Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Where is the Acceleration That Holds Two Bar Magnets Together?

776 views
Skip to first unread message

Jane

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 1:28:09 AM4/4/23
to

I cannot see any, can you?


--
-- lover of truth

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 2:37:37 AM4/4/23
to
If You can't see pears on a willow tree and
You know for sure that they should be there -
You can always redefine a pear or redefine
a willlow. Or prove that the willow trees You
see are improper.

Jane

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 3:08:40 AM4/4/23
to
That's very good, possibly the most sensible comment you have made....but
I bet you copied it..

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 3:15:54 AM4/4/23
to
You bet and You loose.

Jane

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 6:41:59 PM4/4/23
to
Note, no Einstein supporters can answer my question.

JanPB

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 7:17:37 PM4/4/23
to
On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 10:28:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> I cannot see any, can you?

Classical electrodynamics does not model ferromagnetism.

--
Jan

Jane

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 7:29:02 PM4/4/23
to
Irrelevant. Force exists without acceleration.

a = F/M is correct.
F = Ma is mathematically correct but logically wrong and very misleading.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 8:47:11 PM4/4/23
to
1) Fix one magnet to a table.
2) Measure the Newtons required to separate the second magnet.

There is your acceleration, which is extremely non-linear and don't have a single analytic expression.

Numerical models involving cubic and cuartic values of distance are involved.

Yet, these models can be applied in F = ma, to model the motion of the free magnet, discarding friction on the table AND
including g.

Better get a good computer for modeling, or for computing real time measurements of the motion.

Jane

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 10:40:07 PM4/4/23
to
On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 17:47:09 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:29:02 PM UTC-3, Jane wrote:
>
>> F = Ma is mathematically correct but logically wrong and very
>> misleading.
>> --
>> -- lover of truth
>
> 1) Fix one magnet to a table.
> 2) Measure the Newtons required to separate the second magnet.
>
> There is your acceleration, which is extremely non-linear and don't have
> a single analytic expression.

Silly fellow. The Newton is a unit of force not acceleration.

> Numerical models involving cubic and cuartic values of distance are
> involved.
>
> Yet, these models can be applied in F = ma, to model the motion of the
> free magnet, discarding friction on the table AND including g.
>
> Better get a good computer for modeling, or for computing real time
> measurements of the motion.

You completely miss the point. A LARGE FORCE is clearly holding the
magnets together. Obviously Forces are not just products of
accelerations, as Einstein and followers seem to believe.
Because of Einstein's clever but completely misleading theory, nobody has
bothered to investigate what force fields are made of.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 11:09:42 PM4/4/23
to
You need to learn a lot, in physics and other fields. Read this to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets

You are not so smart as you believe you are. Be clear when asking for "exact" answers. You may find that there are none.

My post point specifically to what you were asking. Now, if you want to shill and troll, go ahead.


JanPB

unread,
Apr 4, 2023, 11:47:34 PM4/4/23
to
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 4:29:02 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 16:17:35 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 10:28:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> I cannot see any, can you?
> >
> > Classical electrodynamics does not model ferromagnetism.
> Irrelevant. Force exists without acceleration.

Reread what I wrote.

Don't run back to the keyboard before you actually understand:
reread your original question and then my answer. Think it
through.

--
Jan

Jane

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 12:21:40 AM4/5/23
to
I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.

Jane

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 12:28:16 AM4/5/23
to
On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 20:09:40 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:40:07 PM UTC-3, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 17:47:09 -0700, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:29:02 PM UTC-3, Jane wrote:
>> >
>> >> F = Ma is mathematically correct but logically wrong and very
>> >> misleading.
>
>
> You need to learn a lot, in physics and other fields. Read this to
> start:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets
>
> You are not so smart as you believe you are. Be clear when asking for
> "exact" answers. You may find that there are none.
>
> My post point specifically to what you were asking. Now, if you want to
> shill and troll, go ahead.

All it says is that if you add a lot of vary small magnetic dipoles you
get one big one. there is no acceleration involved.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 12:49:24 AM4/5/23
to
On 4/4/23 12:28 AM, Jane wrote:
> I cannot see any, can you?

No. If you attempt to pull two bar magnets apart but fail, their
acceleration is zero, and the TOTAL force on each magnet is also zero.
It OUGHT to be obvious that the force you apply in an attempt to pull
them apart is exactly canceled by an opposing force exerted by the other
magnet on the one you are pulling.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Tom Roberts

Jane

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 2:04:26 AM4/5/23
to
On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 23:49:13 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/4/23 12:28 AM, Jane wrote:
>> I cannot see any, can you?
>
> No. If you attempt to pull two bar magnets apart but fail, their
> acceleration is zero, and the TOTAL force on each magnet is also zero.

Do you have a drinking problem? I gather you mean when your pull exactly
matches the attracting force between the magnets there is no resultant
force on either.

> It OUGHT to be obvious that the force you apply in an attempt to pull
> them apart is exactly canceled by an opposing force exerted by the other
> magnet on the one you are pulling.

There is a force holding them together whether or not I try to pull them
apart. Are you trying to say that such a force only exists when somebody
tries to pull them apart? Surely you are not that silly.

> You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Young Tommy, you're losing it.... The force exists for reasons unknown.
It is not associated with any d2x/dt2 and nothing else is holding the
magnets together.

> Tom Roberts

JanPB

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 5:26:27 PM4/5/23
to
Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general
relativity into the discussion all of a sudden?

You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.

--
Jan

Richard Hertz

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 6:02:38 PM4/5/23
to
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 6:26:27 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:21:40 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

<snip>
.
> > I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
> > Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.
> Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general
> relativity into the discussion all of a sudden?
>
> You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
> applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.

Why do you behave like a fucking retarded? And what is this fascist "End of discussion"? What are you, the ruler of this forum?

Jane made a legit question, trying to connect Newton (the force guy) with Maxwell and Einstein (the field guys).

Forces are EVERYWHERE. Ask about it to a civil engineer, or a mechanical engineer.

The entire civilization, since ancient Babylonian and even 200,000 years before them, was BUILT UNDER THE CONCEPT OF
FORCES AND WEIGHTS. Try to make a bridge or a building without using the mathematics of the five fundamental loads:
compression, tension, shear, bending and torsion, and tell me how much do you last in the development before a collapse.

With Newton and his three laws of motion, came the second one, perfected by Euler 80 years after: F = m.a.

When this formula was applied to gravity, at ground level, intuitively appeared immediately (1757+) that F = m.a = G.M.m/r²,
and it came that a = g = G.M/r². And this has been for 266 years, and will keep being true FOREVER.

And if you don't accept this, because you are an imbecile relativist, explain why in a controlled demolition, the FALL verify
a FREE FALL.

Any FORCE has a LATENT ACCELERATION embedded into any system with coupled parts. They just hold because of the
resistance of materials used. If materials used can't hold the LOAD, they break down in different forms.

That the force between magnets can't have an analytical expression, and require several complex formulae to be applied
(mostly developed empirically), doesn't mean that NEWTON can be disregarded in this particular application.

If one magnet is fixed into a table with very low friction (or disregarding it), a second magnet will move following a = F/m,
and will stay attached to the fixed one with such value of LATENT ACCELERATION.

This is because the mathematics used for this experiment are known for centuries, and are newtonian (in the motion) and
maxwellian in the stage where motion ceases and the magnets are attached one to each other.

It's the SAME as when a person feels attached to the ground: FORCE called WEIGHT, and even have unit: NEWTONS.

I don't know of any unit called EINSTEIN to justify the stupid general relativity, here on Earth or in outer space.

Because GR and SR are fucking FAIRY TALES.

Get over it, or move to a forum where bitches complain and cry foul because Newton is supreme, and Einstein a worthless parasite.





Jane

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 7:10:48 PM4/5/23
to
On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 14:26:25 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:21:40 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 20:47:32 -0700, JanPB wrote:

>> > Don't run back to the keyboard before you actually understand: reread
>> > your original question and then my answer. Think it through.
>> I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
>> Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.
>
> Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general relativity
> into the discussion all of a sudden?

For obvious reasons that your misguided brain would be too terrified to
even contemplate.

> You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
> applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.

Einstein's whole GR depends on forces being an illusion caused by
accelerations. I have given an example of a force that has no associated
acceleration.
F = Ma stinks.
a = F/M prevails.


JanPB

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 10:19:23 PM4/5/23
to
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:10:48 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 14:26:25 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:21:40 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 20:47:32 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> >> > Don't run back to the keyboard before you actually understand: reread
> >> > your original question and then my answer. Think it through.
> >> I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
> >> Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.
> >
> > Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general relativity
> > into the discussion all of a sudden?
>
> For obvious reasons that your misguided brain would be too terrified to
> even contemplate.

What kind of answer is that? You asked about ferromagnets and I said
classical electrodynamics did not model that.

> > You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
> > applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.
> Einstein's whole GR

Again: what does GR have to do with your question?

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 10:22:26 PM4/5/23
to
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 6:26:27 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:21:40 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> <snip>
> .
> > > I'm not talking about classical electrodynamics. I am referring to
> > > Einstein's idea that forces do not exist.
> > Your question was about magnets. Why are you bringing general
> > relativity into the discussion all of a sudden?
> >
> > You asked about ferromagnetism assuming classical electrodynamics
> > applied to it. It does not. End of discussion.
> Why do you behave like a fucking retarded? And what is this fascist "End of discussion"? What are you, the ruler of this forum?
>
> Jane made a legit question, trying to connect Newton (the force guy) with Maxwell and Einstein (the field guys).
>
> Forces are EVERYWHERE. Ask about it to a civil engineer, or a mechanical engineer.
>
> The entire civilization, since ancient Babylonian and even 200,000 years before them, was BUILT UNDER THE CONCEPT OF
> FORCES AND WEIGHTS. Try to make a bridge or a building without using the mathematics of the five fundamental loads:
> compression, tension, shear, bending and torsion, and tell me how much do you last in the development before a collapse.
>
> With Newton and his three laws of motion, came the second one, perfected by Euler 80 years after: F = m.a.
>
> When this formula was applied to gravity, at ground level, intuitively appeared immediately (1757+) that F = m.a = G.M.m/r²,
> and it came that a = g = G.M/r². And this has been for 266 years, and will keep being true FOREVER.

And so shall relativity.

> And if you don't accept this, because you are an imbecile relativist, explain why in a controlled demolition, the FALL verify
> a FREE FALL.

Not even wrong. You are a mental case, you don't use reason the moment
the name "Einstein" is brought up or the word "relativity". Your brain just
shuts off at that instant.

> Any FORCE has a LATENT ACCELERATION embedded into any system with coupled parts. They just hold because of the
> resistance of materials used. If materials used can't hold the LOAD, they break down in different forms.
>
> That the force between magnets can't have an analytical expression, and require several complex formulae to be applied
> (mostly developed empirically), doesn't mean that NEWTON can be disregarded in this particular application.

Irrelevant.

> I don't know of any unit called EINSTEIN to justify the stupid general relativity, here on Earth or in outer space.
>
> Because GR and SR are fucking FAIRY TALES.

No, it's an excellent and a very successful theory of gravity. And
there is nothing you can do about it. Forever.

--
Jan

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 10:48:45 PM4/5/23
to
That is where you are always wrong. Even Einstein did not believe
his theory would the final.
The Sun's gravity space curve meets the Moon's center
but what is it doing to its motion curve? The Moon is
not responding to the Sun's immediate curve in space.
Einstein never handled it. He overlooked this point
where his space curve does not curve motion...

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> --
> Jan

Richard Hertz

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 11:06:20 PM4/5/23
to
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:22:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
'
<snip>

> > I don't know of any unit called EINSTEIN to justify the stupid general relativity, here on Earth or in outer space.
> >
> > Because GR and SR are fucking FAIRY TALES.

> No, it's an excellent and a very successful theory of gravity. And there is nothing you can do about it. Forever.

Your stupid general relativity theory consists in a HUGE LOT of non linear partial derivative equations that can't even describe
the motion of the ball in a roulette. Much less the behavior of the Solar System.

Such heretic violation of riemannian geometry, adopting time as a pseudo fourth dimension, can't provide a single exact solution
even for the basic 2-body problem, so the few approximations (Schwartschild-Hilbert is one) can only be applied to a universe
void of mass and energy, except for ONE MASS and a point-like massless test particle.

As a show of IMPOTENCE, PPN has linearized the GR complex set of non linear equations to obtain a new framework that is
ONLY USEFUL with very restricted boundaries. The errors of PPN increase big time as soon the application try to cover more
than the unrealistic APPROXIMATIONS of spacetime, with strong limitations of applicability.

It's like the linear model of bipolar transistors, derived from the Ebers-Moll BJT. Try to use the linearized model with a 5 volts pp
applied to the base-emitter of a BJT, and we'll see what you obtain as the output. The linearized model is restricted to 0.75 V max.

PPN suffers the same problems, only that a scale 100 times more complex than the above example.

So, very few things remain from GR in the PPN model, which is a fucking joke.

Relativity itself (both) is a joke even greater. But, as I always say: 99.99% of the people are mostly gullible imbeciles, with a small
percentage (0.01%) of cretins that profit from such huge consumer mass.

Don't know where do you belong? Not to the 0.01%, imbecile.

You are the Homer Simpson of relativity.



JanPB

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 11:38:45 PM4/5/23
to
I'm not saying it's final. Reread what I wrote. I'm simply saying that
Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).

They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Apr 5, 2023, 11:41:36 PM4/5/23
to
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 8:06:20 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:22:26 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 3:02:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> '
> <snip>
> > > I don't know of any unit called EINSTEIN to justify the stupid general relativity, here on Earth or in outer space.
> > >
> > > Because GR and SR are fucking FAIRY TALES.
>
> > No, it's an excellent and a very successful theory of gravity. And there is nothing you can do about it. Forever.
>
> Your stupid general relativity theory consists in a HUGE LOT of non linear partial derivative equations that can't even describe
> the motion of the ball in a roulette. Much less the behavior of the Solar System.

Neither can Newtonian mechanics (look up "the three-body problem" and
"chaotic systems"). And Einstein's, Maxwell's, and Newton's theories
will never go away.

> Such heretic violation of riemannian geometry, adopting time as a pseudo fourth dimension, can't provide a single exact solution

Not even wrong.

> even for the basic 2-body problem, so the few approximations (Schwartschild-

The name is "Schwarzschild".

> Hilbert is one) can only be applied to a universe
> void of mass and energy, except for ONE MASS and a point-like massless test particle.

Yeah, yeah, dream on.

> As a show of IMPOTENCE, PPN has linearized the GR complex set of non linear equations to obtain a new framework that is
> ONLY USEFUL with very restricted boundaries. The errors of PPN increase big time as soon the application try to cover more

Oh stop it already. Gobbledygook. You'll never get anywhere with
this by fantasising idiocies and pretending they are true.

--
Jan

Tom Roberts

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 12:18:33 PM4/6/23
to
On 4/5/23 1:04 AM, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 23:49:13 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> If you attempt to pull two bar magnets apart but fail, their
>> acceleration is zero, and the TOTAL force on each magnet is also
>> zero.
>
> I gather you mean when your pull exactly matches the attracting
> force between the magnets there is no resultant force on either.

In that case, yes. But also if I pull with less than the magnetic force
between them the total force on the magnet remains zero. If you think
real hard you might be able to figure out where the force comes from to
exactly equal the magnetic force.

> There is a force holding them together whether or not I try to pull
> them apart.

Sure. Now think real hard why it is that the magnets do not accelerate
even though there is a strong magnetic force of attraction between them.

Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 12:19:43 PM4/6/23
to
On 4/5/23 6:10 PM, Jane wrote:
> Einstein's whole GR depends on forces being an illusion caused by
> accelerations.

That is one of the stupidest and incorrectest statements I have seen
around here. You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

> I have given an example of a force that has no associated
> acceleration.

No you didn't. Since two bar magnets stuck together are not moving,
their acceleration is zero. If you think real hard, you might be able to
figure out what supplies the force that cancels the force of their
magnetic attraction.

Tom Roberts

Richard Hertz

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 12:47:42 PM4/6/23
to
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 1:19:43 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

> No you didn't. Since two bar magnets stuck together are not moving,
> their acceleration is zero. If you think real hard, you might be able to
> figure out what supplies the force that cancels the force of their
> magnetic attraction.

With the above paragraph, single-handedly, you managed to destroy 300 years of physics.

The magnetic force that keep magnets stuck together is ANALOG to the gravitational force that keep you glued to the ground.

In both cases, two bodies attract one to each other, with net axial motion zero.

Yet, in the case of Newton, scientists agreed for centuries that such force is called WEIGHT. Civil engineers call it LOAD.

A simple scale, analog or digital, show your weight in Kg instead of Newtons. But for laymen, Newton unit is confusing.

The scale measures F = ma = mg, at ground level.

How come g = 0, according to your stupid assertion?

With magnets, the force involved follows the same newtonian expression, unless YOU WANT TO INVENT ANOTHER UNIT.

I told you several times: You suck patronizing, being that you claim to be such a big shot in physics, and even that taught basic physics
(where?), and wrote a book (which one? Link or it didn't happen).

Tom, keep talking about your muons. You are a fail on basic concepts of physics.

At your age and indoctrination level, there is no cure for you.



JanPB

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 1:14:58 PM4/6/23
to
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 1:19:43 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > No you didn't. Since two bar magnets stuck together are not moving,
> > their acceleration is zero. If you think real hard, you might be able to
> > figure out what supplies the force that cancels the force of their
> > magnetic attraction.
> With the above paragraph, single-handedly, you managed to destroy 300 years of physics.
>
> The magnetic force that keep magnets stuck together is ANALOG to the gravitational force that keep you glued to the ground.

Not in the GR and classical electrodynamics models.

> In both cases, two bodies attract one to each other, with net axial motion zero.

"Axial motion"?

> Yet, in the case of Newton, scientists agreed for centuries that such force is called WEIGHT. Civil engineers call it LOAD.

This is a discussion of two magnets held by their magnetic force.
There is no gravity or weight under the discussion. Why don't you
read the posts you are answering?

--
Jan

Richard Hertz

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 1:20:24 PM4/6/23
to
ANALOGY OF FORCES EXERTED IN DIFFERENT REALMS, IMBECILE. ANALOGY!

And ONLY F = m.a PREVAILS to explain the effect, either by gravity, electricity and magnetism. FORCES!

Asshole.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 2:47:00 PM4/6/23
to
No. You cannot have it both ways jan. You claimed no one
can change it... forever... according to you.
And someone has.


> Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
> Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).
>
> They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.

Einstein said they would get transcended to something better in
the future. Only the dinosaur like you holds onto the past.

Mitchell Raemsch
>
> --
> Jan

JanPB

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 3:23:19 PM4/6/23
to
No, you used this "analogy" as a proof that he was wrong.

> And ONLY F = m.a PREVAILS to explain the effect, either by gravity, electricity and magnetism. FORCES!

Not even wrong.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 3:27:31 PM4/6/23
to
What I said, again, was that relativity, Maxwell's and Newton's theories
will never go away despite being (the latter two) falsified by experiment.
This is because the domain within which they are correct is simply
phenomenally applicable to many oractical situations.

I won't repeat it again on thus thread.

> > Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
> > Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).
> >
> > They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.
>
> Einstein said they would get transcended to something better in
> the future. Only the dinosaur like you holds onto the past.

You keep misunderstanding what I say. What I said was not that
relativity won't be transcended (it will be) but that its practical
relevance is such that it will never go away, just like Maxwell and
Newton which have been falsified by experiment to boot.

Just read more carefully what you respond to.

--
Jan

Jane

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 7:11:07 PM4/6/23
to
On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 12:27:29 -0700, JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com

>> No. You cannot have it both ways jan. You claimed no one can change
>> it... forever... according to you.
>
> What I said, again, was that relativity, Maxwell's and Newton's theories
> will never go away despite being (the latter two) falsified by
> experiment. This is because the domain within which they are correct is
> simply phenomenally applicable to many oractical situations.
>
> I won't repeat it again on thus thread.
>
>> > Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
>> > Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).
>> >
>> > They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.
>>
>> Einstein said they would get transcended to something better in the
>> future. Only the dinosaur like you holds onto the past.
>
> You keep misunderstanding what I say. What I said was not that
> relativity won't be transcended (it will be) but that its practical
> relevance is such that it will never go away, just like Maxwell and
> Newton which have been falsified by experiment to boot.

Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is measured.
that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works if
an absolute frame exists. Since there is none, Einstein's theories will
definitely go away...right away as far as possible. Einstein was a
disaster for Physics.

Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong. Ther
will always be a Newtonian explanation of any physical process.

> Just read more carefully what you respond to.

Just look more carefully at the nonsense you write!

Richard Hachel

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 7:36:48 PM4/6/23
to
Le 07/04/2023 à 01:11, Jane a écrit :


> Einstein was a disaster for Physics.

I agree.

Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) who
intervened to counter the French school led by Langevin, Poincaré,
Becquerel, etc...

It has deflected the current of thought more than it has carried it
further.

We have exactly the same thing with Saint Paul who will create
Christianity, but by deforming in a very significant way the original
doctrine of grace by the love of the world, by grace by faith in the blood
of Christ, who died for all the bastards who will accept that another man
(son of God in addition) dies for them, and the rejection of the world.
LOL.

R.H.

Jane

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 8:43:48 PM4/6/23
to
On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 11:19:30 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/5/23 6:10 PM, Jane wrote:
>> Einstein's whole GR depends on forces being an illusion caused by
>> accelerations.
>
> That is one of the stupidest and incorrectest statements I have seen
> around here. You REALLY need to learn basic physics.

Anyone who uses 'F = Ma' to define force is totally ignorant of the
facts.
'a' is the dependent variable. 'a' will never occur without a force.
Forces, on the other hand exist for reasons that Physics has never
bothered to investigate because (a) they are invisible and (b) because
the smartarse Einstein intervened with his plagiarized version of Lorentz
and Poincare Ether theories and became a folk hero overnight.

>> I have given an example of a force that has no associated acceleration.
>
> No you didn't. Since two bar magnets stuck together are not moving,
> their acceleration is zero.

Gawd! That's whole point.

> If you think real hard, you might be able to
> figure out what supplies the force that cancels the force of their
> magnetic attraction.

So you accept that the force exists even though it is balanced by the
compression of the material in the magnets.
For both magnets, dv/dt=0

Your gravitational FORCE is also balanced by the compression of the
ground on which you stand. Both exist without acceleration.

You are improving, young Tommy.

> Tom Roberts

Jane

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 9:02:04 PM4/6/23
to
On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 11:18:25 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/5/23 1:04 AM, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 23:49:13 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> If you attempt to pull two bar magnets apart but fail, their
>>> acceleration is zero, and the TOTAL force on each magnet is also zero.
>>
>> I gather you mean when your pull exactly matches the attracting force
>> between the magnets there is no resultant force on either.
>
> In that case, yes. But also if I pull with less than the magnetic force
> between them the total force on the magnet remains zero. If you think
> real hard you might be able to figure out where the force comes from to
> exactly equal the magnetic force.

Young Tommy, you should either read a few more elementary Physics texts
or give away any idea of becoming a physicist.

You are just digging the hole deeper for yourself... and Einstein.
We originally had only four forces that existed without any acceleration.
Now we have at least ten...and still no dv/dt.

>> There is a force holding them together whether or not I try to pull
>> them apart.
>
> Sure. Now think real hard why it is that the magnets do not accelerate
> even though there is a strong magnetic force of attraction between them.

That's the easy one Tommy. The hard one is to work out why the forces
exist at all, when none of Einstein's 'essential accelerations' are to be
found.

Jane

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 9:16:49 PM4/6/23
to
On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 23:36:45 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 07/04/2023 à 01:11, Jane a écrit :
>
>
>> Einstein was a disaster for Physics.
>
> I agree.
>
> Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) who
> intervened to counter the French school led by Langevin, Poincaré,
> Becquerel, etc...
>
> It has deflected the current of thought more than it has carried it
> further.

Precisely. It was a terrible distraction.

> We have exactly the same thing with Saint Paul who will create
> Christianity, but by deforming in a very significant way the original
> doctrine of grace by the love of the world, by grace by faith in the
> blood of Christ, who died for all the bastards who will accept that
> another man (son of God in addition) dies for them, and the rejection of
> the world. LOL.

Wouldn't know. All I know about Jesus christ is that including certain
profanities in his name is regarded as a good way to relieve frustration.

> R.H.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 9:34:07 PM4/6/23
to
Young Tommy, LOL!

He's 72.

JanPB

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 9:43:33 PM4/6/23
to
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 4:11:07 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 12:27:29 -0700, JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 11:47:00 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com
> >> No. You cannot have it both ways jan. You claimed no one can change
> >> it... forever... according to you.
> >
> > What I said, again, was that relativity, Maxwell's and Newton's theories
> > will never go away despite being (the latter two) falsified by
> > experiment. This is because the domain within which they are correct is
> > simply phenomenally applicable to many oractical situations.
> >
> > I won't repeat it again on thus thread.
> >
> >> > Einstein's relativity will never go away, just like Maxwell's or
> >> > Newton's theories (which have been falsified by experiment).
> >> >
> >> > They will stay forever because they are excellent and very useful.
> >>
> >> Einstein said they would get transcended to something better in the
> >> future. Only the dinosaur like you holds onto the past.
> >
> > You keep misunderstanding what I say. What I said was not that
> > relativity won't be transcended (it will be) but that its practical
> > relevance is such that it will never go away, just like Maxwell and
> > Newton which have been falsified by experiment to boot.
>
> Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
> which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is measured.
> that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works if
> an absolute frame exists. Since there is none, Einstein's theories will
> definitely go away...right away as far as possible.

No. You just don't know how science works.

> Einstein was a
> disaster for Physics.

Stop fantasising. It's silly, childish.

> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong.

Nonsense. I can argue theories but I'm not going to argue facts.
Sorry, this is non-debatable.

--
Jan

JanPB

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 9:44:02 PM4/6/23
to
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 6:16:49 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 23:36:45 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> > Le 07/04/2023 à 01:11, Jane a écrit :
> >
> >
> >> Einstein was a disaster for Physics.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Einstein was an Anglo-Saxon media creation (Germans are Saxons) who
> > intervened to counter the French school led by Langevin, Poincaré,
> > Becquerel, etc...
> >
> > It has deflected the current of thought more than it has carried it
> > further.
>
> Precisely. It was a terrible distraction.

Another loony tunes joined the group.

--
Jan

Jane

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 11:20:23 PM4/6/23
to
I will tell you why Einstein was a disaster. The MMX result confirmed
what many suspected...that there was no absolute frame. Lorentz and Fitz
then put forward a reasonable theory that kept the possibility alive,
even although that supposed 'Ether' could never be detected. Einstein
quite cleverly but very deviously saw a great opportunity to make a name
for himself by realizing that if it couldn't be observed there was no
need to mention it. He simply replaced its main function, that of
governing light speed, with a postulate and merely rewrote LET back to
front.
Consequently everyone was conned into believing that the Ether had
quietly gone away when in fact it was still just as vital to SR as it was
to LET.

THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE FRAME. GET USED TO IT AND FORGET ALL ABOUT
EINSTEIN'S FUNNY LITTLE JOKE ON PHYSICS AND ALL THE NONSENSE AND TIME
WASTING THAT HAS FOLLOWED. It is all terrible crap!

>> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong.
>
> Nonsense. I can argue theories but I'm not going to argue facts.
> Sorry, this is non-debatable.

There is a simple Newtonian explanation for everything uniquely
attributed to Einstein.

Jane

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 11:22:14 PM4/6/23
to
72 months? He's quite bright then, after all.

Richard Hertz

unread,
Apr 6, 2023, 11:54:02 PM4/6/23
to
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 12:20:23 AM UTC-3, Jane wrote:

<snip>

> There is a simple Newtonian explanation for everything uniquely
> attributed to Einstein.

For instance, in 1801 Von Soldner calculated that starlight grazing Sun's surface fall into it by suffering Sun's
gravitational constant g_S. He found that the path of light has a hyperbolic trajectory, in a very detailed paper
which started from zero, just assuming that light fell due to solar gravity. He obtained 0.85 arcseconds of
deflection, with no other premise.

Einstein plagiarized Von Soldner in 1911, obtaining exactly the same value AND with the same premises.

All of a sudden, on Nov. 18, 1915, in the middle of his paper on the plagiarized perihelion advance of Mercury (Gerber, 1898),
he inserted a few paragraphs announcing that he obtained twice the 1801/1911 value (pure newtonian development).

What the cretin did, in 1915, was to replace the classic newtonian gravitational potential by the formula 7a in that paper.

Using THAT FORMULA, he DOUBLED light momentum when grazing Sun's surface and, voilá, obtained 1.7 arcseconds of
deflection. Eddington fudged the results of the 1919 eclipse and made Einstein a fucking worldwide star overnight.

Of course, such value remained as written in stone, and since then the cabal (mainly small hats) preserved this myth, even
when Einstein announced that such value was half newtonian and half relativistic.

Many relativistic geeks here go crazy if you mention the above, and claim that such exact value has been proved up to
the sixth decimal, by using the Parametric Post Newtonian theory (PPN), a stupid LINEARIZATION of GR equations, where
the deflection is given by (1 + Y), where Y is the PPN Gamma Factor, "proven" to be better than 0.999999.

The 1 in (1 + Y) is newtonian, but don't say that, or the relativistic bitches will jump crying foul.

So, Von Soldner (Newton, Laplace) is right, and Einstein is a fucking fraud on this, as in everything he touched either by plagiarism
or (as a parasite), stealing the work of "protegees". A name like Bose comes to my mind, and there are dozens.

Paul Alsing

unread,
Apr 7, 2023, 12:02:41 AM4/7/23
to
AND he has a PhD in physics... which almost certainly leaves you in the dust...

whodat

unread,
Apr 7, 2023, 12:47:53 AM4/7/23
to
I'd be careful, Paul. Non-conformance does not equal ignorance, although
quite often in newsgroups it does. But that is not a universal truism.

Paul Alsing

unread,
Apr 7, 2023, 1:12:47 AM4/7/23
to
Well, blatant ignorance just boils my blood... this stuff is very basic and is understood by millions of undergraduates worldwide... why do the cranks come out of the woodwork here? It is blatantly obvious that none of them have had a proper physics education and are simply shooting from the hip... and missing the barn entirely!

whodat

unread,
Apr 7, 2023, 2:07:25 AM4/7/23
to
Jane is one of the most advanced and well educated people these
newsgroups have seen in years and a recent retiree (I think) from
a significant teaching position at a highly reputable university.

Yes I'll toot her horn but will not "out" her. I expect she feels
liberated in her retirement leading to the posts she's made here
recently. Not a crank. Take my word for it. Best regards.

I welcome the complications she presents and hope you give
significant thought to what she writes here. Don't forget
that progress is quite often painful when past ideas are
being replaced. Please expect to see a lot more of this.

Volney

unread,
Apr 7, 2023, 3:05:45 AM4/7/23
to
On 4/6/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:

> Einstein's theory very cleverly describes a hypothetical universe in
> which the speed of light is always the same no matter how it is measured.
> that idea came directly from Lorentz and Fitzgerald and it only works if
> an absolute frame exists.

In SR, an absolute frame cannot exist. Its first postulate is that
physics anywhere and anywhen follow the same laws. An absolute frame, by
definition, has laws different from other frames.

It also helps that there is no reference to any "absolute" frame in SR.

> Since there is none, Einstein's theories will
> definitely go away...right away as far as possible. Einstein was a
> disaster for Physics.

Since SR doesn't assume an absolute frame (quite the opposite), it won't
"go away" for any such reason.
>
> Newton's laws are 100% accurate and have never been proven wrong. Ther
> will always be a Newtonian explanation of any physical process.

I'd love to see the Newtonian explanation for the cosmic muon existence
at sea level.

Volney

unread,
Apr 7, 2023, 3:10:28 AM4/7/23