Waves for Einstein Dingleberries
hanson
Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>
The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>
We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
ordinary 2 & 3 space.
>
The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
all scales in nature.
Parrots of heuristic dogma and especially all the
Dangling Einstein Dingleberries who are swinging in
the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter will whine
that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
registered tiring of the light would make them fall off from
their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
masturbations...
>
So, they will not be able to see the real phenomenon as
little as they did when the aether was buried in the units
of the cgs system but made an "inconvenient" reappearance
in the MKS and SI unit systrems....
>
Do I have the Einstein Dingleberries' emotioal amplitude
rising now?.. in these splendid forums that remind me of
the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
role of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson
--- -. dotat
>This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
>Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
>who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
>to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
>noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
>before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>>
>The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
>wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
>wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
>back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>>
>We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
>gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
>ordinary 2 & 3 space.
>>
>The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
>all scales in nature.
>
>.........
Swimmingpool physics (or duck - pond physics)
shows clearly that there is no c+v
Watch them duck waves !
http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/internet/ted/home/komm_redirect/medien/14_juni.ParagraphContainerList.ParagraphContainer0.ParagraphList.0004.File.JPG/ententeich_1.JPG
http://images.google.at/imgres?imgurl=http://www.schaerligbad.ch/images/ententeich_517.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.schaerligbad.ch/restaurant/ententeich/index.htm&h=288&w=517&sz=43&hl=de&start=23&tbnid=loiQnhttWflFgM:&tbnh=73&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dententeich%26start%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Dde%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26sa%3DN
c is wave speed, v is duck speed.
(or hanson speed, if he takes a swim).
(Google links are @666{#!!|釦壯! -shit, google for "Ententeich"
pictures)
w.
jack
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:%Rmlk.96$ZV1.59@trnddc07...
> This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
> Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
> who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
> to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
> noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
> before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>>
> The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
> wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
> wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
> back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>>
> We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
> gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
> ordinary 2 & 3 space.
wrong. no electromagnetic forces involved, dude.
>>
> The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
> all scales in nature.
Wrong, flipping generalist.
>
> Parrots of heuristic dogma
you are a Parrot yourself, squawk-boy
> roll of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson
Spaceman
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:33:31 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
>> This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
>> Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
>> who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
>> to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
>> noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
>> before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>>>
>> The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
>> wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
>> wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
>> back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>>>
>> We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
>> gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
>> ordinary 2 & 3 space.
>>>
>> The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
>> all scales in nature.
>>
>> .........
>
> Swimmingpool physics (or duck - pond physics)
> shows clearly that there is no c+v
>
> Watch them duck waves !
The Dragonfly waves prove v+v to an observer traveling
towards the center of the wavesource.
and I hate to tell you,
0.6c + 0.6c = 1.2c
is simple proof that c+v is a fact.
If you wish to show me the math that proves 0.6c + 0.6c =1.2c
is wrong, I will show you where your math actually uses the "wrong" in it
for your "wrong" proof.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
--- -. dotat
Unsubstantiated claim.
Show us (the World) your complete collection of living dragonflies.
Google Images has 2410000.
>and I hate to tell you,
>0.6c + 0.6c = 1.2c
>is simple proof that c+v is a fact.
>If you wish to show me the math that proves 0.6c + 0.6c =1.2c
>is wrong, I will show you where your math actually uses the "wrong" in it
>for your "wrong" proof.
>:)
Of course you are wrong.
1 drop of dragonfly honey plus another drop of dragonfly honey
(you keep them because of the honey, do you?)
yields one drop of dragonfly shit.
0,6 drops of dragonfly honey plus another 0,6 drops
also yield - one - drop of dragonfly shit.
Your math is obviously wrong, Mr. Spaceman.
w.
Spaceman
I don't need to collect the dragonflies,
I merely use the waves they naturally create.
Your wanting me to show such dragonflies at all shows
how lost you are when it comes to reading what is stated.
>> and I hate to tell you,
>> 0.6c + 0.6c = 1.2c
>> is simple proof that c+v is a fact.
>> If you wish to show me the math that proves 0.6c + 0.6c =1.2c
>> is wrong, I will show you where your math actually uses the "wrong"
>> in it for your "wrong" proof.
>> :)
> Of course you are wrong.
>
> 1 drop of dragonfly honey plus another drop of dragonfly honey
> (you keep them because of the honey, do you?)
> yields one drop of dragonfly shit.
>
> 0,6 drops of dragonfly honey plus another 0,6 drops
> also yield - one - drop of dragonfly shit.
>
> Your math is obviously wrong, Mr. Spaceman.
So now you wish to not use the correct units for
measurement of dragonfly shit either.
You somehow think a drop of dragonfly shit
is a unit that has a standard?
Poor thing.
It seems you have massive amounts of dragonfly shit
drops in your head and for ssome reason they are
stinking up your thought processes.
As I stated.
Where is the math that proves
0.6c + 0.6c does not equal 1.2c?
Affraid to show your silly ass transform huh?
LOL
hanson
news:fbvb94575fn26b33r...@4ax.com...
> clearly there is no c+v
>
hanson wrote:
... ahaha.. HAHAHA.. Wabie, not so fast. You worry
me with your emotional amplitude here... I didn't
say anywhere anything about c+v... That is the your
Einstein Dingleberry conditioning that got the better
of you here... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
>>Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
>>who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
>>to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
>>noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
>>before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>>>
>>The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
>>wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
>>wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
>>back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>>>
>>We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
>>gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
>>ordinary 2 & 3 space.
>>>
>>The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
>>all scales in nature.
>>
>>.........
>
Parrots of heuristic dogma and especially all the
Dangling Einstein Dingleberries who are swinging in
the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter will whine
that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
registered tiring of the light would make them fall off from
their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
masturbations...
>
So, they will not be able to see the real phenomenon as
little as they did when the aether was buried in the units
of the cgs system but made an "inconvenient" reappearance
in the MKS and SI unit systrems....
>
Do I have the Einstein Dingleberries' emotioal amplitude
rising now?.. in these splendid forums that remind me of
the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
role of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson
>
hanson
"jack", the jack-off <rol...@invalid.invalid> kacked in
message news:g750kc$k9r$1...@news.albasani.net...
& said:
"no electromagnetic forces involved, dude".
>
hanson wrote:
... ahaha... obviously, the watery brain of jack-off Rolf
has no EM forces working neither... hahahaha....
Thanks for the Laughs, you Einstein Dingleberry
Dangler.... ahahhaha...
>
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:%Rmlk.96$ZV1.59@trnddc07...
>> This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
>> Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
>> who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
>> to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
>> noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
>> before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>>>
>> The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
>> wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
>> wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
>> back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>>>
>> We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
>> gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
>> ordinary 2 & 3 space.
>
> wrong. no electromagnetic forces involved, dude.
>
>>>
hanson wrote:
>> The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
>> all scales in nature.
>
> Wrong, flipping generalist.
>
>>
hanson wrote:
>> Parrots of heuristic dogma
>
jack-off Rolf c ranked himself and wrote:
> you are a Parrot yourself, squawk-boy
>
Parrots of heuristic dogma and especially all the
Dangling Einstein Dingleberries who are swinging in
the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter will whine
that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
registered tiring of the light would make them fall off from
their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
masturbations...
>
So, they will not be able to see the real phenomenon as
little as they did when the aether was buried in the units
of the cgs system but made an "inconvenient" reappearance
in the MKS and SI unit systrems....
>
Do I have the Einstein Dingleberries' emotioal amplitude
rising now?.. in these splendid forums that remind me of
the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
Androcles
| Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
| who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
| to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
| noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
| before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
Now there's a man after my own heart, a man who studies physics
while fishing for a trout breakfast. And he looks at Nature the way
it really is, not as wackypedia says it is.
| >
| The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
| wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
| wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
| back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
And if the pond is so vast that the ripples do not reach the bank
but have an amplitude less than the brownian motion of water,
then the wave goes in all directions, but not forever.
| >
| We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
| gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
| ordinary 2 & 3 space.
| >
| The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
| all scales in nature.
|
| Parrots of heuristic dogma and especially all the
| Dangling Einstein Dingleberries who are swinging in
| the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter will whine
| that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
| because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
| registered tiring of the light would make them fall off from
| their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
| sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
| masturbations...
Is the light as sound, ripples in the air, or as water, ripples
on the pond, or is it as a rain drop, a spinning bullet going on
forever and tracing out a helix along it's path, but not in all
directions? What does my laser pointer say?
The particle goes in one direction, forever.
| >
| So, they will not be able to see the real phenomenon as
| little as they did when the aether was buried in the units
| of the cgs system but made an "inconvenient" reappearance
| in the MKS and SI unit systrems....
| >
| Do I have the Einstein Dingleberries' emotioal amplitude
| rising now?.. in these splendid forums that remind me of
| the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
| Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
| role of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson
If you must have aether, then aether is a rain of little spinning
droplets in the void, zipping along with the muzzle velocity of
the gun that fired them.
In the midst of the tube of the TV is the electric field, the
electrons fall to the screen. Also in the midst of the tube of
the TV is the magnetic field, deflecting the electrons up, down,
left, right.
We know where they land, the phosphor glows. What need
of turbulent aether have we, save as little flying pellets in
the void?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
Spare me popery and aether, I have need of neither.
Androcles
"jack" <rol...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g750kc$k9r$1...@news.albasani.net...
|
| "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
| news:%Rmlk.96$ZV1.59@trnddc07...
| > This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
| > Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
| > who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
| > to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
| > noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
| > before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
| >>
| > The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
| > wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
| > wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
| > back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
| >>
| > We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
| > gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
| > ordinary 2 & 3 space.
|
| wrong. no electromagnetic forces involved, dude.
What sticks the water molecules together, fuckhead?
You are not worth bother with, fuck off.
*plonk*
Androcles
| Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message
| news:fbvb94575fn26b33r...@4ax.com...
| > clearly there is no c+v
| >
| hanson wrote:
| ... ahaha.. HAHAHA.. Wabie, not so fast. You worry
| me with your emotional amplitude here... I didn't
| say anywhere anything about c+v... That is the your
| Einstein Dingleberry conditioning that got the better
| of you here... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Wabnigga clearly wasn't considering the dragonfly's frame
of reference but shooting from the hip instead. Naturally he's
hit himself in the foot.
c is wave speed, v is dragonfly speed, zero is Wabnigga brain speed.
Dirk Van de moortel
[snip]
>> Parrots of heuristic dogma
>
> you are a Parrot yourself, squawk-boy
>
>> roll of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson
Looks like a parrot suffering from a particularly nasty medical condition.
Good.
Dirk Vdm
jack
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:dFolk.36447$dz3....@newsfe20.ams2...
They cannot be stuck together, as you can pour them out of the glass,
dillweed.
hanson
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:%Rmlk.96$ZV1.59@trnddc07...
> | This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
> | Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
> | who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
> | to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
> | noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
> | before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>
> Now there's a man after my own heart, a man who studies
> physics while fishing for a trout breakfast. And he looks
> at Nature the way it really is, not as wackypedia says it is.
>
....... ahahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....
>
hanson wrote:
> | The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
> | wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
> | wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
> | back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>
> And if the pond is so vast that the ripples do not reach the bank
> but have an amplitude less than the brownian motion of water,
> then the wave goes in all directions, but not forever.
>
> | We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
> | gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
> | ordinary 2 & 3 space.
> | >
> | The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
> | all scales in nature.
> |
> | Parrots of heuristic dogma and especially all the
> | Dangling Einstein Dingleberries who are swinging in
> | the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter will whine
> | that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
> | because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
> | registered tiring of the light would make them fall off from
> | their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
> | sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
> | masturbations...
>
> Is the light as sound, ripples in the air, or as water, ripples
> on the pond, or is it as a rain drop, a spinning bullet going on
> forever and tracing out a helix along it's path, but not in all
> directions? What does my laser pointer say?
> The particle goes in one direction, forever.
>
> | So, they will not be able to see the real phenomenon as
> | little as they did when the aether was buried in the units
> | of the cgs system but made an "inconvenient" reappearance
> | in the MKS and SI unit systrems....
> | >
> | Do I have the Einstein Dingleberries' emotioal amplitude
> | rising now?.. in these splendid forums that remind me of
> | the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
> | Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
> | role of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson
>
> If you must have aether, then aether is a rain of little spinning
> droplets in the void, zipping along with the muzzle velocity of
> the gun that fired them.
>
> In the midst of the tube of the TV is the electric field, the
> electrons fall to the screen. Also in the midst of the tube of
> the TV is the magnetic field, deflecting the electrons up, down,
> left, right.
> We know where they land, the phosphor glows. What need
> of turbulent aether have we, save as little flying pellets in
> the void?
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
>
> Spare me popery and aether, I have need of neither.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
>
There is only one nagging question left if you
accept that space itself must have the properties
that carry the photons/light/matter and energy:
>
What is this property-laden space embedded in?
>
... which ultimately leads to infinite regression
until a *naked" space concept is accepted which
does not contain/have additional properties, as is
heuristically preferred... and Einstein Dingleberries
try to avoid that problem by dragging frames around.
>
Now whether that property laden space is called
Aether or not is another "lingo-semantic" story
and a matter of taste... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
wrote in message news:WKolk.38780$uq4....@newsfe23.ams2...
> jack <rol...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> g750kc$k9r$1...@news.albasani.net
>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>> news:%Rmlk.96$ZV1.59@trnddc07...
> [snip]
>> you are a Parrot yourself, squawk-boy
>>
> Looks like a parrot suffering from a particularly nasty medical
> Dirk Vdm
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... your careful phrasing must be commended.
Professionals in the field do always have doubts
and consider the possibility that "things" could be
or go the "other way".... It is only Usenet Einstein
Dingleberries who are like Fundamentalist Jews/Xians
or Islamists that believe in the absolute truth of their
Holey scriptures, be that the Torah/Talmud, the Bible
the Koran OR Einstein's sphincterial squirts... ahaha
... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
hanson
>
"jack-off Rolf" <rol...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
>>> "jack-off Rolf" <rol...@invalid.invalid> wrotehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/de6b3653b9a29b30?hl=en...
>> | > This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
>> | > Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
>> | > who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
>> | > to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
>> | > noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
>> | > before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>> | >>
>> | > The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
>> | > wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
>> | > wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
>> | > back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>> | >>
>> | > We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
>> | > gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
>> | > ordinary 2 & 3 space.
>> |
>> | wrong. no electromagnetic forces involved, dude.
>>
>> What sticks the water molecules together, fuckhead?
>
> They cannot be stuck together, as you can pour them out of the glass,
> dillweed.
>
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... Rolf, old pal, the good
news is that your explanation will never even but in
danger of you ever becoming an Einstein Dingleberry.
And for you, old pal, there is no bad news... ahahaha..
So, keep your nonexistant, EM free world well & alive.
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahahaha... ahahanson
Androcles
There's an "if" in that statement.
In the simple mass and spring oscillator the mass has
kinetic energy which it stores in the spring until the mass
stops moving. The potential energy of the spring then
moves the mass back again until the spring is relaxed, at
which point the inertia of the mass stores potential energy
in the spring once again.
The same rule applies to the photon. The magnetic field collapses
and stores its energy in the electric field, but aetherialists
believe that the energy is somehow mechanically stored in
some kind of rubbery substance which compresses or stretches
to give up its energy as a magnetic field again.
The electric field is all that is required to swap energy with
the magnetic field, the mechanical aether simply isn't needed.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
Newton:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
William of Ockham:
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed
to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of
Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should
make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no
difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or
theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae
("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be
multiplied beyond necessity".
Einstein: Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Same idea, different words.
RULE II.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign
the same causes.
As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe
and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the
reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.
RULE III.
The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of
degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our
experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies
whatsoever.
Newton's Rule 3 is Einstein's
"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
Why should I ascribe properties to nothing?
| >
| ... which ultimately leads to infinite regression
| until a *naked" space concept is accepted which
| does not contain/have additional properties, as is
| heuristically preferred... and Einstein Dingleberries
| try to avoid that problem by dragging frames around.
What problem?
| >
| Now whether that property laden space is called
| Aether or not is another "lingo-semantic" story
| and a matter of taste... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
|
Forget the semantics. What problem does aether solve that cannot be
resolved by simpler means?
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Androcles
Ask it the question. I can't, the local village idiot has been
killfiled permanently, but I do want to im-moortel-ize the cunt.
You've misspelt its name, BTW, it is "Dork", not "Dirk".
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm
Androcles
Maybe it uses superglue. Even that ... oh, never mind, its already been
killfiled. Dead wood should be trimmed and incinerated.
jack
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
So you could not explain why water pours out of a glass, and switched to
ice.
so what kind of "glue" sticks "ice" together, monkey-butt ?
a "temperature sensitive" glue??
hanson forgets compression waves in a liquid are not EM at all,
but he has forgotten quite a lot in the last few years,
like why his retarded sister keeps him locked in the basement with Rev.
Mother Androcles.
hanson
grievously.... AHAHAHAHA....ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/19c44058eba43d78?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/69ad4c1027ca2ca3?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/de6b3653b9a29b30?hl=en
xxein
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>
>
> RULE I.
> We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
> and sufficient to explain their appearances.
xxein: So let's start physics with limiting how we can think???
>
> To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
> more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
> and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
xxein: I see a confliction of thought here. Once we adopt a way to
do physics, no other causes are possible???
>
> William of Ockham:
> Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed
> to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of
> Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should
> make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no
> difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or
> theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae
> ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda
> praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be
> multiplied beyond necessity".
xxein: This should be true, but what assumptions are made??? It
obliterates itself.
>
> Einstein: Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
>
> Same idea, different words.
>
> RULE II.
> Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign
> the same causes.
>
> As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe
> and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the
> reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.
xxein: What same causes???
>
> RULE III.
> The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of
> degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our
> experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies
> whatsoever.
xxein: So which do you wish to deny? Motion, Heisenberg or Pauli???
>
> Newton's Rule 3 is Einstein's
>
> "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
> reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
>
> Why should I ascribe properties to nothing?
xxein: Because that is all you have. Practically the same for
Einstein. "Oh. Math tells the universe how to work".
>
> | >
> | ... which ultimately leads to infinite regression
> | until a *naked" space concept is accepted which
> | does not contain/have additional properties, as is
> | heuristically preferred... and Einstein Dingleberries
> | try to avoid that problem by dragging frames around.
>
> What problem?
>
> | >
> | Now whether that property laden space is called
> | Aether or not is another "lingo-semantic" story
> | and a matter of taste... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
> |
> Forget the semantics. What problem does aether solve that cannot be
> resolved by simpler means?
xxein: There is nothing simpler than an aether. Cover it up with
math gravy if you want but it must exist. When there are rules, laws
or math - there must be a substrate that can control how it operates
in a consistent way. In the physical aspect of this, what controls
the observed behavior???
I'll even give you a break if you want (who cares if I do?). Why
would there be c+v or a c-v if there was no substrate to accommodate
it???
>
> We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
> and sufficient to explain their appearances.
xxein: Again??? We don't know what true is yet. Should we worship a
moron instead of thinking originally???
Koobee Wublee
> The same rule applies to the photon. The magnetic field collapses
> and stores its energy in the electric field, but aetherialists
> believe that the energy is somehow mechanically stored in
> some kind of rubbery substance which compresses or stretches
> to give up its energy as a magnetic field again.
> The electric field is all that is required to swap energy with
> the magnetic field, the mechanical aether simply isn't needed.
Yes, speaking as an Einstein-Dingleberry want-to-be.
Electromagnetism can only be explained with the mechanical Aether and
nothing else. You are brain-washed to believe in the nonsense that
the Einstein Dingleberries fed you with. <shrug>
--- -. dotat
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 3, 4:07 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
>
>> The same rule applies to the photon. The magnetic field collapses
>> and stores its energy in the electric field, but aetherialists
>> believe that the energy is somehow mechanically stored in
>> some kind of rubbery substance which compresses or stretches
>> to give up its energy as a magnetic field again.
>> The electric field is all that is required to swap energy with
>> the magnetic field, the mechanical aether simply isn't needed.
>
>Yes, speaking as an Einstein-Dingleberry want-to-be.
>
>Electromagnetism can only be explained with the mechanical Aether and
>nothing else.
Giving things another name like "mechanical conundrum"
does not explain anything.
Explain "mechanical Aether" and it's properties, and how it works,
if you are an Aether Dingleberry.
>You are brain-washed to believe in the nonsense that
>the Einstein Dingleberries fed you with. <shrug>
>
You are brain-washed to believe in the nonsense that
the Aether Dingleberries fed you with. <shrug>
w.
Androcles
"xxein" <xxe...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c940ede9-8082-49f0...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
===========================================
This discussion is outside your limited domain of artefactual/superficially
imposed yin-yang of sorts referrence references. You are not capable of
thinking.
>
> To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
> more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
> simplicity,
> and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
xxein: I see a confliction of thought here. Once we adopt a way to
do physics, no other causes are possible???
===========================================
This discussion is outside your limited domain of artefactual/superficially
imposed yin-yang of sorts referrence references.
>
> William of Ockham:
> Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed
> to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of
> Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should
> make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no
> difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or
> theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae
> ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt
> multiplicanda
> praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be
> multiplied beyond necessity".
xxein: This should be true, but what assumptions are made??? It
obliterates itself.
===========================================
This discussion is outside your limited domain of artefactual/superficially
imposed yin-yang of sorts referrence references.
> Einstein: Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
>
> Same idea, different words.
>
> RULE II.
> Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign
> the same causes.
>
> As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe
> and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the
> reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.
xxein: What same causes???
===========================================
This discussion is outside your limited domain of artefactual/superficially
imposed yin-yang of sorts referrence references. You are not capable of
thinking.
>
> RULE III.
> The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of
> degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of
> our
> experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies
> whatsoever.
xxein: So which do you wish to deny? Motion, Heisenberg or Pauli???
===========================================
This discussion is outside your limited domain of artefactual/superficially
imposed yin-yang of sorts referrence references. You are not capable of
thinking.
>
> Newton's Rule 3 is Einstein's
>
> "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames
> of
> reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."
>
> Why should I ascribe properties to nothing?
xxein: Because that is all you have.
===========================================
This discussion is outside your limited domain of artefactual/superficially
imposed yin-yang of sorts referrence references.
Practically the same for
Einstein. "Oh. Math tells the universe how to work".
===========================================
Mathematics is a language. Like Swahili or Cymru, you do not speak
it. With babble such as "artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of
sorts referrence references" even your English is incomprehensible.
>
> | >
> | ... which ultimately leads to infinite regression
> | until a *naked" space concept is accepted which
> | does not contain/have additional properties, as is
> | heuristically preferred... and Einstein Dingleberries
> | try to avoid that problem by dragging frames around.
>
> What problem?
WHAT FUCKING PROBLEM?
>
> | >
> | Now whether that property laden space is called
> | Aether or not is another "lingo-semantic" story
> | and a matter of taste... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
> |
> Forget the semantics. What problem does aether solve that cannot be
> resolved by simpler means?
xxein: There is nothing simpler than an aether.
That's right, fuckhead. Nothing is indeed far simpler than aether.
Cover it up with
math gravy if you want but it must exist.
===========================
No, cover it up with an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts
referrence reference.
| When there are rules, laws
| or math - there must be a substrate that can control how it operates
| in a consistent way.
=========================================
What rules are you babbling about?
In the physical aspect of this, what controls
the observed behavior???
=========================================
What rules are you babbling about?
I'll even give you a break if you want (who cares if I do?).
==========================================
Nobody cares. You are on the bottom of the intellectual ladder. You
can't get beyond an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts
referrence reference.
=========================================
Why
would there be c+v or a c-v if there was no substrate to accommodate
it???
=========================================
How does a bullet move through a vacuum if there was no substrate
to accommodate it, YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD!
>
> We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both
> true
> and sufficient to explain their appearances.
xxein: Again???
YES, AGAIN! Hopefully it might sink past your aetherial ears.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances, we don't need any
artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts referrence references.
We don't know what true is yet. Should we worship a
moron instead of thinking originally???
======================================
Totally round the fucking twist....
Sue...
Ahhh... Dielectrics are not mechanical.
Dielectrics conduct a complimentay push to balance
every pull. Thus your automobile does not
lurch backward when the headlamps are
switched on.
"Propagation in a dielectric medium"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
But then you are "speaking as an Einstein-Dingleberry".
It is not clear that more shrugs will improve some of
their more absurd arguments but welcome to thier
side of Alice's mirror. ;-)
Sue...
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2190ddc0-9ec5-41e1...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
| On Aug 3, 4:07 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
|
| > The same rule applies to the photon. The magnetic field collapses
| > and stores its energy in the electric field, but aetherialists
| > believe that the energy is somehow mechanically stored in
| > some kind of rubbery substance which compresses or stretches
| > to give up its energy as a magnetic field again.
| > The electric field is all that is required to swap energy with
| > the magnetic field, the mechanical aether simply isn't needed.
|
| Yes, speaking as an Einstein-Dingleberry want-to-be.
When you can explain Sagnac let me know. Until then, fuck off.
Pentcho Valev
> Swimmingpool physics (or duck - pond physics)
> shows clearly that there is no c+v
>
> Watch them duck waves !
> http://www.schaerligbad.ch/restaurant/ententeich/index.htm
> c is wave speed, v is duck speed.
> (or hanson speed, if he takes a swim).
No Clever Wabnig you are confused again. c+v is unavoidable even if
you prefer the wave model of light. In this case v is the speed of the
observer relative to the pool. As you can see, Clever Wabnig,
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is incommensurable with both the
particle and wave models of light. Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's
apostle, explains this quite well:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
> Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
> who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
> to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
> noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
> before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>
> wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
> wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
> back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>
> gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
> ordinary 2 & 3 space.
>
> The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
> all scales in nature.
>
> Parrots of heuristic dogma and especially all the
> Dangling Einstein Dingleberries who are swinging in
> the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter will whine
> that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
> because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
> registered tiring of the light would make them fall off from
> their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
> sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
> masturbations...
>
> little as they did when the aether was buried in the units
> of the cgs system but made an "inconvenient" reappearance
> in the MKS and SI unit systrems....
>
> Do I have the Einstein Dingleberries' emotioal amplitude
> rising now?.. in these splendid forums that remind me of
> the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
> Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
> role of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson
Very calmly and serenely, we use the strength of the gravitational
interaction and the measurable stiffness of the coupling strength of
the water to itself to check that the waves do in fact travel at the
speed that we expect them to. And quite objectively and
dispassionately, we notice that all waves in material media have a
wave speed that is related to both the bulk inertia of the medium and
the stiffness of the medium, via a well-known and apparently universal
relation. Moreover, the inertia and the stiffness of the medium can be
checked -- completely without emotion and bristling -- with other
predictable measures in other phenomena, thereby binding the whole kit
and kaboodle into a coherent story.
Then in similar fashion, we can use the very same universal relations
about waves in material media, and the measured speed of light, to
deduce the inertia and the coupling stiffness of the supposed medium
-- all in a carefree and lighthearted but earnest manner. And we can
stare at those numbers and ponder casually but without the least bit
of brow-furrowing how it is that a medium so rigid would allow the
earth to orbit the sun. And furthermore, we can -- with complete ease
of mind -- check the connections of the inertia and coupling stiffness
to the predictable measures in other phenomena, just as we did with
water, and -- in an orderly and unpanicked fashion -- reasonably
notice that we don't have a kit anymore, let alone a kaboodle.
And so, without a care in the world, we can casually discard the
notion of a medium as being relevant for electromagnetic transmission,
no matter how much maniacal laughter is heard from the foamy-lipped
babbling neurotics who are cackling about how upset people must be
about the notion of an aether.
Sue...
<< Assuming that the net charge resides at the points of the
spheres most distant from each other because of the charge
repulsion, we can set the force of repulsion equal to the
weight of a sphere. The radius of a one cm3 sphere is
0.62 cm, so we will treat the force as that between two
point charges 2.48 cm apart (i.e., twice the sphere
diameter apart). Using Coulomb's law, this requires a
charge of 7.8 x 10-8 Coulombs. Compared to the total mobile
charge of 13,600 Coulombs, this amounts to removing just
one valence electron out of every 5.7 trillion (5.7 x 1012)
from each copper sphere. The final result is that the removal
of just one out of roughly six trillion of the free electrons
from each copper sphere would cause enough electric repulsion
on the top sphere to lift it, overcoming the gravitational pull
of the entire Earth! >>
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
Hmmm... you have a point. It might take a whole litre of
helium to glue the earth to the sun. No point buying
noble gasses when you can put your money into motor
fuel.
Sue...
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics:
Is the relation between the speed of the the wave, w, and the speed of
the observer relative to the medium, v, among those fundamental
relations, Clever Draper? If it is, you obtain, for the speed of the
wave as measured by the observer, w'=w+v or, in the case of a light
wave (w=c), c'=c+v. But you do not wish to obtain c'=c+v, do you
Clever Draper?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
Nope. Do you know the fundamental relations, Pentcho?
Moreover, if you determine that, because of the problems mentioned
above, a *material-medium-based* wave is untenable, you still always
have the option of non-material-medium-based waves as another option
to consider.
I don't know why you would refuse to consider non-material-based waves
if
1. The deduced stiffness and inertia of the hypothesized material
medium turns out to be inconsistent with other observations, and
2. The measured speed of the wave is c and not c+v or c-v.
It appears you insist on saying that the wave MUST be material-medium-
based, come hell or high water and therefore
1. The observations that are inconsistent with the deduced stiffness
of the hypothesized material medium need to be ignored, and
2. The measurements of light speed that show c and not c+v or c-v
(where motion between source and observer is the putative cause and
not a gravitational field) need to be ignored.
Of course, what you appear to be insisting is scientific lunacy, but
it is what it is.
PD
Pentcho Valev
> It appears you insist on saying that the wave MUST be material-medium-
> based, come hell or high water and therefore
> 1. The observations that are inconsistent with the deduced stiffness
> of the hypothesized material medium need to be ignored, and
> 2. The measurements of light speed that show c and not c+v or c-v
> (where motion between source and observer is the putative cause and
> not a gravitational field) need to be ignored.
No Clever Draper I just insist on paying some more attention to Divine
Albert's 1909 insights:
http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
moky
hanson
>
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> "the foamy-lipped
babbling neurotic is cackling about how upset he was about
the mere mention of an aether" as he, PD, the ex-middle
school teacher did exactly what hanson has predicted
in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/de6b3653b9a29b30?hl=en
wherein it says:
[& so Paul Draper] "parrots heuristic dogma like all the
Dangling Einstein Dingleberries do who are twisting in
the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter & whine
that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
from their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
masturbations...
>
I do have PD-Einstein Dingleberry's emotional amplitude
rising now! ... within these splendid forums that remind me
of the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
barber in the perfect role as an Einstein Dingleberry...
ahahahahha... AHAHAHA...
>
Paul, where did I say anything about the speed of waves?
Would you like to play now Goober or Barney Fife or
any one of the other funny characters, including you trying
to be cyber cop Andy-Paul Draper-Griffith?... ahahaha....
>
Your neurotic cackling was hilarious, Paul Draper...ahaha...
PD, a geriatric cackling Einstein Dingleberry... AHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs, Paul.. hahaha... ahahahahanson
Koobee Wublee
> When you can explain Sagnac let me know. Until then, fuck off.
So, this Aether-denial is getting a heavy toll on you personally both
in physical as well as in emotion. Electromagnetism is the key to
your salvation. Perhaps, Wendy is waiting for you on the other side
of the Aether.
Koobee Wublee
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >Yes, speaking as an Einstein-Dingleberry want-to-be.
>
> >Electromagnetism can only be explained with the mechanical Aether and
> >nothing else.
>
> Giving things another name like "mechanical conundrum"
> does not explain anything.
OK, how about just the Aether?
> Explain "mechanical Aether" and it's properties, and how it works,
In time, I will. Be patient. <shrug>
> if you are an Aether Dingleberry.
Oh, that is original. <shrug>
> >You are brain-washed to believe in the nonsense that
> >the Einstein Dingleberries fed you with. <shrug>
>
> You are brain-washed to believe in the nonsense that
> the Aether Dingleberries fed you with. <shrug>
So, it is finally getting to you after everyday being bombardeded with
fermented diarrhea from the Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
Androcles
Androcles
Even Wabnigga knows you are a pathetic idiot, and he's stupid. <shrug>
PD
> ahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHA...
>
Let's review the rules of "I Know You Are But What Am I?" by watching
a match in progress:
Beavis: "You're getting all bent out of shape, aren't you?"
Butthead: "Not in the least. I'm fine. YOU'RE the one that's riled
up."
Beavis: "See? You're already mad. I've got you all worked up.
HAHAHAHAHA."
Butthead: "Why are you laughing like a maniac? All worked up?"
Beavis: "Go ahead, deny it. It only makes you look more torqued."
Butthead: "You can't help projecting your own weaknesses. You're
pathetic. I laugh at you. ahahahahahaha."
Beavis: "You confuse your own projection with mine. I'm fine. You,
however, are hopelessly mired because I've threatened your existence."
Butthead: "How can you threaten my existence by being such a loser?
Loser."
Beavis: "See? I told you you're all cranked, just because of me.
Hahahahahaha."
and so on....
Got any other games?
hanson
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> cranked himself
over this since he is a self-confessed Einstein Dingkeberry :...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/bb4d9d2062186568?hl=en
whein it says:
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> "the foamy-lipped
> babbling neurotic is cackling about how upset he was about
> the mere mention of an aether" as he, PD, the ex-middle
> school teacher did exactly what hanson has predicted
> in:...
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
Androcles
>
> I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
> than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
> that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
> drifting
> to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
> reveals the true interest in the proposal.
>
> While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
> intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
> "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
> reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
> from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
> someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
> straight, and then make progress from there.
>
> I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
> read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
> confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
> my heart does not.
>
> [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
> appear]
> PD.
Koobee Wublee
> Let's review the rules of "I Know You Are But What Am I?" by watching
> a match in progress:
> Beavis: "You're getting all bent out of shape, aren't you?"
> Butthead: "Not in the least. I'm fine. YOU'RE the one that's riled
> up."
> Beavis: "See? You're already mad. I've got you all worked up.
> HAHAHAHAHA."
> Butthead: "Why are you laughing like a maniac? All worked up?"
> Beavis: "Go ahead, deny it. It only makes you look more torqued."
> Butthead: "You can't help projecting your own weaknesses. You're
> pathetic. I laugh at you. ahahahahahaha."
> Beavis: "You confuse your own projection with mine. I'm fine. You,
> however, are hopelessly mired because I've threatened your existence."
> Butthead: "How can you threaten my existence by being such a loser?
> Loser."
> Beavis: "See? I told you you're all cranked, just because of me.
> Hahahahahaha."
> and so on....
So, DR who identified himself as a professor of physics is actually a
screenwriter. That actually explains a lot of his lack of aptitude.
<shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Let's review the rules of "I Know You Are But What Am I?" by watching
> a match in progress:
> Beavis: "You're getting all bent out of shape, aren't you?"
> Butthead: "Not in the least. I'm fine. YOU'RE the one that's riled
> up."
> Beavis: "See? You're already mad. I've got you all worked up.
> HAHAHAHAHA."
> Butthead: "Why are you laughing like a maniac? All worked up?"
> Beavis: "Go ahead, deny it. It only makes you look more torqued."
> Butthead: "You can't help projecting your own weaknesses. You're
> pathetic. I laugh at you. ahahahahahaha."
> Beavis: "You confuse your own projection with mine. I'm fine. You,
> however, are hopelessly mired because I've threatened your existence."
> Butthead: "How can you threaten my existence by being such a loser?
> Loser."
> Beavis: "See? I told you you're all cranked, just because of me.
> Hahahahahaha."
> and so on....
So, DR who identified himself as a professor of physics is actually a
screenwriter. That actually explains a lot of his lack of aptitude in
understanding physics. <shrug>
PD
So let's see. Are you saying, "A *real* [sniff] physicist would not be
able to write dialog, so you are obviously not a *real* [sniff]
physicist"?
PD
xxein
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You said: "How does a bullet move through a vacuum if there was no
substrate
to accommodate it, YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD!"
xxein: There is no vacuum inside this universe. But a bullet does
not require a field effect. Does a vacuum tube get hot? Hmm. You
sure miss a lot of the physic.
I can explain every nuance of a Sagnac. It is entirely consistent
with my theory. It is a very comprehensive theory that is very
simple. It explains the Pioneer effect, too.
Why don't I publish it? Because of people like you. You don't
deserve to understand the physic.
I put my hints out there for people that can think. Let's see what
they do with it.
Now, if I appear to have a god-like complex, it is not like W or Dick
but more like T. Boone Pickens or Bill Gates. I can take my lumps if
I am shown to be wrong, though.
The real problem with presenting my theory is that there is too much
previous baggage out there. I have already discussed my ideas with
what you would call 'leading edge' theoretical physicists (just a few)
and they can't lose 'their' baggage.
I know exactly why this is. Everyone feels that we are but a simple
tweak away. I can appreciate that mode of thought, but it is more
than a tweak. It cannot come by tweaking a dead horse. Lose the
horse (baggage). These ideas (basic assumptions) we have were
created before we invented a yardstick for crimeny's sake.
Using math as a crutch disguises the problem. It adds a nice dressing
(or gravy) but it further obfuscates the core issue (the physic).
Using the five W's, we can describe gravity but we still don't know
what it IS. Pretty much the same for any aspect of the physic for
what I can see.
I suppose that developing a physics is a necessary thing to do, but to
get too far from the reality doesn't seem like a way to go.
How could I know such things? 'I lost my baggage at the airport'.
Never got it back. Had to recreate without it.
I've already mentioned how successful I am in theory and I attribute
it all to losing my 'baggage'. Now lose yours.
Everyone should lose their baggage and take a re-stock. It's a
rejuvenation. Maybe some one will guess it all more correctly without
baggage than I seem to have done.
Androcles
On Aug 4, 2:58 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2190ddc0-9ec5-41e1...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> | On Aug 3, 4:07 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> |
> | > The same rule applies to the photon. The magnetic field collapses
> | > and stores its energy in the electric field, but aetherialists
> | > believe that the energy is somehow mechanically stored in
> | > some kind of rubbery substance which compresses or stretches
> | > to give up its energy as a magnetic field again.
> | > The electric field is all that is required to swap energy with
> | > the magnetic field, the mechanical aether simply isn't needed.
> |
> | Yes, speaking as an Einstein-Dingleberry want-to-be.
>
> When you can explain Sagnac let me know. Until then, fuck off.
You said: "How does a bullet move through a vacuum if there was no
substrate
to accommodate it, YOU FUCKING SHITHEAD!"
====================================
I did.
xxein: There is no vacuum inside this universe. But a bullet does
not require a field effect.
====================================
There is no aether anywhere at all. But a magnetic field does
not require an aether.
Does a vacuum tube get hot?
-----------------------------------
No.
-------------------------------------
Hmm. You sure miss a lot of the physic.
---------------------------------------------------
Oh yes, I miss the artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts
referrence references
like I miss a hole in the head.
----------------------------------------------------
I can explain every nuance of a Sagnac.
----------------------------------------------------
Then do it.
[lying drool snipped].
--- -. dotat
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
........(snip)
>> [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
>> appear]
haha..hanson and Androcles at the duck pond,
waiting for c+v to occur....hahaha...
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Q634J4EfrOY/R929LedLVAI/AAAAAAAACgc/to_fbFi6vo4/IMG_0622.JPG
haha hanson, "Dingleberry" is "Klabusterbeere" in German,
hope this helps you :-)
w.
Pentcho Valev
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 19:00:36 +0100, "Androcles"
>
>
> ........(snip)
>
> >> [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
> >> appear]
>
> haha..hanson and Androcles at the duck pond,
> waiting for c+v to occur....hahaha...
>
> http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Q634J4EfrOY/R929LedLVAI/AAAAAAAACgc/to_fbFi6vo4/IMG_0622.JPG
>
> haha hanson, "Dingleberry" is "Klabusterbeere" in German,
> hope this helps you :-)
> w.
c+v does occur, Clever Wabnig, for an observer moving at speed v
relative to the pool.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
--- -. dotat
Psssst.. Pentcho.....don't tell them.....stay silent.....
w.
hanson
>
The fortunate Trödel, Wabie aka <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat>
is composting instead of posting in his message
>
news:lr0g94t05fc71bvlf...@4ax.com...
> Psssst.. Pentcho.....don't tell them.....stay silent.....
> w.
>
Pssst... Wabie..... tell that to yourself.. stay silent....
------------- because -------------
Lately, your posts have turned into compost... like
the "Misthaufen und die Güllenlöcher" next to the
main drag in the village of Fucking, Austria, which
is your home where you said that you were a resident
"Toilet Dweller".
Enjoy the smell but, please Wabie, don't spread it.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Wabie, here, for your benefit is the link that honors you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/52b6bbd5a46234f2?hl=en
wherein it says:
" Visit the original Einstein Dingleberries in Fucking, Austria"
>
ahahahaha... See Wabie, in Fucking, (where in/at you said
that you were a "Toilet Dweller") and in Pocking and Petting
it is quite possibly that it was at theses historic places where
Einstein was Grubing his first Dingleberries... ahahaha... which
was at one time a very brown place... ahahaha... and BTW how
many miles away is that from Braunau where Hitler was born?
"Oye weh!"... such a fortunate Trödel you are, Wabie.
"Trust me!"... "Go figure!".... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
You can be sure Wabnigga did some grubby poking in Pocking
and Grubing with some heavy petting in Upper Petting and Lower
Petting. They all have a TGIF bar wherein it says "Liquor up front,
poker in the rear. This means you, Wabnigga"
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: OK. Your brain has achieved a petrified state. You are no
longer able to consider/assimilate any new thought. It has to be the
"old" way or no way in your mind.
Goodbye.
Androcles
Goodbye.
=================================
You have no explanation of Sagnac, you lying pile of shit.
Fuck off.