you have nice repeatability. Once you solve a problem,
the solution works, time after time. In teaching, once you prepare a
lesson plan that works, you often find it fails on next years students.
Each student is different. Each class is different.
(Note: if you think you tried teaching because you taught a college
level class, the you haven't faced the real issue. Try it in a public
school, high school or grade school level and note the difference.)
>
> My definition of a crank is someone that unthinkingly accepts
> such garbage as the "Lorentz" cuckoo transformations without
> examining thoroughly their derivation. PD is a crank.
> Androcles
meanwhile you unknowingly accept such garbage about teachers.
Sorry if you happened to get more than your fair share of poor
teachers, but you draw the wrong conclusion based on that sample data.
Ed
Randy Poe
Oh crap. I made a sign error. However, it still holds
that left and right-hand sides are not the same sign
and nowhere close in absolute value.
Androcles might or might not catch the sign goof. If he does, he's
liable to jump on that and not actually see the main point.
We'll see...
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1155917657.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
[snip to tease the pseudo plonker]
> We'll see...
Yes, we have been seeing a lot lately ;-)
Dirk Vdm
PD
Agreed. Moreover, the adage about "those that can, do, and those that
cannot, teach" ignores the implicit mandate to all those that can, that
they must also make sure that the next one can as well. This is in fact
a common failing among those who can, that they do not take the time to
ensure that a certain fraction of their time is devoted to being able
to replace themselves. This is in principle how a university is
supposed to work, such that a front-line physicist is not only known
for his/her contributions but equally for his/her students who
followed. Unfortunately, lately this notion has gone somewhat fallow as
provosts and deans have grown tolerant of those who want to do and not
to teach.
PD
cnctut
Randy,
Not a problem--I saw where 11=12 was proven on sci.phy--any error you
might have made is not a significant issue. ;-)
Sorcerer
Yes, my algebra is correct.
Poe is on my killfile, has been for ages. I'm just waiting to see your
face turn red, doofus. And it will.
Androcles
Sorcerer
I'm retired, moron. It's no more a secret than you calling yourself
Paul Draper, even though Happy Henry didn't know and confused
me for you.
What do you do for a living, anyway? Security guard at Roberts'
neutrino factory?
Androcles
Sorcerer
<edpr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155917538....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In engineering, once you prepare a design that works, you often find it
discarded on next year's model. Each plane or car is different.
Each year is different.
(Note: if you think you tried engineering because you tightened a screw
or changed a tyre, then you haven't faced the real issue. Try it in a
factory
or at a drawing board and note the difference.)
Meanwhile you unknowingly accept such garbage about Engineers.
Sorry if you happened to get more than your fair share of bad light bulbs,
but you draw the wrong conclusion based on that sample data.
Androcles
Sorcerer
on resume (past performance) and interview, they rarely have sufficient
knowledge to perform well in a new project and learn on the job because
the interact well with other engineers and because they are interested.
A teacher's task is to stimulate interest, so teaching an engineer is
indeed easier, but then there is a task to do as well with deadlines to
meet.
If a teacher fails, the student takes the year again. If an engineer fails,
lives are lost. We have to be selective, and we have to teach our own
as well.
Androcles
Randy Poe
Wonderful. An algebraic equation that predicts 348300 = -797607
is correct in Androcles-land.
- Randy
Edward Green
> This is post more about the sociology of the group than about physics.
> If you find it OT, ignore it.
>
> I find it interesting that most of the cranks that post here have
> similar sentiments:
> - Teachers only want to squash students and brainwash them.
> - Teachers are afraid of thinkers with original ideas that the teachers
> did not come up with themselves.
> - The common rejection of the ideas posed by amateurs is a sign of
> cronyism and an effort to maintain the static quo.
> - Original thinkers did best by *rejecting* the teachings of their
> teachers.
> - Original thinkers revolutionize science by *exposing* the
> brainwashing and cronyism of their teachers.
Like most obsessional ideas, there is a kernel of truth to this. There
are teachers like this, and organizations like this. Of course, there
are also teachers who encourage.
Actually, for veteran posters, this is old material. The internal view
of the sane original thinker (such as is sometimes found), meeting
resistance and misunderstanding and discouragement, and the obsessional
thinker, meeting the same, perhaps with better objective justification,
is indistinguishable. _Given_ that those we call cranks believe they
have hold of some understanding that those around them just don't get,
their behavior, obnoxious to others, to them is justifiable persistence
<insert bromides about necessity of persistence to sucess here>.
But wait a second... what am I doing? This is a waste of time. Why
not start a thread about something that has puzzled you, or some
observation you've made, or something you'd like to share. Anything,
man. Analysis of cranks is part of the problem: only known solution to
cranks/trolls known to man is ignoring them. Stop wasting time on
sociology and join me in trying to understand the GR metric.
What I want to know is, where the hell are all the undergrad/grad
physics students? Don't some of them have _something_ they'd like to
discuss or share? Is there some hidden academic forum I'm not privy
to where their teachers are steering them, because they can't be taught
to use a kill file?
<...>
> Thoughts?
Share physics.
Sorcerer
"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1156019847....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ok, a noble sentiment. You want to understand the GR metric.
Metric:
A nonnegative function g(x,y) describing the "distance" between neighboring
points
for a given set. A metric satisfies the triangle inequality
g(x,y) +g(y,z) >= g(x,z) (1)
and is symmetric, so
g(x,y) = g(y,x) (2)
A metric also satisfies
g(x,x) = 0 (3)
as well as the condition that g(x,y) = 0 implies x=y.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Metric.html
So... Let there exist a point
p = (x,y,z,0)
and a second point
q = (x,y,z,t)
Then the hypothesized metric g(p,q) = {0,0,0,t} does not satisfy symmetry
with g(q,p) = {0,0,0,-t} because time doesn't run backwards and is not a
vector.
A tensor operates on vectors also.
I must warn you that Phuckwit Duck considers
x' = x-vt
xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
to be an error, he is unable to express the difference between xi and x',
preferring to say "there is an error, find it yourself, Dork Van de merde
found it and so did cnctut". Dork Van de merde is smirking while
hoping that Phuckwit Duck (or PD as he calls himself) will find it,
suggesting that the solution not be disclosed, to which suggestion
Phucwit Duck has complied. Perhaps you'd do better with alt.psychopaths.
Androcles
Ben Newsam
<spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>But wait a second... what am I doing? This is a waste of time. Why
>not start a thread about something that has puzzled you, or some
>observation you've made, or something you'd like to share. Anything,
>man.
OK, I'll bite. Here's a question. The speed of light underwater is
less than c, yes? Is it still constant? Or is the constant still c?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:nxLFg.17357$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
"Show the mistake, doofus":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Doofus.html
"The Manhattan metric - simple enough"
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimpleEnough.html
"You can't. What is the liquid phase of dry ice called? Wet CO2 ?":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DryIce.html
"Ah, you have a "wife"":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroclesWife.html
Succulent - and that's just August 2006 ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:LjMFg.30551$xh7.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:nxLFg.17357$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
|
| [snip]
Ok, [snip]
x', xi?
Androcles
Sam Wormley
> On 19 Aug 2006 13:37:28 -0700, "Edward Green"
> <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> But wait a second... what am I doing? This is a waste of time. Why
>> not start a thread about something that has puzzled you, or some
>> observation you've made, or something you'd like to share. Anything,
>> man.
>
> OK, I'll bite. Here's a question. The speed of light underwater is
> less than c, yes? Is it still constant? Or is the constant still c?
>
Are you asking about the speed of a photon, or a wavefront?
cnctut
Sorcerer wrote:
(some snipped)
> You could not be more wrong. Engineering candidates are selected based
> on resume (past performance) and interview, they rarely have sufficient
> knowledge to perform well in a new project and learn on the job because
> the interact well with other engineers and because they are interested.
(some snipped)
> Androcles
Androcles,
Well, I have to agree with you here. I had a young engineer over to
the house today--a ME who works for a utility that generates
electricity from steam driven turbines--burning lignite--2400PSI steam
at 1000 F. Darn--thought that was old technology--the good news was
that the retail cost of electricity was only 5.5 cents per KW/HR.
Yummy!
I asked him how well the university prepared him for this job and his
answer was.."not at all." I have four engineer in the family--I think
they would all second your comment.
Tut
Ben Newsam
wrote:
I have no idea. Either. Both. Dunno.
Jeff…Relf
Although they may be wrong, or Not_Even_Wrong,
they might be interested in metaphysics ( i.e. religion )
and they might well be misunerstood ( for whatever reason ).
It's _Very_ hard ( and usually futile )
to relate complex ideas to the uninitiated.
There are lots of interesting jobs
( including the cute Bag_Whores I know so well )
but that doesn't mean they can't have opinions on
the _Hard_ science of consuming and being consumed,
Gibbs_Free_Energy and entropy, God and the Devil, punishments and rewards, etc.
T Wake
news:Jeff_Relf_200...@Cotse.NET...
> Hi PD, I'm not sure if you ( or I ) know what a crank is.
Looking at you provides a good baseline.
cnctut
Jeff...Relf wrote:
> PD, I'm not sure if you ( or I ) know what a crank is.
Tut writes:
And Moses said at the foot of the mountain--"All non-cranks come to
me... and the earth opened and...."
Sam Wormley
Photons propagate at c.
Wavefronts are slow in mediums with indices of refraction > 1
Maxwell Relation--Index of Refraction
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellRelationIndexofRefraction.html
Index of Refraction
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/IndexofRefraction.html
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Sorcerer wrote:
> (some snipped)
> (some snipped)
> > Androcles
> Androcles,
> Tut
The point of an engineering education should not be to make you a
whatever at some particular company.
The point of an engineering education should be to teach the
fundamentals so you can figure out whatever you need to once you are
on the job.
Case in point; I had not used partial differentials since graduating.
About 10 years later I had to solve a problem that required partial
differntial analysis. I immediately recognized that and solved the
problem since my engineering education focused on fundementals and
problem solving.
The "engineers" that went to trade school and learned to be a whatever
were left scratching their head's in amazement that a problem that
baffeled them for days was solved in about 15 minutes.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
zzbu...@netscape.net
PD wrote:
> This is post more about the sociology of the group than about physics.
> If you find it OT, ignore it.
>
> I find it interesting that most of the cranks that post here have
> similar sentiments:
Well, most physicists today are actually geo-physicists,
The diifference is you pay three times as much for retards
to do triple integrals.
> - Teachers only want to squash students and brainwash them.
> - Teachers are afraid of thinkers with original ideas that the teachers
> did not come up with themselves.
> - The common rejection of the ideas posed by amateurs is a sign of
> cronyism and an effort to maintain the static quo.
> - Original thinkers did best by *rejecting* the teachings of their
> teachers.
> - Original thinkers revolutionize science by *exposing* the
> brainwashing and cronyism of their teachers.
>
Sorcerer
"cnctut" <cnctu...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1156031667.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I'm retired now, but I've been in engineering and industry in some form
or other throughout my career, from ship building to plane making
(electronics)
to flight simulators to robotics and industrial vision, and I have to say
that I've always gotten along well with those that understand the practical
side of what is possible and what isn't, and safety is always an issue.
There are of course exceptions, people have a variety of personalities,
but for the most part people that have a common objective get along
well together.
In academia there is greater rivalry as individuals want to excel as
individuals and not as part of a team. Teaching has to follow industry
because it is in industry that the standards are set as companies compete
for a bigger share of the market.
Real physicists, mathematicians and engineers are designing microcircuits
for money while theoretical physicists are writing papers and expounding
their theories for glory. You have only to look at some of the crackpot
ideas
you'll see on this newsgroup and the contempt they generate to see
what I mean. Anyone that has an idea is automatically dismissed as
a crank, usually because most of them are but also because the
correspondents are only interested in their own ideas, not someone
else's, and if your idea conflicts with the established doctrine then
it cannot be considered at all. For example, I am currently developing
a light accelerator, but official doctrine says that is impossible and
so there is no interest. Yet Sagnac works, and it works by accelerating
light.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
A light accelerator in orbit around the Earth would vastly improve
interplanetary communication, even for probes such as Cassini at
Saturn, never mind the proposed manned mission to Mars, yet
the academics are nay-sayers because Einstein told them it isn't
possible and all they know is what they've read in outdated
100 year-old papers written by fools.
Androcles
YBM
> I'm retired now, but I've been in engineering and industry in some form
> or other throughout my career, from ship building to plane making
> (electronics)
You're basically joking here (or lying), someone unable to get the point
on basic boolean algebra cannot have been an engineer in any field, even
less on anything related to planes than to anything else.
Another possibility is that senelity have made you so unsane you are
now unable to grap what was then the basic of your so called training.
Anyway, the fact you didn't give your real name supports my first
feeling : you've never been an engineer of any kind : your are lying on
this as well as you are on these groups every day.
Sorcerer
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:3mokr3-...@mail.specsol.com...
So what you are saying is your job did not require your training
for 10 years, you were a whatever for that time and it took you
15 minutes to find the derivative of one variable, the others being
constant. Well done, I'm sure you are proud of your achievement.
I hope you were promoted from a whatever to an engineer, having
completed 10 years on-the-job training.
Androcles
Tom Potter
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
I think that Jim Pennino is bullshitting.
I challenge him to post the "problem he solved in 15 minutes",
and the approach he took,
so folks can discuss how to best solve the "problem",
and can critique Jim Pennino's approach.
Frankly, I think Jim Pennino made the whole thing up.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
cnctut
Tom,
Is that your picture on http://no-turtles.com? No offense, but who were
you teaching that two component LC circuit to?
Tut
Tom Potter
> you teaching that two component LC circuit to?
Thanks for visiting my web site.
I trust that you downloaded my Physics Tutorial,
and my article "Uniting the four forces".
As they develop a unique Physical Properties Chart
that shows the relationships between the physical properties,
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships
between the elements, I am sure you will begin to understand physics more
when you read and comprehend them.
The picture in question was taken as I was lecturing
at a time domain reflectometry seminar for instrumentation Engineers,
and explaining to them, the relationship between frequency and rise time,
in circuits with optimum damping.
Thanks for bringing back old memories.
Perhaps you can point me to web pages that
show you in your everyday environment,
as I do on my web pages and blogs.
I am sure that would be great fun for me
and many others.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:7cPFg.17921$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
Androcles' tips for solving a partial differential equation:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff4.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotFxy.html
Dirk Vdm
jmfb...@aol.com
[emoticon jumping up and down in chair] EXACTLY!!!!
I had a two-week long fight about this month.
/BAH
Sorcerer
"Tom Potter" <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44e7dbaf$0$25054$8826...@free.teranews.com...
Obviously he's one of the "whatevers" he refers to. Holding
up a partial differential as an example of his genius may impress
a student that has never heard of one, but it doesn't impress me
and it won't impress the student once he finds out it isn't magic.
"The usual rules for differentiation apply when dealing with several
variables, but we now require to treat the variables one at a time,
keeping the others constant."
Ref: http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/~igc/tch/ma2001/notes/node67.html
I'd be more interested in the engineering problem that required
a partial derivative. In all my career I have NEVER once had
to use a secant or cosecant, for example, but as a lad I had a book
of 4-figure log tables (and a slide rule) with such creatures listed.
I did once program in a Taylor series to find sine for a robotic
arm because I was on site and needed it, the function wasn't available
because the software engineer didn't anticipate its requirement.
It was later added.
It was either that or make two trips, and working at night while a
Ford truck plant in Norfolk Va. was silent was not appealing.
The problems were actually enormous, the arm was supposed
to weld between the floor pan and the side wall below the firewall
of an F150 truck and although the arm could position itself to within
a thousandth of an inch, the truck position was to within an eighth
of an inch.
We couldn't do the installation while production was in progress,
nor could we complete a weld on more than one truck because
that meant moving the entire assembly line to get another.
A probe was used to steer the offset, touching down one inch
ahead of the weld, but it also had the wrong tilt because of some
quirky math in the controller, hence my involvement as QA
Manager and the need for a sine function which I could
add during the day.
So we set up a perfect dry run, checked it and repeated it over and over
until we were satisfied, then at the end of the night ran a perfect weld
and waited for the morning shift to start.
Next truck was a failure and it was back to welding by hand.
So we go to meetings with Ford's engineers and discuss what
to do and go back and try again. And again. And again, night
after night for 4 nights.
Then we discovered the arc weld was upsetting the electronics
of the probe and scrapped the idea, Ford went back to manual labour.
Perhaps the problem could have been solved with shielding, but my
hotel room alone was costing a $100 a night and I was using it to
shower and change clothes, not to sleep. Cost always enters into
the equation, I had other commitments, so that's when we gave up.
The idea was to sell robot arms and let the customer do his own
programming, not to nursemaid every installation.
The company provided a training officer for that, and of course we'd
try to help because we want repeat business. Ford was a special case
because they had invested heavily in the company, but the unions
didn't really want to cooperate either, they wanted manual welders.
Everyone has their own axe to grind.
That's the reality of engineering. Some you win, some you lose,
just like schoolteachers.
Androcles
Sorcerer
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Hexenmeister.jpg
See my relativity tutorial at
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
I am sure you will begin to understand male bovine faeces more when
you read and comprehend it.
Androcles
Sorcerer
[snip]
I know I fascinate you, but nothing you write is of interest to me.
Snipping is more fun than killfiling you.
xi, x'?
Androcles
Greg Hansen
> On 19 Aug 2006 13:37:28 -0700, "Edward Green"
> <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>>But wait a second... what am I doing? This is a waste of time. Why
>>not start a thread about something that has puzzled you, or some
>>observation you've made, or something you'd like to share. Anything,
>>man.
>
>
> OK, I'll bite. Here's a question. The speed of light underwater is
> less than c, yes? Is it still constant? Or is the constant still c?
>
The speed of light in a medium is c/n where n is the index of
refraction, for water n=1.3. This is not still an invariant, but the
speed transforms according to the usual relativistic composition of
velocities. There's nothing magical about light that makes its speed
the universal speed limit. Rather, when light is going through a vacuum
where there's nothing to interfere with it, it goes as fast as it can.
Ben Newsam
wrote:
>Ben Newsam wrote:
>> OK, I'll bite. Here's a question. The speed of light underwater is
>> less than c, yes? Is it still constant? Or is the constant still c?
>
>The speed of light in a medium is c/n where n is the index of
>refraction, for water n=1.3. This is not still an invariant, but the
>speed transforms according to the usual relativistic composition of
>velocities. There's nothing magical about light that makes its speed
>the universal speed limit. Rather, when light is going through a vacuum
>where there's nothing to interfere with it, it goes as fast as it can.
So, is that a yes or a no? <g>
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip>
> Frankly, I think Jim Pennino made the whole thing up.
Frankly, I could care less what you think or say.
How the hell did you get around my killfile; have you mutatated?
No matter, back you go.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:vjZFg.129200$F8.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:DbWFg.31289$en3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> [snip]
>
> I know I fascinate you,
Don't kid yourself. It's your mental condition that is
interesting.
> but nothing you write is of interest to me.
Strange, since it is your words that I list.
> Snipping is more fun than killfiling you.
You killfiled me 5 times.
What was the last thing I did that make you change your
-ahem- mind again? Brain rot?
Dirk Vdm
>
> xi, x'?
> Androcles
>
>
>
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Dirk Vdm
Given Androcles' inability to do simple algebra, I wouldn't expect him
to be able to handle differentials or understand how the real world
can be modeled by them.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:e8ZFg.129088$F8.4...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> Obviously he's one of the "whatevers" he refers to. Holding
> up a partial differential as an example of his genius may impress
> a student that has never heard of one, but it doesn't impress me
No, indeed, we all know that you are not very impressed
by partial differentials:
cnctut
Sorcerer wrote:
--some snipped and (numbers) added for clarity--
>(1) x' = x-vt
>(2) xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>(3) xi-x' = xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
>(4) x'-xi = -xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
> Androcles
//
Tut writes:
Everyone makes simple math mistakes--how many Mars probes are in pieces
on its surface?
Let's try this:
Given your equations (2) & (3):
Let P = sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) then from equation (2) by substitution
(2) xi = x'/P then x' = xiP
Solving for xi - x' by substituting x' = xiP, then
(5) xi -x' = xi - xiP then
(6) xi - x' = xi ( 1 - P) but P = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and substituting
back into (6)
(7) xi - x = xi ( 1 - sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is not what is shown in
equation (3)
Hope this helps!
Best Wishes,
Tut
Dirk Van de moortel
"cnctut" <cnctu...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message news:1156089480....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, thanks a lot for spoiling the fun.
Dirk Vdm
cnctut
Tut writes:
Sorry, equation (7) should read xi-x' = ...
See, I made a simple mistake too. ;-))
Best Wishes,
Tut
cnctut
Tut writes:
He's suffered enough for a Sunday--don't you think? ;-))
Best Wishes,
Tut
Dirk Van de moortel
"cnctut" <cnctu...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message news:1156090093....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I think he is too dumb to suffer.
Dirk Vdm
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Tut
>
cnctut
Tut writes:
Dirk--
There must be some history I'm unaware of. ;-)
Tut
Dirk Van de moortel
"cnctut" <cnctu...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message news:1156091357.5...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Surely you must have browsed
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
?
Dirk Vdm
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> [snip]
> Dirk Vdm
It is illuminating that the crank associates calculus with genius.
Most people associate it with a sound education in the fundementals.
cnctut
Dirk,
No, sorry I haven't. ;-(
Tut
hanson
ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA....news:1156092009.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> "cnctut" <cnctu...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156091357.5...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> >> "cnctut" <cnctu...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1156090093....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> >> >> "cnctut" <cnctu...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1156089480....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >
[Sorcerer wrote:]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --some snipped and (numbers) added for clarity--
>> >> >> >>(1) x' = x-vt
>> >> >> >>(2) xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> >> >>(3) xi-x' = xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
>> >> >> >>(4) x'-xi = -xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
>> >> >> >> Androcles
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Everyone makes simple math mistakes--
>> >> >> > how many Mars probes are in pieces on its surface?
>> >> >> > Let's try this:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Given your equations (2) & (3):
>> >> >> > Let P = sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) then from equation (2) by substitution
>> >> >> > (2) xi = x'/P then x' = xiP
>> >> >> > Solving for xi - x' by substituting x' = xiP, then
>> >> >> > (5) xi -x' = xi - xiP then
>> >> >> > (6) xi - x' = xi ( 1 - P) but P = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and
>> >> >> > substituting
>> >> >> > back into (6)
>> >> >> > (7) xi - x = xi ( 1 - sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) which is not what is
>> >> >> > shown in
>> >> >> > equation (3)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, thanks a lot for spoiling the fun.
>> >> >> Dirk Vdm
>> >> >
[Tut writes:]
>> >> > He's suffered enough for a Sunday--don't you think? ;-))
>> >>
>> >> I think he is too dumb to suffer.
>> >> Dirk Vdm
>> >
>> > Tut writes:
>> > There must be some history I'm unaware of. ;-)
>>
>> Surely you must have browsed
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>
[Tut writes]:
> No, sorry I haven't. ;-(
> Tut
>
AHAHAHAHA... Tut, VD-Di/ork, like all Einstein Dingleberries
have delusions of grandeur instilled into them by the warmth
they feel from being so close to the sphincter of their role model
Albert, the great con-man of geriatric physics..... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the;laughs, Tut.
ahahaha... ahahanson
Sorcerer
"cnctut" <cnctu...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1156089480....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
Let's try this:
You've missed the prime of x.
Substituting square brackets for parentheses because your parentheses in
(7) xi - x = xi ( 1 - sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^
x' LEFT LEFT RIGHT
are not paired, we have
(7a) xi-x' = xi[1- sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
^ ^ ^ ^^
Check:
(3) xi-x' = xi[1- 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
xi-x' = xi- xi/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
-x' = -xi/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x' = xi/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x'*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = xi.
so
xi = x' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) <> x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
hence (3) is indeed apparently incorrect, BUT...
you've stopped my fun with Rabid Dork, who was unable to show
that (3) was incorrect (Please don't tell) because Rabid Dork thinks
xi = x',
Reference:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/fde91ced0fbfef81
quote:
Exercise [2]: can you explain in the context of following equations:
x = c t
x' = c t' ,
what is the physical meaning of the variables
x: ?
t: ?
x': ?
t': ?
c: ?
/end quote
(no mention of tau or xi) which in reality it does,
because the c in sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is 0/0
(ref
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF )
and (3) is just as correct the way it was because sqrt(1 - v^2/ [0/0]^2) =
1.
Everyone makes simple math mistakes--how many relativists are shitheads?
There is Einstein, Phuckwit Duck, Blind Poe, Rabid Dork Van de merde,
and I'm not quite sure whether Toot is a relativist, but missing primes
and parentheses is naughty.
"HE was and would continue to be a teacher, and as with most skilled
teachers,
he would occasionally tell lies as harsh exemplars of a deeper truth." ---
Tom Clancy, "Executive Orders"
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"cnctut" <cnctu...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message news:1156092009.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
hm... I envy you - just like I envy those who haven't discovered
Zappa yet.
Enjoy.
Dirk Vdm
cnctut
Hanson wrote:
> [hanson]
> AHAHAHAHA... Tut, VD-Di/ork, like all Einstein Dingleberries
> have delusions of grandeur instilled into them by the warmth
> they feel from being so close to the sphincter of their role model
> Albert, the great con-man of geriatric physics..... ahahahaha...
> Thanks for the;laughs, Tut.
> ahahaha... ahahanson
Tut writes:
hanson my friend, what does algebra have to do with being an Einstein
Dingleberry--I'm crushed. How will I be able to sleep tonight? :-)))
You make me smile,
Best Wishes,
Tut
cnctut
Tut writes:
I wish I could say the x vs x' was done on purpose--nope, just a simple
typing error corrected in a follow-up post. Yup, forgot a ' ) ' too.
Thanks for the correction.
Tut
hanson
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA.... Einstein, in his grand REL con used
algebra to bamboozle 4 generations with his crock. Crud that only a few
of his coat tail riders still promote these days, like those retired
highschool
teachers on the Usenet, because they can't let go and miss their authority
they once had over their pupils. These teacher types are the specimens
that are known as Einstein Dingleberries. --- Meanwhile, the rational
world has progressed and marched on and may be summarized
as/for anybody who works in
[1] mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does not need REL shit"
[2] *.edu & for R-grants "does need REL, - No shit"
[3] Promo, Sales & Movies "loves REL by the shitload"
[4] Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
Furthermore, it is of no wonder that the Bavarians have made
GR/SR courses NOT mandatory any longer in their Univs physics
curriculum since/in 1996 and on about Sept 2005 I glanced at a
post from a US student who wondered what book to study about
GR since it was no longer offered at his University in the US... !!!!.
At the end 2005 even the Brits' conservative Royal Society has
voted Einstein out and favors Newton... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
more
...and, to boot, Einstein did not steal the 1905 relativity idea/concept
from others (Poincare) but from his own 1st Christian wife, Mileva Maric:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3519d92d18984b8c
>
However, Einstein should be given dues and high marks for his
explanation of the photo electric effect (Hertz effect) for which he
got the Nobel price in 1921, with its attached bag of loot of $32'000,
all of which Albert had to all fork over to Mileva, apparently as hush
money (see above urls).... ahahahaha.....
BUT, it is obvious to those that have not become Einstein dingle
berries and who are not brainwashed into hero worship, it must be
said that Einstein had a certain integrity, chutzpah and a notion
for being truthful about the state of SR/GR since he himself knew
and SAID all along that relativity, both SR/GR, were grand intellectual
con jobs that he had a hand in creating, but that they were promoted
and proselytized by hordes of little hanger-on's and coat tail riders
aka Einstein dingle berries...... ahahaha .... No wonder as early as
~1922, when Einstein's star was meteorically raising, Albert was telling
and urging his physicist - dingle berries that they:
== "should NOT search at the same, now well lit places,
where he, Einstein, had been working". ==
>
Albert might have had good reasons to do so because his contemps,
even in high places in the Nobel prize committee, expressed doubts,
like Harald Nordensen who wrote in 1922: "I maintain that whosoever
from now upholds the relativistic ideas or applies the fundamental
relativistic formulae as representing relations between physical quantities,
without regarding and refuting my criticism of the Theory, makes himself
liable to the accusation of grave intellectual laxity." .... ahahaha....
>
... and Einstein himself repeated the same doubts close to the end
of his life in a letter to Besso in 1954, wherein he said :
== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
Sweet Dreams now, old friend... ahahahaha...
ahahaha.... ahahanson
Sorcerer
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:e8ZFg.129088$F8.4...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
|
| [snip]
[snip]
Oops.. nothing left.
Androcles
Sorcerer
|
[snip]
xi, x'?
Sorcerer
[snip]
xi, x'?
Sorcerer
|
[snip]
xi, x'?
cnctut
hanson,
But I posted the solution back in July to "Franklin."--but you must
have missed it. I'll repost to update you:
Good work Franklin--but you missed this recent NY Post
article--"Scientists at MIT and UC Berkeley, in a collaborative effort,
have discovered the "longest yard"--it measured 3 feet 2 inches. The
team speculates that this discovery will have a profound impact on
Physics as we know it today. One lead scientist remarked, "Einstein
needed this part of the puzzle to make his lifes work complete--sadly,
he passed before its discovery."
There, now we can be friends again. ;-))
Keep me smiling,
Tut
Sorcerer
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:r6fmr3-...@mail.specsol.com...
It is even more illuminating that the idiot cannot spell "fundamental".
Obviously he doesn't have a sound education.
Androcles
Insert .Pennino.sux to reply.
Sorcerer
[snip]
x', xi, difference?
Androcles.
Sorcerer
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:ilcmr3-...@mail.specsol.com...
Given Pennino's inability to spell mutated or fundamental, I wouldn't
expect him to be able to handle differentials or understand how the
real world can be modelled by them.
Androcles
Insert .Pennino.sux to reply
Sorcerer
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:3fcmr3-...@mail.specsol.com...
| Tom Potter <tdp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| <snip>
|
| > Frankly, I think Jim Pennino made the whole thing up.
|
| Frankly, I could care less what you think or say.
|
| How the hell did you get around my killfile; have you mutatated?
|
| No matter, back you go.
|
|
| --
| Jim Pennino
|
| Remove .spam.sux to reply.
"mutatated", goes with "fundemental", I suppose
Sorcerer
"Greg Hansen" <glha...@tcq.net> wrote in message
news:44E8794...@tcq.net...
| Ben Newsam wrote:
|
| > On 19 Aug 2006 13:37:28 -0700, "Edward Green"
| > <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
| >
| >
| >>But wait a second... what am I doing? This is a waste of time. Why
| >>not start a thread about something that has puzzled you, or some
| >>observation you've made, or something you'd like to share. Anything,
| >>man.
| >
| >
| > OK, I'll bite. Here's a question. The speed of light underwater is
| > less than c, yes? Is it still constant? Or is the constant still c?
| >
|
| The speed of light in a medium is c/n where n is the index of
| refraction, for water n=1.3. This is not still an invariant, but the
| speed transforms according to the usual relativistic composition of
| velocities. There's nothing magical about light that makes its speed
| the universal speed limit. Rather, when light is going through a vacuum
| where there's nothing to interfere with it, it goes as fast as it can.
Oh... interesting. How fast can it go, then?
Let me see...
There and back again in zero seconds, right?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Androcles.
Sorcerer
"Ben Newsam" <ben.n...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rh0he2l48hjtfk8d5...@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:01:25 -0500, Greg Hansen <glha...@tcq.net>
| wrote:
| >Ben Newsam wrote:
| >> OK, I'll bite. Here's a question. The speed of light underwater is
| >> less than c, yes? Is it still constant? Or is the constant still c?
| >
| >The speed of light in a medium is c/n where n is the index of
| >refraction, for water n=1.3. This is not still an invariant, but the
| >speed transforms according to the usual relativistic composition of
| >velocities. There's nothing magical about light that makes its speed
| >the universal speed limit. Rather, when light is going through a vacuum
| >where there's nothing to interfere with it, it goes as fast as it can.
|
There and back in zero seconds.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
There is nothing magical about it, but there is some faeces from a bull.
Androcles
Sorcerer
After all, anyone can make a mistake, including Einstein.
It's only a problem if the mistake is not corrected, right?
Here it is:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Or was it a deliberate mistake so that Einstein could perpetrate a hoax?
In agreement with experience we further assume Einstein was a huckster.
Do WE not?
Androcles
hanson
> hanson,
> But I posted the solution [1] back in July to "Franklin."
> -- but you must have missed it. I'll repost to update you:
> :: Good work Franklin -- but you missed this recent NY Post
> :: article -- "Scientists at MIT and UC Berkeley, in a collaborative
> effort,
> :: have discovered the "longest yard"--it measured 3 feet 2 inches. The
> :: team speculates that this discovery will have a profound impact on
> :: Physics as we know it today. One lead scientist remarked, "Einstein
> :: needed this part of the puzzle to make his lifes work complete--sadly,
> :: he passed before its discovery."
> There, now we can be friends again. ;-))
> Keep me smiling,
> Tut
>
ahahahaha.... AHAHAHA....
re[ [1]: indeed & so true: "There is no solution but rubber solution"!
Even Einstein knew that because he fixed the punctured inner
tubes of his bicycle with it ... on which he rode when he stuck his
tongue out against the adoring Dingleberries who tried to lick his
sphincter, to wit: ===== 24 web hits for --["Einstein asshole"]--.
Bike: www.mostlyposters.com/product.php?productID=103604
Tongue: www.oneposter.com/keyrings/albert-einstein-tongue_8183.html
ahahaha....hahahahaha...ahahanson
cnctut
Androcles,
I don't know anything about the velocity reversing your talking about,
or what you're trying to show with the moving graph--just that it
appears to me that your f ' (x) is messed up. Has anyone suggested this
from a mathematics perspective? Could you explain without my need to
read the 1905/06 paper(s).
Thanks,
Tut