info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
170 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Webb
Nov 28, 2011, 11:10:14 PM11/28/11
to
McCullough is admitting his stupidity, but one thing that stands out
is the fact that he does not even understand GR, and yet this gross
incompetent person would argue to no end on why the Schwarzschild
metric is the only solution that is static, spherically symmetric, and
asymptotically flat to the field equations. <shrug>
________________________________________________________
I would be surprised if he said that. A "metric" is not a "solution", it is
a definition. I expect McCollough would know that that the statement above
is nonsense, because he understands the meanings of the words. You, on the
other hand, clearly have no idea of what the words mean, because you
consistently misuse them. I therefore expect that this is you misquoting him
because you didn't understand whaty he said. Have you got his exact words?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Nov 29, 2011, 11:48:16 PM11/29/11
to
no need for GR; what Koobee-doo has uncovered is that
teh Doppler shifts viz Lorentz really *do* give rise
to an apparently symmetrical aging of the twins,
regardless of which is accelerating & decelerating and
returning to Eaaarth.
so, if it is quite clear that SR has been validated
for decades, waht is wrong with the typical analysis?
teh Doppler shifts viz Lorentz really *do* give rise
to an apparently symmetrical aging of the twins,
regardless of which is accelerating & decelerating and
returning to Eaaarth.
so, if it is quite clear that SR has been validated
for decades, waht is wrong with the typical analysis?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Nov 30, 2011, 2:46:14 AM11/30/11
to
this seems to be a common problem with "English
as a second language" users, although I am ashamed
to be horribly monolingual.
you exaggerate, however. the best evocation of this,
was the "famous" exercise of Korbyzinski,
called E-prime, where he disallowed teh use of the verb,
to be, in any conjugation. I mean, really,
it's just a joke!
as a second language" users, although I am ashamed
to be horribly monolingual.
you exaggerate, however. the best evocation of this,
was the "famous" exercise of Korbyzinski,
called E-prime, where he disallowed teh use of the verb,
to be, in any conjugation. I mean, really,
it's just a joke!
NoEinstein
Nov 30, 2011, 1:33:06 PM11/30/11
to
On Nov 29, 11:48 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > because you didn't understand whaty he said. Have you got his exact words?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: SR has NEVER been validated by anyone!!! I disproved SR when I
showed that the 1887 M-M experiment lacked a CONTROL, or unchanging,
light course. I also disproved SR by realizing quite early that NO
ENERGY EQUATION CAN BE EXPONENTIAL without violating the Law of the
Conservation of Energy-Mass! Nothing about status quo physics, since
Einstein, can be salvaged, or needs to be!! — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: SR has NEVER been validated by anyone!!! I disproved SR when I
showed that the 1887 M-M experiment lacked a CONTROL, or unchanging,
light course. I also disproved SR by realizing quite early that NO
ENERGY EQUATION CAN BE EXPONENTIAL without violating the Law of the
Conservation of Energy-Mass! Nothing about status quo physics, since
Einstein, can be salvaged, or needs to be!! — NE —
NoEinstein
Nov 30, 2011, 1:35:13 PM11/30/11
to
On Nov 30, 2:46 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > > other hand, clearly have no idea of what the words mean, because you- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Nov 30, 2011, 4:52:14 PM11/30/11
to
my reply (to doctor Webb) was about language,
not about your say-so proofs -- "I say,
therefore it must be, So!..." anyway,
M&M did not have a null result, as mentioned
in the very first page of their paper, although
this is never acknowledged by the Einsteinmaniacs,
nor by the aetherists. also,
the usual control in laser experiments is known,
as the "reference beam," whihc is why they generally
have a half-silvered beamsplitter.
(there are lots of simple books on this, although
few of them will give the fact about the alleged "null.")
not about your say-so proofs -- "I say,
therefore it must be, So!..." anyway,
M&M did not have a null result, as mentioned
in the very first page of their paper, although
this is never acknowledged by the Einsteinmaniacs,
nor by the aetherists. also,
the usual control in laser experiments is known,
as the "reference beam," whihc is why they generally
have a half-silvered beamsplitter.
(there are lots of simple books on this, although
few of them will give the fact about the alleged "null.")
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Nov 30, 2011, 4:58:58 PM11/30/11
to
right; no-one asked you to read any of the billions & billions
of papers from the last hundred years,
teh write-ups of experiments that conformed with SR.
so, don't do that!
of papers from the last hundred years,
teh write-ups of experiments that conformed with SR.
so, don't do that!
NoEinstein
Dec 4, 2011, 4:02:25 PM12/4/11
to
On Nov 30, 4:52 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > Conservation of Energy-Mass!- Hide quoted text -
thing! Michelson was expecting to "see" the fringes shift as the M-M
apparatus was rotated. But there were effectively ZERO fringe shifts
in 360 degrees of apparatus rotation! What all of those AIRHEADS did
was to look at the high precision of the God Damned M-M apparatus and
assume, stupidly, that something had been proved (or disproved) about
the aether. Not a soul before yours truly was smart enough to realize
that the apparatus was improperly DESIGNED (not constructed) to detect
velocity changes. Note: That same apparatus could precisely measure
minute distances or angles. The reason? There was a micrometer screw
that measured the physical change of length in one arm of the
apparatus corresponding to some object or optical component that was
positioned on or within that physical arm. Because the other axis of
the apparatus remained unchanged, the "turning of the micrometer
screw" was a PHYSICAL change in the length of ONE of the light
courses, but not the other. The arm which didn't change length became
the CONTROL; while the other are was the TEST light course. When the
latter changed length, it was easy to count the fringe shifts to
precisely determine how much the length had changed.
The reality is that rotating that same apparatus 360 degrees did not
change the physical length of either light course, so there were,
effectively, zero fringes observed. The emitted light speeded up in
traveling in the additive direction of Earth's velocity component, and
slowed down an identical amount on the reflected reverse course, so
that the effective AVERAGE velocity was always 'c'. That same thing
happened for BOTH light courses, so that the times of travel were the
same as if the apparatus had not been rotated at all! Note: The
small number of fringe shifts observed in some iterations of the M-M
experiment were 100% the result of not having the barious mirror
positioned to reflect the light orthogonally.
1tree: There is NO "reference" beam, test beam nor CONTROL in M-M.
If you can't understand what I've just explained for the umpteenth
time, you are as big an airhead as A. A. Michelson! Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear 1tree: In your case, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous
> - Show quoted text -
thing! Michelson was expecting to "see" the fringes shift as the M-M
apparatus was rotated. But there were effectively ZERO fringe shifts
in 360 degrees of apparatus rotation! What all of those AIRHEADS did
was to look at the high precision of the God Damned M-M apparatus and
assume, stupidly, that something had been proved (or disproved) about
the aether. Not a soul before yours truly was smart enough to realize
that the apparatus was improperly DESIGNED (not constructed) to detect
velocity changes. Note: That same apparatus could precisely measure
minute distances or angles. The reason? There was a micrometer screw
that measured the physical change of length in one arm of the
apparatus corresponding to some object or optical component that was
positioned on or within that physical arm. Because the other axis of
the apparatus remained unchanged, the "turning of the micrometer
screw" was a PHYSICAL change in the length of ONE of the light
courses, but not the other. The arm which didn't change length became
the CONTROL; while the other are was the TEST light course. When the
latter changed length, it was easy to count the fringe shifts to
precisely determine how much the length had changed.
The reality is that rotating that same apparatus 360 degrees did not
change the physical length of either light course, so there were,
effectively, zero fringes observed. The emitted light speeded up in
traveling in the additive direction of Earth's velocity component, and
slowed down an identical amount on the reflected reverse course, so
that the effective AVERAGE velocity was always 'c'. That same thing
happened for BOTH light courses, so that the times of travel were the
same as if the apparatus had not been rotated at all! Note: The
small number of fringe shifts observed in some iterations of the M-M
experiment were 100% the result of not having the barious mirror
positioned to reflect the light orthogonally.
1tree: There is NO "reference" beam, test beam nor CONTROL in M-M.
If you can't understand what I've just explained for the umpteenth
time, you are as big an airhead as A. A. Michelson! Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dec 4, 2011, 4:14:15 PM12/4/11
to
On Nov 30, 4:58 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > SR has NEVER been validated by anyone!!!- Hide quoted text -
will shoehorn any observation to "seem" to be supporting MORON
Einstein. Single handedly, I have disproved 90% of supposed
relativistic physics and cosmology. You, on the other hand, only seek
"status" by supporting the so easily disproved status quo! — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: NO write-up has shown a God Damned thing except that idiots
> - Show quoted text -
will shoehorn any observation to "seem" to be supporting MORON
Einstein. Single handedly, I have disproved 90% of supposed
relativistic physics and cosmology. You, on the other hand, only seek
"status" by supporting the so easily disproved status quo! — NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 5, 2011, 8:10:01 PM12/5/11
to
this is a big part of Einsteinmania,
shared by almost everyone in these groups;
they won't even look at an argument about it,
kind of like yourself.
but, it is on the very first page of the M&M write-up,
mentioned that there was a small anomoly, or
"shift."
as they say, Shift happens.
> The reality is that rotating that same apparatus 360 degrees did not
> change the physical length of either light course, so there were,
> effectively, zero fringes observed.
shared by almost everyone in these groups;
they won't even look at an argument about it,
kind of like yourself.
but, it is on the very first page of the M&M write-up,
mentioned that there was a small anomoly, or
"shift."
as they say, Shift happens.
> The reality is that rotating that same apparatus 360 degrees did not
> change the physical length of either light course, so there were,
> effectively, zero fringes observed.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 5, 2011, 8:17:27 PM12/5/11
to
that's your problem, you're straight As in the 8th grade,\
then you crashed & burned.
anyway, Einsteinmania was surpassed decades ago
by the Alfven school of plasm physics,
which uses antimatter in equal amounts
per classical quantum theory.
and, *that* is the sound of one hand, applauding.
then you crashed & burned.
anyway, Einsteinmania was surpassed decades ago
by the Alfven school of plasm physics,
which uses antimatter in equal amounts
per classical quantum theory.
and, *that* is the sound of one hand, applauding.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 6, 2011, 6:10:17 PM12/6/11
to
I'm not criticizing;
that was also when I peaked (straight As
in the bottom of the 8th .-)
> Einsteinmania was surpassed decades ago
> by the Alfven school of plasma physics,
>
> and that, below, is the sound of one hand, applauding.
> > Single handedly, I have
--Harry Potter wants US in ... whereveristan!
http://wlym.com/drupal/
that was also when I peaked (straight As
in the bottom of the 8th .-)
> Einsteinmania was surpassed decades ago
> which uses antimatter in equal amounts
> per classical quantum theory cum cosmology.
>
> and that, below, is the sound of one hand, applauding.
> > Single handedly, I have
--Harry Potter wants US in ... whereveristan!
http://wlym.com/drupal/
NoEinstein
Dec 7, 2011, 11:26:11 AM12/7/11
to
On Dec 5, 8:10 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > time, you are as big an airhead as A. A. Michelson!- Hide quoted text -
the mirrors not being set orthogonally! Exacting algebraic analysis
proves that the TIMES of travel of the light over both, or either, of
the light courses remains UNCHANGED through 360 degrees of apparatus
rotation. There is not one IOTA of scientific merit in the M-M
experiment except to play-up how QUALITY of construction in an
IMPROPERLY DESIGNED apparatus can seduce over a century of "supposed"
physicists into thinking they know their asses from holes in the
ground! Case Western Reserve University "proudly" displays that
stupid apparatus and even gives out LAME Michelson-Morley Awards for
outstanding achievement in science. About five years ago when I
informed those academic airheads that the M-M experiment was a fraud,
I didn't even get a reply. No one in academia nor in publishing
(those G. D. JEWS!) care one wit about teaching science truths.
That's why I recommend that 90% of our supposed institutions of higher
learning be CLOSED by edit! And may the affected sports teams, Penn
State included, simply go to hell!! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Any "shift" of a fraction, or several phases, was 100% due to
> - Show quoted text -
the mirrors not being set orthogonally! Exacting algebraic analysis
proves that the TIMES of travel of the light over both, or either, of
the light courses remains UNCHANGED through 360 degrees of apparatus
rotation. There is not one IOTA of scientific merit in the M-M
experiment except to play-up how QUALITY of construction in an
IMPROPERLY DESIGNED apparatus can seduce over a century of "supposed"
physicists into thinking they know their asses from holes in the
ground! Case Western Reserve University "proudly" displays that
stupid apparatus and even gives out LAME Michelson-Morley Awards for
outstanding achievement in science. About five years ago when I
informed those academic airheads that the M-M experiment was a fraud,
I didn't even get a reply. No one in academia nor in publishing
(those G. D. JEWS!) care one wit about teaching science truths.
That's why I recommend that 90% of our supposed institutions of higher
learning be CLOSED by edit! And may the affected sports teams, Penn
State included, simply go to hell!! — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 7, 2011, 11:43:29 AM12/7/11
to
"audit;" tank you ... in a very *small* tank.
> I recommend that 90% of our G.D.J. institutions
> I recommend that 90% of our G.D.J. institutions
NoEinstein
Dec 7, 2011, 11:46:55 AM12/7/11
to
On Dec 5, 8:17 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > relativistic physics and cosmology.- Hide quoted text -
stupid! Anti-matter, IF it exists, would simply be the total
disentanglement of the concentrated IOTAs within matter. Don't be too
close-by when that happens! The ether pressure OUT would blow things
to bits. — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: When "stupidity" replaces stupidity, the results are still
> - Show quoted text -
stupid! Anti-matter, IF it exists, would simply be the total
disentanglement of the concentrated IOTAs within matter. Don't be too
close-by when that happens! The ether pressure OUT would blow things
to bits. — NE —
NoEinstein
Dec 7, 2011, 11:53:37 AM12/7/11
to
On Dec 6, 6:10 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: Now I know(!): You suppose that science allows YOU to make
things work your way—by magic, if necessary. Nature did things much
smarter—the simplest ways! In every case, my New Science reaches the
simplest and thus most beautiful explanation of how the Universe
works. All of you "love complexity" junkies need to find other
hobbies. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
things work your way—by magic, if necessary. Nature did things much
smarter—the simplest ways! In every case, my New Science reaches the
simplest and thus most beautiful explanation of how the Universe
works. All of you "love complexity" junkies need to find other
hobbies. — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 7, 2011, 7:36:20 PM12/7/11
to
antimatter isn't magic;
there was just discovered a tenuous belt of antiprotons,
inside of the van Allen belt of electrons.
you are a very bad correspopndent,
just jerking me around with your extreme lack
of experimental validation, and
your tenuous grasp of English,
which appears to be most-suited to insults
that you think are funny.
anwyay, "what Nature does,"
is what was given voice by Fermat,
the principle of Least Action;
his was one of the important steps
in creating "the" calculus,
which you think is a little joke, hahaha.
anyway, have a nice _________, you dumb middleschooler.
> Nature did things much smarter—the simplest ways!...
> my Nood Science reaches the
there was just discovered a tenuous belt of antiprotons,
inside of the van Allen belt of electrons.
you are a very bad correspopndent,
just jerking me around with your extreme lack
of experimental validation, and
your tenuous grasp of English,
which appears to be most-suited to insults
that you think are funny.
anwyay, "what Nature does,"
is what was given voice by Fermat,
the principle of Least Action;
his was one of the important steps
in creating "the" calculus,
which you think is a little joke, hahaha.
anyway, have a nice _________, you dumb middleschooler.
> Nature did things much smarter—the simplest ways!...
> my Nood Science reaches the
> simplest and thus most beautiful explanation
> of how Universe works.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 8, 2011, 10:41:33 PM12/8/11
to
sorry; Fermat gave a justification
for Snell's law & the brachistochrone,
of Least Time; Least Action is Liebniz's generalization
of that. yeah, Liebniz,
the guy who you defeated with F=ma=mv=KE=exp(i*pi) --
and Coriolis!
> anwyay, "what Nature does,"
> is what was given voice by Fermat,
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
thus:
so, why can't they say, what the angle of total reflection
off Arctic waters are, given the sun angles & a measure
of choppiness?
y'know, folks watch so much TV, they probably believe that
the arctic & antarctic are always as Sunny as a Club MedTM. but,
when it *is* clear, that is when there is no waveguide by clouds
from the subarctic, and when the angle of total reflection is
of the greatest import, or export.
or, given that jets fly on great-circle bearings,
what does the heat of the exhaust -- the heat
of the jets & wings dissipating & radiating -- do to the N. pole?
or, what do all of the icebreakers' horsepower do,
to the angular momentum of the floating ice?
things that make y'go, Hm.
thus:
jet exhaust is presumably carrying an excess of heat,
beyond the heat of condensation of the water-of-combustion,
although the presence of chemtrails (!?) depends only
upon relative humidity & temperature.
thus:
there is just no historical data for most glaciers. yes,
the ones close to civilization with some data,
do tend to "retreat," although it is really very cyclical
with very little comprehension of the cause ... or,
even if it means that any glacier is actually diminishing,
overall.
on the very hour that I heard from the Man from NOAA,
Swiss affiliate, that the hieghths of GrIS and AnIS had
*only* increased, since measurement began,
I drew the obvious conclusion. at the second catered event,
I asked him about this, and he disagreed, although
he couldn't think of a reason, at the momentbeing.
anyway, til *either* a Confirmerist or a Denierist will
actually read Morner's overview paper in the magazine,
I am probably not going to believe in putative sealevel rise,
especially, if they are not going to even bother
with erosion, loss of soil-water & so on.
I would like to say, though, in hearing about subglacial volcanos
on Iceland, that it is possible for this to incease,
especially in Antarctica at Mt. Erebus, which could lead
to significant transients of sealevel rise ... because
vulcanism actually increases by an order of magnitude,
during the glacial phases of the Quaternary Period.
> "surface mass balance (net accumulation)"
thus:
the Kyoto Protocol is a huge, voluntary carbon emmissions scheme,
which follows the market of the larger EU mandatory scheme,
following the launching of CCX in 2003 with the 2nd Gulf War, and
of ICE in 2005.
presumbaly, the primary "players" in these hedge-funds,
are the oilcos ... perhaps even the Koch bros.,
whether or not they erroneously call it a "tax."
thus:
my source on this is _A Vast Machine_, MIT Press 2011,
which is a blow-by-blow acount of the history
of these glocal circulation models.
-- the Kyoto Protocol is *nothing* but cap & trade,
which I prefer to call "free-er trade," as a large vehicle
for hedge funds, such as CCX, that Sen. Obama started
in 2003 with the 2nd Gulf War. and, you probably thought that
only Sen. Gore had his own hedgie!
for Snell's law & the brachistochrone,
of Least Time; Least Action is Liebniz's generalization
of that. yeah, Liebniz,
the guy who you defeated with F=ma=mv=KE=exp(i*pi) --
and Coriolis!
> anwyay, "what Nature does,"
> is what was given voice by Fermat,
thus:
so, why can't they say, what the angle of total reflection
off Arctic waters are, given the sun angles & a measure
of choppiness?
y'know, folks watch so much TV, they probably believe that
the arctic & antarctic are always as Sunny as a Club MedTM. but,
when it *is* clear, that is when there is no waveguide by clouds
from the subarctic, and when the angle of total reflection is
of the greatest import, or export.
or, given that jets fly on great-circle bearings,
what does the heat of the exhaust -- the heat
of the jets & wings dissipating & radiating -- do to the N. pole?
or, what do all of the icebreakers' horsepower do,
to the angular momentum of the floating ice?
things that make y'go, Hm.
thus:
jet exhaust is presumably carrying an excess of heat,
beyond the heat of condensation of the water-of-combustion,
although the presence of chemtrails (!?) depends only
upon relative humidity & temperature.
thus:
there is just no historical data for most glaciers. yes,
the ones close to civilization with some data,
do tend to "retreat," although it is really very cyclical
with very little comprehension of the cause ... or,
even if it means that any glacier is actually diminishing,
overall.
on the very hour that I heard from the Man from NOAA,
Swiss affiliate, that the hieghths of GrIS and AnIS had
*only* increased, since measurement began,
I drew the obvious conclusion. at the second catered event,
I asked him about this, and he disagreed, although
he couldn't think of a reason, at the momentbeing.
anyway, til *either* a Confirmerist or a Denierist will
actually read Morner's overview paper in the magazine,
I am probably not going to believe in putative sealevel rise,
especially, if they are not going to even bother
with erosion, loss of soil-water & so on.
I would like to say, though, in hearing about subglacial volcanos
on Iceland, that it is possible for this to incease,
especially in Antarctica at Mt. Erebus, which could lead
to significant transients of sealevel rise ... because
vulcanism actually increases by an order of magnitude,
during the glacial phases of the Quaternary Period.
> "surface mass balance (net accumulation)"
thus:
the Kyoto Protocol is a huge, voluntary carbon emmissions scheme,
which follows the market of the larger EU mandatory scheme,
following the launching of CCX in 2003 with the 2nd Gulf War, and
of ICE in 2005.
presumbaly, the primary "players" in these hedge-funds,
are the oilcos ... perhaps even the Koch bros.,
whether or not they erroneously call it a "tax."
thus:
my source on this is _A Vast Machine_, MIT Press 2011,
which is a blow-by-blow acount of the history
of these glocal circulation models.
-- the Kyoto Protocol is *nothing* but cap & trade,
which I prefer to call "free-er trade," as a large vehicle
for hedge funds, such as CCX, that Sen. Obama started
in 2003 with the 2nd Gulf War. and, you probably thought that
only Sen. Gore had his own hedgie!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 13, 2011, 8:44:56 PM12/13/11
to
also, the half-silvered mirrors are often set
to split the coherent beam at ninety degrees,
usually into two equal beams, but that would depend upon a)
the angle of total reflection of ... wait;
silver's angle is clearly 0 degrees,
glass's is some finite angle away from vertical, so
you can presumably get any angle & any splitting
of the beam into n beams of different stength (or
wavelength or frequency; a halfsplitter produces two beams
of half the frequency, mod inefficiencies).
and, when I say, beam,
I do not mean massless rocks!
to split the coherent beam at ninety degrees,
usually into two equal beams, but that would depend upon a)
the angle of total reflection of ... wait;
silver's angle is clearly 0 degrees,
glass's is some finite angle away from vertical, so
you can presumably get any angle & any splitting
of the beam into n beams of different stength (or
wavelength or frequency; a halfsplitter produces two beams
of half the frequency, mod inefficiencies).
and, when I say, beam,
I do not mean massless rocks!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 13, 2011, 8:38:04 PM12/13/11
to
total disentanglement, sounds like a new paradigm
from the Copenhagenskool.
from the Copenhagenskool.
NoEinstein
Dec 14, 2011, 1:38:11 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 7, 7:36 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > of how Universe works.- Hide quoted text -
Science. Instead, you fault my high genius command of the English
Language. Most of your notions about science came from reading about
the science work of others. My firm conclusions about science are
close to 100% the result of my decades of clear thinking and reason to
correctly explain how the entire Universe works. Tell us, fellow:
What contribution have you yourself made to science? Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: I find it amazing that you can't fault any aspect of my New
> - Show quoted text -
Science. Instead, you fault my high genius command of the English
Language. Most of your notions about science came from reading about
the science work of others. My firm conclusions about science are
close to 100% the result of my decades of clear thinking and reason to
correctly explain how the entire Universe works. Tell us, fellow:
What contribution have you yourself made to science? Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dec 14, 2011, 1:47:29 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 8, 10:41 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: Too long and too trivial. — NE —
wrote:
NoEinstein
Dec 14, 2011, 2:04:05 PM12/14/11
to
On Dec 13, 8:38 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > to bits.- Hide quoted text -
NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: No. It just sounds like another TRUTH from my New Science! —
> - Show quoted text -
NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 14, 2011, 7:35:33 PM12/14/11
to
you are a completely hopeless coreespondent.
I apologize for taking-up your incredibly valuable spacetime.
I apologize for taking-up your incredibly valuable spacetime.
NoEinstein
Dec 16, 2011, 2:17:16 PM12/16/11
to
On Dec 13, 8:44 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
smooth will reflect at an angle that equals the angle of incidence.
Ever heard of that?
> glass's is some finite angle away from vertical, so
> you can presumably get any angle & any splitting
> of the beam into n beams of different stength (or
> wavelength or frequency; a halfsplitter produces two beams
> of half the frequency, mod inefficiencies).
1tree: The relative "strengths" of the split beams will only affect
the CONTRAST of the fringe bands on the target. The SHIFT in the
location of those fringes can be proved, algebraically, to be ZERO at
any angle of rotation of the M-M apparatus. If you knew how to do
middle school algebra, you could confirm such fact for yourself. Quit
being a "pedant"! You flunk at that, too! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> also, the half-silvered mirrors are often set
> to split the coherent beam at ninety degrees,
> usually into two equal beams, but that would depend upon a)
> the angle of total reflection of ... wait;
> silver's angle is clearly 0 degrees,
Where did you find such a ridiculous "0 degrees"? Materials that are
> to split the coherent beam at ninety degrees,
> usually into two equal beams, but that would depend upon a)
> the angle of total reflection of ... wait;
> silver's angle is clearly 0 degrees,
smooth will reflect at an angle that equals the angle of incidence.
Ever heard of that?
> glass's is some finite angle away from vertical, so
> you can presumably get any angle & any splitting
> of the beam into n beams of different stength (or
> wavelength or frequency; a halfsplitter produces two beams
> of half the frequency, mod inefficiencies).
the CONTRAST of the fringe bands on the target. The SHIFT in the
location of those fringes can be proved, algebraically, to be ZERO at
any angle of rotation of the M-M apparatus. If you knew how to do
middle school algebra, you could confirm such fact for yourself. Quit
being a "pedant"! You flunk at that, too! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dec 16, 2011, 2:24:19 PM12/16/11
to
On Dec 14, 7:35 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
any force or material action in the Universe! I only mention that
because of the Einsteiniacs out there who are too DENSE to understand
simple concepts. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> you are a completely hopeless coreespondent.
>
> I apologize for taking-up your incredibly valuable spacetime.
1tree: MY space-time??? I have DISPROVED space-time's affecting of
>
> I apologize for taking-up your incredibly valuable spacetime.
any force or material action in the Universe! I only mention that
because of the Einsteiniacs out there who are too DENSE to understand
simple concepts. — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 17, 2011, 4:47:17 PM12/17/11
to
you should recognize that as a joke;
spacetime is simply phase-space,
simply a chunk of formalism, having no causitive value,
whatsoever. you can use quaternions for relativity,
three imaginary "vector" space components,
one real "sclar" time.
> MY space-time???
spacetime is simply phase-space,
simply a chunk of formalism, having no causitive value,
whatsoever. you can use quaternions for relativity,
three imaginary "vector" space components,
one real "sclar" time.
> MY space-time???
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 17, 2011, 4:44:22 PM12/17/11
to
the angle of reflectance is always equal
to the angle on incidence, of course;
I was refer ing to the angle of *total* reflectance
for transparent media, like glass & water. should, though,
have said that mirrors exhibit total reflection
at ninety degrees.
as for being a pedant, touche', but that is really *your* forte',
since you believe that you have done all that is to be done,
without any ability in mathematical physics, wahtsoever
-- as small as mine is. ("mathematica" is four subjects,
not a symbolic algebra program from the Wolframites.)
and, do I know how to do "middleschool algebra?..."
would you go so far as "completing the square" --
can you even do that?
anyway, although folks in physics generally assert that
M&M got "null" results, the very first page
of their journal article disproves that. the rest
of your assertions are hard to grasp, and
don't seem to be talking about the same experiment.
> Where did you find such a ridiculous "0 degrees"?
to the angle on incidence, of course;
I was refer ing to the angle of *total* reflectance
for transparent media, like glass & water. should, though,
have said that mirrors exhibit total reflection
at ninety degrees.
as for being a pedant, touche', but that is really *your* forte',
since you believe that you have done all that is to be done,
without any ability in mathematical physics, wahtsoever
-- as small as mine is. ("mathematica" is four subjects,
not a symbolic algebra program from the Wolframites.)
and, do I know how to do "middleschool algebra?..."
would you go so far as "completing the square" --
can you even do that?
anyway, although folks in physics generally assert that
M&M got "null" results, the very first page
of their journal article disproves that. the rest
of your assertions are hard to grasp, and
don't seem to be talking about the same experiment.
> Where did you find such a ridiculous "0 degrees"?
> > glass's is some finite angle away from vertical, so
> > you can presumably get any angle & any splitting
> > of the beam into n beams of different stength (or
> > wavelength or frequency; a halfsplitter produces two beams
> > of half the frequency, mod inefficiencies).
>
> > you can presumably get any angle & any splitting
> > of the beam into n beams of different stength (or
> > wavelength or frequency; a halfsplitter produces two beams
> > of half the frequency, mod inefficiencies).
>
NoEinstein
Dec 19, 2011, 6:07:01 PM12/19/11
to
On Dec 17, 4:47 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > MY space-time???- Hide quoted text -
names for simple SPACE unduly complicates things, don't you think? —
NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Why not just use simple X, Y, and Z coordinates? Having silly
> - Show quoted text -
names for simple SPACE unduly complicates things, don't you think? —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dec 19, 2011, 5:52:03 PM12/19/11
to
> you are a completely hopeless coreespondent.
>
> I apologize for taking-up your incredibly valuable spacetime.
Dear 1tree: As usual, you are unable to fault my New Science. So,
>
> I apologize for taking-up your incredibly valuable spacetime.
you fault my "English" or my correspondence. Why not just accept that
my logical and simple-to-understand New Science does NOT required any
drawn-out back-and-forth exchanges. All you need to do is to put on
your thinking cap and learn about the REAL (New) Science! —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dec 19, 2011, 6:20:16 PM12/19/11
to
On Dec 17, 4:44 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > any angle of rotation of the M-M apparatus.- Hide quoted text -
have math ability. As a major in structural design, I did far more
"real world" math than any physics PhD would have to. Simple
rationales like my showing that KE = 1/2 mv^2 and E = mc^2/beta
violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy-mass, negate the
necessity of doing any "math" more complicated than realizing that
BOTH sides of any energy equation must be EQUAL! That rules out
having ANY energy equation being other than additive——never
exponential. Sorry if I offend you complexity junkies. But I have
figured out how the Universe works without have to resort to solving a
single mathematical equation! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear 1tree: You were doing just fine until you declared that I don't
> - Show quoted text -
have math ability. As a major in structural design, I did far more
"real world" math than any physics PhD would have to. Simple
rationales like my showing that KE = 1/2 mv^2 and E = mc^2/beta
violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy-mass, negate the
necessity of doing any "math" more complicated than realizing that
BOTH sides of any energy equation must be EQUAL! That rules out
having ANY energy equation being other than additive——never
exponential. Sorry if I offend you complexity junkies. But I have
figured out how the Universe works without have to resort to solving a
single mathematical equation! — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 19, 2011, 7:23:44 PM12/19/11
to
yes, that is *exactly* what I think. everything has
been completely muddied-up by "spacetime," "pants diagrams"
and so on, although it is easy to picture it with quaternions,
because the "real, scalar" t-component isn't spatialized,
but it's really just simple vectors of "x,y,z."
been completely muddied-up by "spacetime," "pants diagrams"
and so on, although it is easy to picture it with quaternions,
because the "real, scalar" t-component isn't spatialized,
but it's really just simple vectors of "x,y,z."
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 19, 2011, 9:36:19 PM12/19/11
to
... but, just answer the question,
O Great Nude Scientist,
What is the maximum speed of the wind,
say at sealevel?
anyone else can answer this, two, if
anyone else has bothered to read this ****.
O Great Nude Scientist,
What is the maximum speed of the wind,
say at sealevel?
anyone else can answer this, two, if
anyone else has bothered to read this ****.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 19, 2011, 10:36:50 PM12/19/11
to
and please, please, stop taking yourself so seriously, and
I will stop abusing my time so foolishly, as well.
and, try to read some classical literature,
both in English and your mother's & daddy's tongue;
just *try* it, don't look for a *curriculum*
in either case, just go with what interests you.
I will stop abusing my time so foolishly, as well.
and, try to read some classical literature,
both in English and your mother's & daddy's tongue;
just *try* it, don't look for a *curriculum*
in either case, just go with what interests you.
NoEinstein
Dec 20, 2011, 2:56:19 PM12/20/11
to
On Dec 19, 10:36 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > say at sealevel?- Hide quoted text -
follows is apt for most who have looked at our exchanges.
__________
if I only had a brain
a heart
the nerve.
you have only shown that you are completely confused
with "F = ma = mv = momentum = KE," in supposing that
you have disproven Liebniz's *vis viva*; if
you really believe that, then
why don't you try to convince any other structural engineer
of this Nude Science, instead of a self-admitted amateur?
there is no where, there, as should be apparent
from the fact that no-one else is bothering
to argue with you; they're leaving it to me, and
I an dumb enough to bother with it.
I mean, which mad scientists are you referring to,
that don't know the meaning of "equals?..." (anyway,
inequalities are more important.) well, I really doubt
that your structural dngineering had to deal
with dynamic loadings, as opposed to static ones, since
the uniform code tends to make that unnecessary;
does it not?
> As a major in structural design, I did far more
> "real world" math than any physics PhD would have to. Simple
> rationales like my showing that KE = 1/2 mv^2 and E = mc^2/beta
> violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy-mass, negate the
> necessity of doing any "math" more complicated than realizing that
> BOTH sides of any energy equation must be EQUAL!
__________
Dear 1tree: 95% of “the readers” tend to be those who are reserved
about making public comments. I suspect that there are, also, among
that number a lot of teachers and “scientists” in academia who could
loose there jobs if it is discovered that they might be embracing one
IOTA of my New Science. Academia requires a religious-level adherence
to the crap that the Jew-published textbooks teach. I call it crap,
because the publishers make the most money by having textbooks get
thicker. They would make LESS money if they weeded-out the 90 plus
percent of deadwood. Universities know that the deadwood makes
courses… “hard” and will cause the naïve to feel that they have
accomplished something for having graduated from any God damned
university at all. Take out the deadwood, and a bachelors degree
should be achievable within 1.5 years. SCREW college sports! The
latter is no excuse for THE most wasteful of human endeavors:
“Higher” (lower!) education!!!
You err, big time, if you suppose that what I know about statics and
dynamics is the result of education. Instead, what I know, and what
is included in my New Science is what I figured-out, by myself, once I
realized that neither the textbook writers, nor the professors, knew
(know) what-the-hell they were (are) doing! I am the world’s foremost
authority on anything to do with mechanics. There is little use in my
trying to get you to understand that energy IN must equal energy OUT!
I am, however, heartened that you have for the first time acknowledged
your amateur status on these groups.
For the past few months, Google has failed to tally the number of
readers of my posts—which had approached 4K per week. That could well
be by design on their part, because I was probably getting more
readers than any other person on sci.physics. The laughable
moderators for Google on, say, sci.physics.research don’t like being
shown to be FOOLS any more that the airheads in academia do. I am an
iconoclast, waiting for the ivory towers to fall; and I love that
role!
If 1tree is tiring of vainly trying to converse with me, I invite any
still-thinking person—from academia or not—to fill-in the space and
time. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: 1tree made the following direct email to me. My reply that
> - Show quoted text -
follows is apt for most who have looked at our exchanges.
__________
if I only had a brain
a heart
the nerve.
you have only shown that you are completely confused
with "F = ma = mv = momentum = KE," in supposing that
you have disproven Liebniz's *vis viva*; if
you really believe that, then
why don't you try to convince any other structural engineer
of this Nude Science, instead of a self-admitted amateur?
there is no where, there, as should be apparent
from the fact that no-one else is bothering
to argue with you; they're leaving it to me, and
I an dumb enough to bother with it.
I mean, which mad scientists are you referring to,
that don't know the meaning of "equals?..." (anyway,
inequalities are more important.) well, I really doubt
that your structural dngineering had to deal
with dynamic loadings, as opposed to static ones, since
the uniform code tends to make that unnecessary;
does it not?
> As a major in structural design, I did far more
> "real world" math than any physics PhD would have to. Simple
> rationales like my showing that KE = 1/2 mv^2 and E = mc^2/beta
> violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy-mass, negate the
> necessity of doing any "math" more complicated than realizing that
> BOTH sides of any energy equation must be EQUAL!
Dear 1tree: 95% of “the readers” tend to be those who are reserved
about making public comments. I suspect that there are, also, among
that number a lot of teachers and “scientists” in academia who could
loose there jobs if it is discovered that they might be embracing one
IOTA of my New Science. Academia requires a religious-level adherence
to the crap that the Jew-published textbooks teach. I call it crap,
because the publishers make the most money by having textbooks get
thicker. They would make LESS money if they weeded-out the 90 plus
percent of deadwood. Universities know that the deadwood makes
courses… “hard” and will cause the naïve to feel that they have
accomplished something for having graduated from any God damned
university at all. Take out the deadwood, and a bachelors degree
should be achievable within 1.5 years. SCREW college sports! The
latter is no excuse for THE most wasteful of human endeavors:
“Higher” (lower!) education!!!
You err, big time, if you suppose that what I know about statics and
dynamics is the result of education. Instead, what I know, and what
is included in my New Science is what I figured-out, by myself, once I
realized that neither the textbook writers, nor the professors, knew
(know) what-the-hell they were (are) doing! I am the world’s foremost
authority on anything to do with mechanics. There is little use in my
trying to get you to understand that energy IN must equal energy OUT!
I am, however, heartened that you have for the first time acknowledged
your amateur status on these groups.
For the past few months, Google has failed to tally the number of
readers of my posts—which had approached 4K per week. That could well
be by design on their part, because I was probably getting more
readers than any other person on sci.physics. The laughable
moderators for Google on, say, sci.physics.research don’t like being
shown to be FOOLS any more that the airheads in academia do. I am an
iconoclast, waiting for the ivory towers to fall; and I love that
role!
If 1tree is tiring of vainly trying to converse with me, I invite any
still-thinking person—from academia or not—to fill-in the space and
time. — NoEinstein —
palsing
Dec 20, 2011, 7:23:56 PM12/20/11
to
On Dec 19, 3:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> ...I have
single mathematical equation.
Good luck.
\Paul A
> ...I have
> figured out how the Universe works without have to resort to solving a
> single mathematical equation! — NoEinstein —
OK, so show us the solution to the n-body problem without solving a
> single mathematical equation! — NoEinstein —
single mathematical equation.
Good luck.
\Paul A
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 21, 2011, 9:47:59 PM12/21/11
to
yes, he won't even try to answer the question,
What is the maximum speed of wind at sealevel?... (and,
I don't need a number; just a physical explanation.)
oh, well; some times, you just have to "leave it,
well-enough, alone." some folks like the smell
of their ****. so badly, they cannot really talk about it.
> > I have configured how Universe works without solving an equation!
incidentally, if he could get a tiny black hole
on the end of hook, that'd be quite a 3-body problem.
What is the maximum speed of wind at sealevel?... (and,
I don't need a number; just a physical explanation.)
oh, well; some times, you just have to "leave it,
well-enough, alone." some folks like the smell
of their ****. so badly, they cannot really talk about it.
> > I have configured how Universe works without solving an equation!
incidentally, if he could get a tiny black hole
on the end of hook, that'd be quite a 3-body problem.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Dec 21, 2011, 11:08:30 PM12/21/11
to
a finding of the last ten years, is that
Universe has about an order of magnitude more dihydrogen
between the stars, than ionic hydrogen;
but such binary molecules have no electric dipole, so
they had to use some other means to see the dihydrogen,
like Raman spectroscopy -- I guess.
Universe has about an order of magnitude more dihydrogen
between the stars, than ionic hydrogen;
but such binary molecules have no electric dipole, so
they had to use some other means to see the dihydrogen,
like Raman spectroscopy -- I guess.
NoEinstein
Dec 22, 2011, 9:10:45 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 19, 7:23 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > names for simple SPACE unduly complicates things, don't you think?- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: So, on that we agree! — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Dec 22, 2011, 9:18:07 PM12/22/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: I'm an author, I don't have time to read a word from others.
> - Show quoted text -
— NE —
NoEinstein
Dec 22, 2011, 9:16:26 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 19, 9:36 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: What is the maximum intensity of an itch? If you or anyone
cares, the RECORDED maximum speed is probably shown in archives, or
perhaps, in Information Please. It would be either a tornado,
hurricane, typhoon or waterspout. — NE —
wrote:
cares, the RECORDED maximum speed is probably shown in archives, or
perhaps, in Information Please. It would be either a tornado,
hurricane, typhoon or waterspout. — NE —
NoEinstein
Dec 22, 2011, 9:22:20 PM12/22/11
to
out of the science. I don't have time to play "technician" to an
airhead like you! — NE —
NoEinstein
Dec 22, 2011, 9:29:55 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 21, 11:08 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > readers of my posts—which had approached 4K per week.- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: ...if you say so. — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Dec 22, 2011, 9:28:35 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 21, 9:47 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: Black holes slowly sublimate the ether back into space. As
the size keeps getting smaller, I doubt it there is any material of a
"fish hook" that could penetrate. And if there was, you'd risk
untangling the compacted ether with star-blasting potential. LEAVE
black holes alone! — NE —
wrote:
the size keeps getting smaller, I doubt it there is any material of a
"fish hook" that could penetrate. And if there was, you'd risk
untangling the compacted ether with star-blasting potential. LEAVE
black holes alone! — NE —
palsing
Dec 22, 2011, 10:16:12 PM12/22/11
to
lips...
NoEinstein
Dec 26, 2011, 7:33:41 PM12/26/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear palsing: And your reply relative to science is? Ha, ha, HA!
> - Show quoted text -
Palsing, the airhead, strikes out yet again. There is SO much
jealousy on this news group. Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
P. S.: I hope all of you readers have a healthy and happy New Year!
palsing
Dec 27, 2011, 12:13:22 PM12/27/11
to
side can be less than infinity and the other greater than infinity,
that's the one I like the best!
NoEinstein
Dec 28, 2011, 9:27:56 PM12/28/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear palsing: You must have flunked math where it was said: In the
> - Show quoted text -
parabola, y = x^2, when x increases finitely, y will APPROACH
infinity. Nowhere have I ever implied that infinity is ever reached or
exceeded. In E = mc^2 / beta, when the velocity reaches c, the "E" =
infinity. Einstein said that, not yours truly. What I've said is
that NO ENERGY EQUATION CAN BE EXPONENTIAL. And no idiotic repetition
of some "What is infinite?" argument has any relevantcy in REAL
science at all. — NoEinstein —
palsing
Dec 29, 2011, 12:45:24 AM12/29/11
to
On Dec 28, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> ...In the
> Nowhere have I ever implied that infinity is ever reached or
> exceeded.
Well, you not only implied it, you said it, as plain as day. I suggest
you go back in this very lengthy post to your statement made on
November 7th, where you clearly stated...
> "...Then you don't know that y = x^2 has 'y' becoming infinite while the x is still finite."
If you think that "becoming infinite" is the same thing as
"approaching infinity", well, you still have an awful lot to learn
about the concept. You clearly said that y becomes infinite while x
doesn't, and you were incorrect.
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you
realize you're wrong, does it...
\Paul A
> ...In the
> parabola, y = x^2, when x increases finitely, y will APPROACH
> infinity.
Well, that's what you are saying now...
> infinity.
> Nowhere have I ever implied that infinity is ever reached or
> exceeded.
you go back in this very lengthy post to your statement made on
November 7th, where you clearly stated...
> "...Then you don't know that y = x^2 has 'y' becoming infinite while the x is still finite."
If you think that "becoming infinite" is the same thing as
"approaching infinity", well, you still have an awful lot to learn
about the concept. You clearly said that y becomes infinite while x
doesn't, and you were incorrect.
Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you
realize you're wrong, does it...
\Paul A
nouseforaname
Dec 31, 2011, 5:13:59 PM12/31/11
to
I wasn't asking, What are the largest windspeeds yet measured;
just what is the (obvious) theoretical upper bound?
as for black holes,
those were brought in by your antihero,
herr doktor-professor Einstein;
a lot of folks in mainstrewam physics departments believe
in them!
anyway, teh thing about windspeed, I realized on my own,
although it is probably in some book "in the exercises."
just what is the (obvious) theoretical upper bound?
as for black holes,
those were brought in by your antihero,
herr doktor-professor Einstein;
a lot of folks in mainstrewam physics departments believe
in them!
anyway, teh thing about windspeed, I realized on my own,
although it is probably in some book "in the exercises."
nouseforaname
Dec 31, 2011, 5:25:00 PM12/31/11
to
nouseforaname
Dec 31, 2011, 5:35:18 PM12/31/11
to
you said it, Palsing. it's easy to see that
the limit of the speed of electromagnetism in the "medium
of space," consisting as it does
of electrons & nucleii, like the rest of Universe,
is completely analogous to the limit on the speed
of the wind (say, at sealevel) -- so,
what is the maximum windspeed?
make a stab at it, because Neinstein99 will not, apparently
because it interferes with his toy theory.
the fact that mainstream Einsteinmania insists that
the "photon" is a self-perpetuating rock of light,
of no mass nor momentum, is of no consequence,
other than being a block to comprehemnsion.
although, of course, this silly ideal never applies
to any other medium, such as the air, or water,
or rock, for any wavelength of lightwaves.
the limit of the speed of electromagnetism in the "medium
of space," consisting as it does
of electrons & nucleii, like the rest of Universe,
is completely analogous to the limit on the speed
of the wind (say, at sealevel) -- so,
what is the maximum windspeed?
make a stab at it, because Neinstein99 will not, apparently
because it interferes with his toy theory.
the fact that mainstream Einsteinmania insists that
the "photon" is a self-perpetuating rock of light,
of no mass nor momentum, is of no consequence,
other than being a block to comprehemnsion.
although, of course, this silly ideal never applies
to any other medium, such as the air, or water,
or rock, for any wavelength of lightwaves.
Androcles
Dec 31, 2011, 7:48:28 PM12/31/11
to
"nouseforacunt" <grega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9a44130-1f6b-4874...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
|I wasn't asking, What are the largest windspeeds yet measured;
| just what is the (obvious) theoretical upper bound?
|
| as for black holes,
| those were brought in by your antihero,
| herr doktor-professor Einstein;
| a lot of folks in mainstrewam physics departments believe
| in them!
|
What's a "mainstrewam" when it's not a fuckup?
| just what is the (obvious) theoretical upper bound?
|
| as for black holes,
| those were brought in by your antihero,
| herr doktor-professor Einstein;
| a lot of folks in mainstrewam physics departments believe
| in them!
|
I don't believe in mainstrewams.
| anyway, teh
Anyway you want it, what's a "teh" when it's not a fuckup, you drunken
shithead?
I don't believe in tehs.
mike3
Dec 31, 2011, 10:36:40 PM12/31/11
to
(and, well,
ANYONE who uses insults): Insults are NOT arguments, they are
WORTHLESS
GARBAGE!
NoEinstein
Jan 2, 2012, 6:36:26 AM1/2/12
to
the semantics of what is infinite. Discuss science or I will declare
you to be a persona non grata. You are already a persona non BRAIN.
— NE —
NoEinstein
Jan 2, 2012, 6:40:53 AM1/2/12
to
because you dream up another handle. I've never said Black Holes
don't exist. I simply clarified that BHs have ZERO gravity——Stephen
Hawking not withstanding. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jan 2, 2012, 6:51:16 AM1/2/12
to
On Dec 31 2011, 7:48 pm, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Jan.2012>
wrote:
> "nouseforacunt" <gregaude...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Androcles, like good computer programs, works mostly in the
background. Then, just when you need him... BAM! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> "nouseforacunt" <gregaude...@gmail.com> wrote in message
background. Then, just when you need him... BAM! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jan 2, 2012, 6:47:46 AM1/2/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear 1tree: The only wind speed that should concern you is that of
> - Show quoted text -
what emits from your bottom. Speculation about numbers has next to
nothing to do with science, just as math has next to nothing to do
with true science. — NE —
NoEinstein
Jan 2, 2012, 6:59:03 AM1/2/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Mike 3, 4, and etc. Those who can't discuss science pop out of
> - Show quoted text -
the woodwork (like cockroaches) and complain about those who CAN
discuss science. That is a cowardly variation of kill the messenger.
For your information, in the six years that I have been posting on
these groups, not a single person has successfully refuted one IOTA of
my New Science. If an airhead like you believes that you can, give it
your best shot. Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
palsing
Jan 2, 2012, 5:21:09 PM1/2/12
to
NoEinstein
Jan 5, 2012, 5:15:09 PM1/5/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Palsing: How about these '+new posts'; its all about science, and is
> - Show quoted text -
well-explained! — NoEinstein —
P. S.: palsing couldn't discuss science if his life depended on it.
Ha, ha, HA!
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...
What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082ccdb7b1bf67/0eb5a96f57493f20?lnk=raot
Busting MythBusters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e95660ecf69048d/ae6c137610ee3437?hl=en#ae6c137610ee3437
Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7f59b900f24e881/38262930c6655db1?hl=en#38262930c6655db1
Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/85646434c6d7cd3b/fa38761134ee8408?hl=en#fa38761134ee8408
Dropping Coriolis like a feather.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/182d6fbe7e70b75f/21c92e2427fd7e98?hl=en#21c92e2427fd7e98
Busting MythBusters… again.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/b9e0c340772c003f?hl=en
SRT Demands Energy in Amounts that Aren’t Available.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/b1e62f3e355fb626?hl=en#
The Spaghetti-fication of the Brains of the Naïve.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f254a0888104090c?hl=en
Mythbusters’ Merry-go-round
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/6105670c690f3987/720f7f9871f38c1c?hl=en#720f7f9871f38c1c
True Science is hampered by the culture of stupidity.
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4239b858b10cb1e4?hl=en#
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 6, 2012, 5:32:50 PM1/6/12
to
Hawking, Einstein and Newton,
the three shibboleths of the Holodeck Exploratoriacs,
teh alleged sceince of the 24th cce.
although black holes were discussed before Einstein,
I don't know that they were taken to be real,
before his use of the math ... not that
it was all, his.
I do not believfe in them, personally;
there is no experimental evidence to dis/confirm them.
> Hawking not withstanding.
the three shibboleths of the Holodeck Exploratoriacs,
teh alleged sceince of the 24th cce.
although black holes were discussed before Einstein,
I don't know that they were taken to be real,
before his use of the math ... not that
it was all, his.
I do not believfe in them, personally;
there is no experimental evidence to dis/confirm them.
> Hawking not withstanding.
NoEinstein
Jan 7, 2012, 7:12:17 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 6, 5:32 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > Hawking not withstanding.- Hide quoted text -
Remember his cosmological constant? That has matter REPELLING
matter. HA! He also accepted that all of the energy-mass of the
Universe can be compressed by gravity into a singularity as small as a
proton. HA! Those who in any way use Einstein as a point of argument
for anything other than his being a pipe smoking, Jewish MORON, are
battier than Einstein! At least he was... "smart enough" to say: "If
any Earth based device can ever detect the velocity of the Earth in
the Cosmos, then, my theories will have been disproved." NOTE: My own
X, Y, and Z interferometer, with the control light course being on the
Z axis of apparatus rotation, does the later quite well! Sorry,
Einstein! Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Einstein accepted the Big Bang and the expanding Universe.
> - Show quoted text -
Remember his cosmological constant? That has matter REPELLING
matter. HA! He also accepted that all of the energy-mass of the
Universe can be compressed by gravity into a singularity as small as a
proton. HA! Those who in any way use Einstein as a point of argument
for anything other than his being a pipe smoking, Jewish MORON, are
battier than Einstein! At least he was... "smart enough" to say: "If
any Earth based device can ever detect the velocity of the Earth in
the Cosmos, then, my theories will have been disproved." NOTE: My own
X, Y, and Z interferometer, with the control light course being on the
Z axis of apparatus rotation, does the later quite well! Sorry,
Einstein! Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 11, 2012, 9:38:55 PM1/11/12
to
publish and/or perish, dood; better yet,
build the apparatus, firstly (as opposed
to berating us with your alleged comprehension
of Universe).
yes, all of that stuff that you mention,
goes under the general heading of "the Department
of Einsteinmania, The Musical (Department)."
just get into the holodeck & see that ****,
or watch the God-am "Star Trek, The Movie" movie.
> My X, Y, and Z interferometer,
it is untrue that there need to be three observers,
since you only "need" the guy in the hold of the boat, and
the guy on the dock, either of whom could
have been Galileo. true, one might say,
the "writer of the treatise on relativity,
could be considered to be the 3rd guy," and
that's pretty cool.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Modern_stronomy.pdf
thus:
the "paradox" is nothing
but a pedagogical tool, akin to Zeno's,
which are really about comensurability and
contiunuum "versus" descretum.
however, I am still of the opinion that
Koobee-doo did find a valid criticism
of the standard write-up of the TP, that is that
it seems that with respect to the Doppler-Fizeau shift
of light, as it seems to appear in the gedanken,
there is no apparent difference "seen
in the thought experiment" between the accelerating and
the non-accelerating fraternal or identical or
cloned or merely two kids, that look quite a bit-
alike each other, and maybe play dress-up.
of course, though, since no-one has ever
-- outside of AM radio "war of the worlds" hype --
ever actually done this kind of thing,
it could just be a gault of the fedanken,
which could be remedied, in order
to save the rest of the vast experimental proof
of the phenomenon, if one feels the need to do that.
> > The results of the twin paradox are not a hypothesis;
build the apparatus, firstly (as opposed
to berating us with your alleged comprehension
of Universe).
yes, all of that stuff that you mention,
goes under the general heading of "the Department
of Einsteinmania, The Musical (Department)."
just get into the holodeck & see that ****,
or watch the God-am "Star Trek, The Movie" movie.
> My X, Y, and Z interferometer,
> with the control light course being
> on the Z axis of apparatus rotation,
thus:
> on the Z axis of apparatus rotation,
it is untrue that there need to be three observers,
since you only "need" the guy in the hold of the boat, and
the guy on the dock, either of whom could
have been Galileo. true, one might say,
the "writer of the treatise on relativity,
could be considered to be the 3rd guy," and
that's pretty cool.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Modern_stronomy.pdf
thus:
the "paradox" is nothing
but a pedagogical tool, akin to Zeno's,
which are really about comensurability and
contiunuum "versus" descretum.
however, I am still of the opinion that
Koobee-doo did find a valid criticism
of the standard write-up of the TP, that is that
it seems that with respect to the Doppler-Fizeau shift
of light, as it seems to appear in the gedanken,
there is no apparent difference "seen
in the thought experiment" between the accelerating and
the non-accelerating fraternal or identical or
cloned or merely two kids, that look quite a bit-
alike each other, and maybe play dress-up.
of course, though, since no-one has ever
-- outside of AM radio "war of the worlds" hype --
ever actually done this kind of thing,
it could just be a gault of the fedanken,
which could be remedied, in order
to save the rest of the vast experimental proof
of the phenomenon, if one feels the need to do that.
> > The results of the twin paradox are not a hypothesis;
NoEinstein
Jan 12, 2012, 8:02:10 AM1/12/12
to
On Jan 11, 9:38 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
every day or so on this news group. Can't you comprehend? Based on
your continued wandering thoughts, apparently you are hitting the
bottle. When you get off-the-wagon, let me hear. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> publish and/or perish, dood; better yet,
> build the apparatus, firstly (as opposed
> to berating us with your alleged comprehension
> of Universe).
>
> yes, all of that stuff that you mention,
> goes under the general heading of "the Department
> of Einsteinmania, The Musical (Department)."
>
> just get into the holodeck & see that ****,
> or watch the God-am "Star Trek, The Movie" movie.
>
> > My X, Y, and Z interferometer,
> > with the control light course being
> > on the Z axis of apparatus rotation,
>
> thus:
> it is untrue that there need to be three observers,
> since you only "need" the guy in the hold of the boat, and
> the guy on the dock, either of whom could
> have been Galileo. true, one might say,
> the "writer of the treatise on relativity,
> could be considered to be the 3rd guy," and
> that's pretty cool.http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Modern_stronomy...
> build the apparatus, firstly (as opposed
> to berating us with your alleged comprehension
> of Universe).
>
> yes, all of that stuff that you mention,
> goes under the general heading of "the Department
> of Einsteinmania, The Musical (Department)."
>
> just get into the holodeck & see that ****,
> or watch the God-am "Star Trek, The Movie" movie.
>
> > My X, Y, and Z interferometer,
> > with the control light course being
> > on the Z axis of apparatus rotation,
>
> thus:
> it is untrue that there need to be three observers,
> since you only "need" the guy in the hold of the boat, and
> the guy on the dock, either of whom could
> have been Galileo. true, one might say,
> the "writer of the treatise on relativity,
> could be considered to be the 3rd guy," and
>
> thus:
> the "paradox" is nothing
> but a pedagogical tool, akin to Zeno's,
> which are really about comensurability and
> contiunuum "versus" descretum.
>
> however, I am still of the opinion that
> Koobee-doo did find a valid criticism
> of the standard write-up of the TP, that is that
> it seems that with respect to the Doppler-Fizeau shift
> of light, as it seems to appear in the gedanken,
> there is no apparent difference "seen
> in the thought experiment" between the accelerating and
> the non-accelerating fraternal or identical or
> cloned or merely two kids, that look quite a bit-
> alike each other, and maybe play dress-up.
>
> of course, though, since no-one has ever
> -- outside of AM radio "war of the worlds" hype --
> ever actually done this kind of thing,
> it could just be a gault of the fedanken,
> which could be remedied, in order
> to save the rest of the vast experimental proof
> of the phenomenon, if one feels the need to do that.
>
>
>
> > > The results of the twin paradox are not a hypothesis;- Hide quoted text -
> thus:
> the "paradox" is nothing
> but a pedagogical tool, akin to Zeno's,
> which are really about comensurability and
> contiunuum "versus" descretum.
>
> however, I am still of the opinion that
> Koobee-doo did find a valid criticism
> of the standard write-up of the TP, that is that
> it seems that with respect to the Doppler-Fizeau shift
> of light, as it seems to appear in the gedanken,
> there is no apparent difference "seen
> in the thought experiment" between the accelerating and
> the non-accelerating fraternal or identical or
> cloned or merely two kids, that look quite a bit-
> alike each other, and maybe play dress-up.
>
> of course, though, since no-one has ever
> -- outside of AM radio "war of the worlds" hype --
> ever actually done this kind of thing,
> it could just be a gault of the fedanken,
> which could be remedied, in order
> to save the rest of the vast experimental proof
> of the phenomenon, if one feels the need to do that.
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear 1tree: To whom are you talking? I 'publish' my New Science
> - Show quoted text -
every day or so on this news group. Can't you comprehend? Based on
your continued wandering thoughts, apparently you are hitting the
bottle. When you get off-the-wagon, let me hear. — NoEinstein —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 12, 2012, 11:50:29 PM1/12/12
to
cannot you read, I am the only one,
who is bothering with your *soi-dissant* theory
of every thing -- because you say, "it is, So, because
I just said, 'it *is*, So, and I do believe that!'?"
anyway, you are the one who buys into the Einsteinmania
of black holes, not me; Einstein did all kinds
of important stuff, just not everything was bound
to be perfectly correct.
so, methinks perhaps you rely too much
upon "grammar-checking software," which unfortunately
cannot catch such simple errors as using "edit"
for "audit" -- and that is really humorous,
from an etymological vantage.
really, you are just a bore. I already wasted enough time,
today, on alt.global-warming,
which seems to be nothing but a bunch
of self-immolating Denierists and Confirmerists,
of hwat is really just a)
computerized simulacra, and b)
extre,mly selective reporting about glaciers e.g. -- but
teh cliamte is changing with great rapidity!
who is bothering with your *soi-dissant* theory
of every thing -- because you say, "it is, So, because
I just said, 'it *is*, So, and I do believe that!'?"
anyway, you are the one who buys into the Einsteinmania
of black holes, not me; Einstein did all kinds
of important stuff, just not everything was bound
to be perfectly correct.
so, methinks perhaps you rely too much
upon "grammar-checking software," which unfortunately
cannot catch such simple errors as using "edit"
for "audit" -- and that is really humorous,
from an etymological vantage.
really, you are just a bore. I already wasted enough time,
today, on alt.global-warming,
which seems to be nothing but a bunch
of self-immolating Denierists and Confirmerists,
of hwat is really just a)
computerized simulacra, and b)
extre,mly selective reporting about glaciers e.g. -- but
teh cliamte is changing with great rapidity!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 12, 2012, 11:57:24 PM1/12/12
to
write. I also "publish my little thoughts
on stuff taht interests me," but I do it
in a different manner than prescribed
by "netiquette," the silly ideal of massively re-
quoting everything that is already in the thread,
immediately abovesville ... like we were all investors
in the makers of memory chips.
like, the following is what I have just posted
in a few items of alt.global-warming;
you are not expected to read any of it;
it is just "for the record,
for any who would like to bother with it."
thus:
because, even if there happened to be a period
of cyclical glaciation, like the current Quaternary Period,
exactly a million or a billion YA,
they were probably very different; tempis fugit.
the fact that Morner works in this utterly mainstream field
of endeavor, seems to ellude those of you who insist
upon denying or confirming a concensus of an equally narrow field,
climatology (viz, _A Vast Machine_, MIT Press 2011 .-)
Maldives islands are neither sinking, on their own,
nor being inundated by "global" warming,
according to its own tide guages.
> Why not compare to a million years ago, or a billion?
thus:
it seems that the vast work of submarine vulcanism
at the midocean rifts is very efficiently absorbed
by the anoxic biota -- perhaps, of course,
the origin of life on eaaarth. however,
I have never seen any mainstream quantification of Freons
enitted by volcanoes, such as the very active Mt. Erebus
in Antartcitca; why, is that?
> "And still say the evidence is volcanoes are a couple of orders of
> magnitude below human activities in CO2 production. "
thus:
Kepler did all of the legwork, with Brahe;
Newton merely algebraized his three orbital constraints, and
he actually stole it from Hooke, the prior president
of the Royal Society, and burnt his portraits
after he became the president, where he personally authored
the main political attack on Liebniz,
from whom we get the *vis viva* and so on;
"on the shoulders of giants" is likely a joke about Hooke's dwarfism.
(Fig Newton is truly the Second (secular) Church of England.)
thus:
hasn't the massive loss of humous and
erosion also contributed to any of that .003m?
> However this drop is only temporary as
> floodwater must eventually flow back into the sea.
thus:
go with Morner's analysis,
published in the Larouchiac "general science magazine,"
which is quite a lot better than (say) *Scienterrific Amurican;" if
you hate Lyn, go ahead & vent about it, here.
(the article is on http://21stcenturysciencetech.com [*].)
* formerly known as *Fusion*,
before an illegal chapter 13 forced bankruptcy
of the three LaRouchiac publishing entities,
later declared a "fraud upon the court"
by the original judge.
on stuff taht interests me," but I do it
in a different manner than prescribed
by "netiquette," the silly ideal of massively re-
quoting everything that is already in the thread,
immediately abovesville ... like we were all investors
in the makers of memory chips.
like, the following is what I have just posted
in a few items of alt.global-warming;
you are not expected to read any of it;
it is just "for the record,
for any who would like to bother with it."
thus:
because, even if there happened to be a period
of cyclical glaciation, like the current Quaternary Period,
exactly a million or a billion YA,
they were probably very different; tempis fugit.
the fact that Morner works in this utterly mainstream field
of endeavor, seems to ellude those of you who insist
upon denying or confirming a concensus of an equally narrow field,
climatology (viz, _A Vast Machine_, MIT Press 2011 .-)
Maldives islands are neither sinking, on their own,
nor being inundated by "global" warming,
according to its own tide guages.
> Why not compare to a million years ago, or a billion?
thus:
it seems that the vast work of submarine vulcanism
at the midocean rifts is very efficiently absorbed
by the anoxic biota -- perhaps, of course,
the origin of life on eaaarth. however,
I have never seen any mainstream quantification of Freons
enitted by volcanoes, such as the very active Mt. Erebus
in Antartcitca; why, is that?
> "And still say the evidence is volcanoes are a couple of orders of
> magnitude below human activities in CO2 production. "
thus:
Kepler did all of the legwork, with Brahe;
Newton merely algebraized his three orbital constraints, and
he actually stole it from Hooke, the prior president
of the Royal Society, and burnt his portraits
after he became the president, where he personally authored
the main political attack on Liebniz,
from whom we get the *vis viva* and so on;
"on the shoulders of giants" is likely a joke about Hooke's dwarfism.
(Fig Newton is truly the Second (secular) Church of England.)
thus:
hasn't the massive loss of humous and
erosion also contributed to any of that .003m?
> However this drop is only temporary as
> floodwater must eventually flow back into the sea.
thus:
go with Morner's analysis,
published in the Larouchiac "general science magazine,"
which is quite a lot better than (say) *Scienterrific Amurican;" if
you hate Lyn, go ahead & vent about it, here.
(the article is on http://21stcenturysciencetech.com [*].)
* formerly known as *Fusion*,
before an illegal chapter 13 forced bankruptcy
of the three LaRouchiac publishing entities,
later declared a "fraud upon the court"
by the original judge.
NoEinstein
Jan 14, 2012, 6:22:29 PM1/14/12
to
On Jan 12, 11:57 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> (the article is onhttp://21stcenturysciencetech.com[*].)
before his eyes. Those who can see his wanderings, know that his end
must be near... So sad. — NE —
wrote:
>
> * formerly known as *Fusion*,
> before an illegal chapter 13 forced bankruptcy
> of the three LaRouchiac publishing entities,
> later declared a "fraud upon the court"
> by the original judge.
Folks: It is as though 1tree's entire science life keeps flashing
> * formerly known as *Fusion*,
> before an illegal chapter 13 forced bankruptcy
> of the three LaRouchiac publishing entities,
> later declared a "fraud upon the court"
> by the original judge.
before his eyes. Those who can see his wanderings, know that his end
must be near... So sad. — NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 17, 2012, 8:43:01 PM1/17/12
to
typical of your pro-hominemaniacal BS,
when asked about your so-called Theory of It All,
"and more!"
anyone who actually does any science,
is well-aware that he does not know everything, and
so, he will offer hypotheses as to "what is **."
as for yourself,
you appear not to quite comprehend the English typing;
good look with your further attempts.
when asked about your so-called Theory of It All,
"and more!"
anyone who actually does any science,
is well-aware that he does not know everything, and
so, he will offer hypotheses as to "what is **."
as for yourself,
you appear not to quite comprehend the English typing;
good look with your further attempts.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 17, 2012, 8:46:57 PM1/17/12
to
anyway, if you believe in "black holes,"
you are officailly an Einsteiniac, believeing that
gravity is th sole force that acts
over long distances ... even though,
there is no accepted theory of this force per se.
and, no-one in these groups will question it,
either, that I've noticed; so,
you are in that (good or bad) company.
thus:
yeah, the *causes* of increased CO2 are the true problem,
viz deforestation as you mention, making
for most effects upon the #1 glass house gas, H2O. but,
inasmuch as the CO2 does increase the differentials
of the weather, from the equator to the poles, no,
it is not "entirely beneficial."
anyway, the spectrun of water vaopr is *much* larger.
> Realistic CO2 absorption spectrum is here:
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/angstrom1900/index.html
you are officailly an Einsteiniac, believeing that
gravity is th sole force that acts
over long distances ... even though,
there is no accepted theory of this force per se.
and, no-one in these groups will question it,
either, that I've noticed; so,
you are in that (good or bad) company.
thus:
yeah, the *causes* of increased CO2 are the true problem,
viz deforestation as you mention, making
for most effects upon the #1 glass house gas, H2O. but,
inasmuch as the CO2 does increase the differentials
of the weather, from the equator to the poles, no,
it is not "entirely beneficial."
anyway, the spectrun of water vaopr is *much* larger.
> Realistic CO2 absorption spectrum is here:
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/angstrom1900/index.html
micro...@hotmail.com
Jan 17, 2012, 8:51:15 PM1/17/12
to
On Jan 17, 5:46 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Limited gravity has maximum inner strength and a boundary of the
field.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
wrote:
field.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
NoEinstein
Jan 19, 2012, 7:10:36 PM1/19/12
to
On Jan 17, 8:43 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
constructed, and successfully tested an under $1,000 X, Y and Z
interferometer that disproves Einstein's Theory of Relativity? And
have you ever designed and successfully tested an under $40.00, same-
size-different-mass dropped object (into soft clay) experiment that
easily disproves Coriolis's 1830 equation for kinetic energy, KE = ½
mv^2? Such has STUPIDLY been accepted by airhead physicists for 182
years and counting. And have you found the FLAW in Newton's Law of
Universal Gravitation (not knowing that hot objects have more gravity
than colder objects)? How about my disproving the Big Bang and the
expanding Universe? Nobel Prizes in Physics are regularly given to
those who "advance" anything supposed by Einstein, the MORON. How
about my proving that solar SAILS can’t push? A satellite based on
the "tacking" principle is indeed headed toward the Sun. But that
isn't due to "tacking", it is due to the gravitational PULL of the Sun
for any object that is out there, long enough. And I figured out, by
REASON, that the Universe is bounded by a meniscus that holds in the
ether. Note: Just this week, I reasoned that the magnetic WINDS (not
air currents) of IOTAs are like unbroken threads that build a thicker
meniscus over ages and ages. As early as before Einstein there was
discussion that light could pass out of the Universe, and lower the
total energy therein. Since that meniscus was likely the first
structure to be formed following creation, then, initially, the light
from the first stars could pass through. But eventually, as the
meniscus winds get thicker, photons will get slung around 180 degrees
by the magnetic lines of force, not unlike how light gets bent 90
degrees by a 45 degree right angle glass prism. The polar ether
around every atom in the glass latches onto the polar, passing photons
and slings those around at the glass to air juncture. Well, you get
the idea, readers. 1tree should stick to reading his Shakespeare and
leave the REAL science to me! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
> typical of your pro-hominemaniacal BS,
> when asked about your so-called Theory of It All,
> "and more!"
>
> anyone who actually does any science,
1tree: What "actual science" have YOU done? Have you ever designed,
> when asked about your so-called Theory of It All,
> "and more!"
>
> anyone who actually does any science,
constructed, and successfully tested an under $1,000 X, Y and Z
interferometer that disproves Einstein's Theory of Relativity? And
have you ever designed and successfully tested an under $40.00, same-
size-different-mass dropped object (into soft clay) experiment that
easily disproves Coriolis's 1830 equation for kinetic energy, KE = ½
mv^2? Such has STUPIDLY been accepted by airhead physicists for 182
years and counting. And have you found the FLAW in Newton's Law of
Universal Gravitation (not knowing that hot objects have more gravity
than colder objects)? How about my disproving the Big Bang and the
expanding Universe? Nobel Prizes in Physics are regularly given to
those who "advance" anything supposed by Einstein, the MORON. How
about my proving that solar SAILS can’t push? A satellite based on
the "tacking" principle is indeed headed toward the Sun. But that
isn't due to "tacking", it is due to the gravitational PULL of the Sun
for any object that is out there, long enough. And I figured out, by
REASON, that the Universe is bounded by a meniscus that holds in the
ether. Note: Just this week, I reasoned that the magnetic WINDS (not
air currents) of IOTAs are like unbroken threads that build a thicker
meniscus over ages and ages. As early as before Einstein there was
discussion that light could pass out of the Universe, and lower the
total energy therein. Since that meniscus was likely the first
structure to be formed following creation, then, initially, the light
from the first stars could pass through. But eventually, as the
meniscus winds get thicker, photons will get slung around 180 degrees
by the magnetic lines of force, not unlike how light gets bent 90
degrees by a 45 degree right angle glass prism. The polar ether
around every atom in the glass latches onto the polar, passing photons
and slings those around at the glass to air juncture. Well, you get
the idea, readers. 1tree should stick to reading his Shakespeare and
leave the REAL science to me! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jan 19, 2012, 7:15:01 PM1/19/12
to
On Jan 17, 8:46 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: I am the one who has DISPROVED that Black Holes have gravity.
Thus, I've disproved "super-massive" black holes. But plain black
holes are likely evaporating at the center of every galaxy.
Understand? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —
wrote:
Thus, I've disproved "super-massive" black holes. But plain black
holes are likely evaporating at the center of every galaxy.
Understand? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —
NoEinstein
Jan 19, 2012, 7:17:14 PM1/19/12
to
On Jan 17, 8:51 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Mitchell Raemsch; the prize- Hide quoted text -
a... "burp of the day" news group! — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Burt: Get off of the sauce! This a a science news group, not
> - Show quoted text -
a... "burp of the day" news group! — NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 19, 2012, 9:27:23 PM1/19/12
to
you have never answered criticisms of your clay-shots,
nor shown any comprehension of Liebniz's vis-viva,
when you alqways confound momentum & force & energy,
"my Nude Science says,
F = ma = mv = mvv = que sera -- what ever!"
no one can really say,
whether or not Universe is finite,
let-alone has a "meniscus" ... although
there should be a "leidenfrost effect"
between matter & antimatter regions,
per the Alfven cosmology (see Eric Lerner's
_The Big Bang Never Happenned to Me_.
> I reasoned that the magnetic WINDS (not
> air currents) of IOTAs are like unbroken threads that build a thicker
> meniscus over ages and ages. As early as before Einstein there was
> discussion that light could pass out of the Universe, and lower the
> total energy therein. Since that meniscus was likely the first
> structure to be formed following creation, then, initially, the light
> from the first stars could pass through. But eventually, as the
> meniscus winds get thicker, photons will get slung around 180 degrees
> by the magnetic lines of force, not unlike how light gets bent 90
> degrees by a 45 degree right angle glass prism. The polar ether
> around every atom in the glass latches onto the polar, passing photons
> and slings those around at the glass to air juncture.
thus:
kind of a chicken-egg/domesticated jungle foul dillema,
if any.... "dillema," well; the problem is with the misnomenclatura
of "global" warming, when insolation it utterly differential
from the equator to the poles.
thus:
I'm changing my handle to Anthoprocene Nocturnal Tweets;
as far as I know, no-one has bothered to model a glass house,
at a particular location (or lattitude, if only one "dimension" is
y'know).
thus:
nice rule of thumb.
> "Both deforestation and forest
> degradation from fire and logging reduce forest transpiration, which
> accounts for roughly a third of the moisture that forms precipitation
> over the Amazon basin."
thus:
any number of tidal gauges,
such as at Maldives. the revised header addresses also
the continued increase in height of GrIS and AnIS,
however small that may have to be.
nor shown any comprehension of Liebniz's vis-viva,
when you alqways confound momentum & force & energy,
"my Nude Science says,
F = ma = mv = mvv = que sera -- what ever!"
no one can really say,
whether or not Universe is finite,
let-alone has a "meniscus" ... although
there should be a "leidenfrost effect"
between matter & antimatter regions,
per the Alfven cosmology (see Eric Lerner's
_The Big Bang Never Happenned to Me_.
> I reasoned that the magnetic WINDS (not
> air currents) of IOTAs are like unbroken threads that build a thicker
> meniscus over ages and ages. As early as before Einstein there was
> discussion that light could pass out of the Universe, and lower the
> total energy therein. Since that meniscus was likely the first
> structure to be formed following creation, then, initially, the light
> from the first stars could pass through. But eventually, as the
> meniscus winds get thicker, photons will get slung around 180 degrees
> by the magnetic lines of force, not unlike how light gets bent 90
> degrees by a 45 degree right angle glass prism. The polar ether
> around every atom in the glass latches onto the polar, passing photons
> and slings those around at the glass to air juncture.
kind of a chicken-egg/domesticated jungle foul dillema,
if any.... "dillema," well; the problem is with the misnomenclatura
of "global" warming, when insolation it utterly differential
from the equator to the poles.
thus:
I'm changing my handle to Anthoprocene Nocturnal Tweets;
as far as I know, no-one has bothered to model a glass house,
at a particular location (or lattitude, if only one "dimension" is
y'know).
thus:
nice rule of thumb.
> "Both deforestation and forest
> degradation from fire and logging reduce forest transpiration, which
> accounts for roughly a third of the moisture that forms precipitation
> over the Amazon basin."
thus:
any number of tidal gauges,
such as at Maldives. the revised header addresses also
the continued increase in height of GrIS and AnIS,
however small that may have to be.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 19, 2012, 9:21:23 PM1/19/12
to
there is no evidence for black holes,
whatsoever, except for the notion that
gravity is the only long-distance force,
which is also the MacGuffin of the Big Bang.
as to why anyone would say that,
"they have no gravity," I have no idea.
whatsoever, except for the notion that
gravity is the only long-distance force,
which is also the MacGuffin of the Big Bang.
as to why anyone would say that,
"they have no gravity," I have no idea.
Tony Lance
Jan 21, 2012, 8:29:47 AM1/21/12
to
Big Bertha Thing gamma
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://www.bigberthathing.com/gamma.html
Access page JPG 81K Image
Astrophysics net ring Access site
Newsgroup Reviews inluding alt.sci.planetary
Round photographic plates.
Caption;-
A photograph of the tracks of electrons,
ejected by the gamma rays from radium,
after these had been filtered, through 2.5 cm. of steel.
Some of the electrons have energies of 1 MeV.
The photograph was taken, with a magnetic field of 12,000 oersteds.
>From a book by
J.D.Stranathan Ph.D.,
Professor of Physics and Chairman of
Department, University of Kansas.
The "Particles" of Modern Physics.
(C) Copyright The Blakston Co. 1942
Tony Lance .............................
Big Bertha Thing effort
If you see someone slogging away, but doing it all wrong.
Please remember, a great effort, with no results,
is worth more than a great result with no effort.
The first is purchased at great cost and the latter,
in terms of cost, is worthless.
(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997.
To comply with my copyright,
please distribute complete and free of charge.
tony...@bigberthathing.com ............
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.astro
From: 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 9 2011 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz
Transformation
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://www.bigberthathing.com/gamma.html
Access page JPG 81K Image
Astrophysics net ring Access site
Newsgroup Reviews inluding alt.sci.planetary
Round photographic plates.
Caption;-
A photograph of the tracks of electrons,
ejected by the gamma rays from radium,
after these had been filtered, through 2.5 cm. of steel.
Some of the electrons have energies of 1 MeV.
The photograph was taken, with a magnetic field of 12,000 oersteds.
>From a book by
J.D.Stranathan Ph.D.,
Professor of Physics and Chairman of
Department, University of Kansas.
The "Particles" of Modern Physics.
(C) Copyright The Blakston Co. 1942
Tony Lance .............................
Big Bertha Thing effort
If you see someone slogging away, but doing it all wrong.
Please remember, a great effort, with no results,
is worth more than a great result with no effort.
The first is purchased at great cost and the latter,
in terms of cost, is worthless.
(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997.
To comply with my copyright,
please distribute complete and free of charge.
tony...@bigberthathing.com ............
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.astro
From: 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 9 2011 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz
Transformation
NoEinstein
Jan 21, 2012, 12:50:45 PM1/21/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correction: Since Black Holes are the most solid features in the
> - Show quoted text -
Universe, I should have said sublimate instead of evaporate. Dry ice
sublimates, it doesn't evaporate. — NE —
NoEinstein
Jan 21, 2012, 12:56:30 PM1/21/12
to
On Jan 19, 9:27 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
1tree: Speak for yourself instead of saying "no one can say whether
the Universe is finite". If you can get off of the sauce long enough,
explain why you disagree with me. (Like I really give a s... about
your opinion.) — NE —
wrote:
the Universe is finite". If you can get off of the sauce long enough,
explain why you disagree with me. (Like I really give a s... about
your opinion.) — NE —
NoEinstein
Jan 21, 2012, 1:14:05 PM1/21/12
to
On Jan 19, 9:21 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Wrong! ...as usual. The longest distance force is the magnetic lines
of flux which encircle the entire Universe like thick windings of silk
thread, covering every square nanometer and preventing the escape of
photons. As I explained, recently, a just birthed universe can have
light get out, because the self-constructing lines of flux haven't yet
wound close enough together, nor thick enough, to block the photons.
Note: I am able to infer the ether, because Earth's magnetic field
gets disrupted when there is intense photonic or charged particle
activity from the Sun. In other words: photons in high enough
concentration can BREAK the lines of flux! That necessitates, by
reason, that the maximum lines of flux be as far removed from major
light sources as possible. The Swiss Cheese voids between galaxies
are just far enough away to allow their meniscuses to hold back the
ether on the other side. The voids themselves are where the IOTAs
were scavenged to form the stars and galaxies. About 60% of the
Universe is without ether. But those places are the superhighways for
trans-universe travel. And that ISN'T science fiction! — NoEinstein —
wrote:
of flux which encircle the entire Universe like thick windings of silk
thread, covering every square nanometer and preventing the escape of
photons. As I explained, recently, a just birthed universe can have
light get out, because the self-constructing lines of flux haven't yet
wound close enough together, nor thick enough, to block the photons.
Note: I am able to infer the ether, because Earth's magnetic field
gets disrupted when there is intense photonic or charged particle
activity from the Sun. In other words: photons in high enough
concentration can BREAK the lines of flux! That necessitates, by
reason, that the maximum lines of flux be as far removed from major
light sources as possible. The Swiss Cheese voids between galaxies
are just far enough away to allow their meniscuses to hold back the
ether on the other side. The voids themselves are where the IOTAs
were scavenged to form the stars and galaxies. About 60% of the
Universe is without ether. But those places are the superhighways for
trans-universe travel. And that ISN'T science fiction! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jan 24, 2012, 6:52:52 PM1/24/12
to
On Jan 21, 1:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 9:21 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > there is no evidence for black holes,
> > whatsoever, except for the notion that
> > gravity is the only long-distance force,
> > which is also the MacGuffin of the Big Bang.
>
> > as to why anyone would say that,
> > "they have no gravity," I have no idea.
>
> Wrong! ...as usual. The longest distance force is the magnetic lines
> of flux which encircle the entire Universe like thick windings of silk
> thread, covering every square nanometer and preventing the escape of
> photons. As I explained, recently, a just birthed universe can have
> light get out, because the self-constructing lines of flux haven't yet
> wound close enough together, nor thick enough, to block the photons.
> Note: I am able to infer the (ether, out) [meniscuses, in], because Earth's magnetic field
> On Jan 19, 9:21 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > there is no evidence for black holes,
> > whatsoever, except for the notion that
> > gravity is the only long-distance force,
> > which is also the MacGuffin of the Big Bang.
>
> > as to why anyone would say that,
> > "they have no gravity," I have no idea.
>
> Wrong! ...as usual. The longest distance force is the magnetic lines
> of flux which encircle the entire Universe like thick windings of silk
> thread, covering every square nanometer and preventing the escape of
> photons. As I explained, recently, a just birthed universe can have
> light get out, because the self-constructing lines of flux haven't yet
> wound close enough together, nor thick enough, to block the photons.
> gets disrupted when there is intense photonic or charged particle
> activity from the Sun. In other words: photons in high enough
> concentration can BREAK the lines of flux [that compose the miniscuses]! That necessitates, by
> activity from the Sun. In other words: photons in high enough
> reason, that the maximum lines of flux be as far removed from major
> light sources as possible. The Swiss Cheese voids between galaxies
> are just far enough away to allow their meniscuses to hold back the
> ether on the other side. The voids themselves are where the IOTAs
> were scavenged to form the stars and galaxies. About 60% of the
> Universe is without ether. But those places are the superhighways for
> trans-universe travel. And that ISN'T science fiction! — NoEinstein —
Correction: See in [brackets] above. — NE —
> light sources as possible. The Swiss Cheese voids between galaxies
> are just far enough away to allow their meniscuses to hold back the
> ether on the other side. The voids themselves are where the IOTAs
> were scavenged to form the stars and galaxies. About 60% of the
> Universe is without ether. But those places are the superhighways for
> trans-universe travel. And that ISN'T science fiction! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Jan 30, 2012, 4:35:43 AM1/30/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Folks: Since this long-running post is petering-out, I invite
> - Show quoted text -
any of you to read back into my thread, as well as the following "+new
posts" that I've made since early 2006. Thanks for your interest! —
NoEinstein —
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/61234425e16ac83b/dbee87a96b7c1ee8?hl=en#dbee87a96b7c1ee8
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 30, 2012, 7:25:40 PM1/30/12
to
just pick any one, either your "best" or
the one that you feel is weakest, and
I will gladly attack it.
anyway, in themeantime, let's see if
you can answer the question,
What is the maximum possible windspeed?
thus:
Hubbard's peak oil is surely an adequate assessment
of the oilcos' own data, and I base this opinion on a few scans
of his dsciple's two books on it, those being Deffreyes'.
"fossilized fuel" is nothing, but a trade-name;
it has no geophysical significance, whatsoever,
viz the carbon-dating of oil wells.
thus:
both AnIS and GrIS have only been rising
in heighth since the beginning of satellite telemetry
-- that is to say, since IGY's Sputnik, more or less --
the ideal that the polar caps are melting may be questioned.
thus:
I'm quite sure that the idea is valid,
ever since I first heard, decades ago,
of the U.S. Climate Reference Network,
which was a simple dataset of 28 continental station
that still had not cities grown around them.
> >http://tinyurl.com/7b364cy
thus:
"put a tarrif on imported energy," is a way
to avoid a tax on carbon and, also,
as opposed to my Congressman's old ('91) cap&trade nostrum
(which was passed unanimously in both houses; so,
theresville).
the one that you feel is weakest, and
I will gladly attack it.
anyway, in themeantime, let's see if
you can answer the question,
What is the maximum possible windspeed?
thus:
Hubbard's peak oil is surely an adequate assessment
of the oilcos' own data, and I base this opinion on a few scans
of his dsciple's two books on it, those being Deffreyes'.
"fossilized fuel" is nothing, but a trade-name;
it has no geophysical significance, whatsoever,
viz the carbon-dating of oil wells.
thus:
both AnIS and GrIS have only been rising
in heighth since the beginning of satellite telemetry
-- that is to say, since IGY's Sputnik, more or less --
the ideal that the polar caps are melting may be questioned.
thus:
I'm quite sure that the idea is valid,
ever since I first heard, decades ago,
of the U.S. Climate Reference Network,
which was a simple dataset of 28 continental station
that still had not cities grown around them.
> >http://tinyurl.com/7b364cy
thus:
"put a tarrif on imported energy," is a way
to avoid a tax on carbon and, also,
as opposed to my Congressman's old ('91) cap&trade nostrum
(which was passed unanimously in both houses; so,
theresville).
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jan 30, 2012, 7:30:56 PM1/30/12
to
here is one in which you replied to me -- although
there is really not enough in it for a critique -- which
I chose at random; so,
choose another, if you wish.
> Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
there is really not enough in it for a critique -- which
I chose at random; so,
choose another, if you wish.
> Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
NoEinstein
Feb 1, 2012, 9:33:01 PM2/1/12
to
On Jan 30, 7:25 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
How about this, 1tree: Explain in your own words what you suppose the
mechanism of gravity is, if not "flowing ether imparting a mass-
proportional force to objects and having the pool of ether replenished
by the hobo ether transported back into space between the photons of
light being exchanged between the attracted bodies"? Good luck with
that one! You will need it. — NoEinstein —
wrote:
mechanism of gravity is, if not "flowing ether imparting a mass-
proportional force to objects and having the pool of ether replenished
by the hobo ether transported back into space between the photons of
light being exchanged between the attracted bodies"? Good luck with
that one! You will need it. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Feb 1, 2012, 9:39:08 PM2/1/12
to
On Jan 30, 7:30 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...- Hide quoted text -
my description, in your link, of how to perform the basic middle
school algebra to invalidate the M-M experiment. Your job isn't to
get ME to explain anything. It is to explain some issue of my New
Science with which you differ, and to allow me to explain where you
err. — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: There is nothing to be explained that would be any better than
> - Show quoted text -
my description, in your link, of how to perform the basic middle
school algebra to invalidate the M-M experiment. Your job isn't to
get ME to explain anything. It is to explain some issue of my New
Science with which you differ, and to allow me to explain where you
err. — NE —
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 2, 2012, 6:30:48 PM2/2/12
to
or, where-ever the err, is coming from.
your description of gravity is simply bizaar, or
at least in need of some translation into "math"
(that is to say, into the language of teh four subjects
of *mathematica*, whether or not you need
to do any highschool algebra for that).
> allow me to explain where you err. — Neinstein909
wow, you're the greatest!
your description of gravity is simply bizaar, or
at least in need of some translation into "math"
(that is to say, into the language of teh four subjects
of *mathematica*, whether or not you need
to do any highschool algebra for that).
> allow me to explain where you err. — Neinstein909
wow, you're the greatest!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 2, 2012, 9:28:19 PM2/2/12
to
"kill the messenger,"
"ad hominem argumentarium,"
"you suck, therefore your alleged theory doth, also." but,
if an airhead like me, myself & Brian replies
to your sylliness,
you cannot give the absolute limit on the speed
of sound (not its velocity,
as with lightwaves; interestingly enough,
in the field of acoustics, a "phonon" is akin
to a massless rock of sound .-)
> my New Science. If an airhead like you
thus:
not as far as I know (nAFAiK), but that's not hing. anyway,
as far as I can say (AFAiCS),
the only reason that the 4cc was converted
into graph-form (or
just the geometrical dual of the mapping problemma),
was that of saving the cost of hand-coloring
the notional maps.
> Are there any theorems regarding the chromatic number of planar
> regular graphs of degree 4 and 5 that do not rely on the 4CC?
"ad hominem argumentarium,"
"you suck, therefore your alleged theory doth, also." but,
if an airhead like me, myself & Brian replies
to your sylliness,
you cannot give the absolute limit on the speed
of sound (not its velocity,
as with lightwaves; interestingly enough,
in the field of acoustics, a "phonon" is akin
to a massless rock of sound .-)
> my New Science. If an airhead like you
thus:
not as far as I know (nAFAiK), but that's not hing. anyway,
as far as I can say (AFAiCS),
the only reason that the 4cc was converted
into graph-form (or
just the geometrical dual of the mapping problemma),
was that of saving the cost of hand-coloring
the notional maps.
> Are there any theorems regarding the chromatic number of planar
> regular graphs of degree 4 and 5 that do not rely on the 4CC?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 2, 2012, 9:45:03 PM2/2/12
to
tee-hee, he called me a shithead.
> I don't believe in tehs.
thus:
no; it's mentioned on the very first page of the write-up,
published in the journal in the 19th cce, althogh
he did the experiment, so many times, that I'm not sure, if
it's in the first paper. others improved on this anomaly,
such as Dayton C. Miller.
> the negative results of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.
thus:
> I don't believe in tehs.
thus:
no; it's mentioned on the very first page of the write-up,
published in the journal in the 19th cce, althogh
he did the experiment, so many times, that I'm not sure, if
it's in the first paper. others improved on this anomaly,
such as Dayton C. Miller.
> the negative results of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.
thus:
you cannot give the absolute limit on the speed
of sound (not its velocity,
as with lightwaves; interestingly enough,
in the field of acoustics, a "phonon" is akin
to a massless rock of sound .-)
of sound (not its velocity,
as with lightwaves; interestingly enough,
in the field of acoustics, a "phonon" is akin
to a massless rock of sound .-)
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 2, 2012, 9:40:03 PM2/2/12
to
yes, another feature-not-a-bug of Einsteinmania,
"the" black hole; I wonder if Hawking et al ad vomitorium have
made that distinction?
"the" black hole; I wonder if Hawking et al ad vomitorium have
made that distinction?
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 2, 2012, 9:47:04 PM2/2/12
to
congradulation;
you found a better name for Hawming's evaporation
of the black hole at teh foundation
of the Department of Einsteinmania,
teh Musical (Department).
you found a better name for Hawming's evaporation
of the black hole at teh foundation
of the Department of Einsteinmania,
teh Musical (Department).
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 2, 2012, 9:37:29 PM2/2/12
to
so, that one sounded interesting, so I looked at the link
-- and I replied to you, privately, since
the googolplex times-out for replies,
once the item has been dead for some time, and
my reply is belowsville.
anybody who hates top-posting, please,
give us a reason for taht, other than "mister Manners said, So!"
> Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
no; it's mentiond on the very first page of the write-up,
-- and I replied to you, privately, since
the googolplex times-out for replies,
once the item has been dead for some time, and
my reply is belowsville.
anybody who hates top-posting, please,
give us a reason for taht, other than "mister Manners said, So!"
> Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
no; it's mentiond on the very first page of the write-up,
published in the journal in the 19th cce, althogh
he did the experiment, so many times, that I'm not sure, if
it's in the first paper.
he did the experiment, so many times, that I'm not sure, if
it's in the first paper.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 2, 2012, 11:11:25 PM2/2/12
to
I'm afraid, folks -- all nine of you -- that
i shall have to be more specific:
the alleged "null results" of Michelson and Morley, and
those who confirmed them, are nothing, but a say-so
from the Einsteinmaniacs. in particular,
I actually found the same say-so from Einstein,
himself, summarily disputing D.C.Miller's paper
on this subject, with Miller's data.
actually, this was only reported, second-hand,
in a journal, by someone who interviewed Einstein,
on one of the few ocaissions when he was at his office
at Caltech (in Pasadena).
i shall have to be more specific:
the alleged "null results" of Michelson and Morley, and
those who confirmed them, are nothing, but a say-so
from the Einsteinmaniacs. in particular,
I actually found the same say-so from Einstein,
himself, summarily disputing D.C.Miller's paper
on this subject, with Miller's data.
actually, this was only reported, second-hand,
in a journal, by someone who interviewed Einstein,
on one of the few ocaissions when he was at his office
at Caltech (in Pasadena).
NoEinstein
Feb 5, 2012, 7:49:00 AM2/5/12
to
> just pick any one, either your "best" or
> the one that you feel is weakest, and
> I will gladly attack it.
>
> anyway, in themeantime, let's see if
> you can answer the question,
> What is the maximum possible windspeed?
Dear 1tree: Take your question; write it on a cactus; and shove it!
> the one that you feel is weakest, and
> I will gladly attack it.
>
> anyway, in themeantime, let's see if
> you can answer the question,
> What is the maximum possible windspeed?
I only discuss my New Science, which isn't concerned with the behavior
of fluids. Understand? — NE —
NoEinstein
Feb 5, 2012, 7:51:01 AM2/5/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: And your issue with my New Science is? — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Feb 5, 2012, 8:01:52 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 2, 9:45 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > regular graphs of degree 4 and 5 that do not rely on the 4CC?- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: ...ho-humm. — NE —
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Feb 5, 2012, 8:01:09 AM2/5/12
to
NoEinstein
Feb 5, 2012, 8:08:06 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 2, 9:40 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > sublimates, it doesn't evaporate.- Hide quoted text -
not ad vomitorium. The latter is an entry or exit passage as in the
Roman Coliseum. — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: As I corrected you saying, before: The word is ad nauseum,
> - Show quoted text -
not ad vomitorium. The latter is an entry or exit passage as in the
Roman Coliseum. — NE —
NoEinstein
Feb 5, 2012, 8:10:48 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 2, 9:47 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Dear 1tree: Thanks for acknowledging my mental superiority to Stephen
Hawking! Think the Nobel Physics Prize Committee is reading? — NE —
wrote:
Hawking! Think the Nobel Physics Prize Committee is reading? — NE —
NoEinstein
Feb 5, 2012, 8:13:06 AM2/5/12
to
On Feb 2, 9:37 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > regular graphs of degree 4 and 5 that do not rely on the 4CC?- Hide quoted text -
cutting and pasting, and simply say what you are thinking. But keep
it SHORT! — NE —
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
1tree: Your replies are too wordy to be looked at by most. STOP
> - Show quoted text -
cutting and pasting, and simply say what you are thinking. But keep
it SHORT! — NE —
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages