Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?
NoEinstein
bubble that he was the greatest mind of the past century. When easy
to understand disproofs of his theories are shown, there is this very
real fear in the readers that some difficult to understand
counterargument(s) will be made that might uphold Einstein. So,
rather than taking the risk of siding with the ‘new man on the block’,
the prevailing wisdom (or should that be stupidity?) is to continue to
support the status quo.
People of average intelligence may have difficulty understanding
things that are technical, or perhaps difficult to visualize. So,
they often bestow a mystique of brilliance on those professing to
understand those type things. Similarly, if people of higher
intelligence have difficulty understanding things, they too will
confer an even greater brilliance on a person, such as Einstein, who
seems to know answers to the unexplained—like what gravity is. The
more difficult something is, the greater is the mass-minded elevation
of such a person to a position of high intellect.
Average folks can have niches of expertise. They can also have a
thing that is more important than mere high intelligence; that is:
common sense. Men of letters aren’t guaranteed to be men with common
sense. But those with common sense will tend to see through anything
that sounds ridiculous when explained. Most of Einstein’s theories
fit the latter. Those with common sense have never wasted their time
on such things. From very early, Einstein’s audiences have been
composed of people with a dearth of common sense.
Since 1905 Einstein has taught that nothing, not even light, can
exceed velocity c. In that era, no human had gone much faster than a
hundred mph. So, why would anyone care if anything that unimportant
and out of the daily realm might be true? By design, Einstein
selected for his specialty, science, which was understood by very
few. To disguise his low intelligence (85 - 90), he had to specialize
in something that wouldn’t cause him to have to deal with very many
people who have common sense. By becoming a scientist, he was
guaranteeing that few would waste their time arguing about anything
that he said. And when the counterarguments to his theories were few,
Einstein came to believe that he was invincible. And such attitude—
that was manifested in his arrogant defense of his theories—won over
more and more. But those people were responding more to the confident
sound of the speaker than to the reasonableness of the speeches.
After that 1919 solar eclipse, where Einstein had “predicted” the
angle of bending of a star’s light by the gravity of the Sun, he got
lifted to greatness. From then on, Einstein wasn’t someone to be
proved, he became ‘the explanation’ for more and more observations in
nature. If anything obeys, say, the inverse square law, or hits-a-
wall at high velocity, such became co-proofs of the observed phenomena
and of Einstein. There was this… “See! The data agrees with
Einstein. So, the data must be correct!” Until me, no one has said,
“If this agrees with Einstein, then, look for another explanation that
doesn’t require suspension of common sense.”
The E in E=mc^2 stands for kinetic energy. The total equation,
including a divisor Beta, purports to tell the amount of energy a unit
mass will have as the velocity approaches c. Einstein teaches that
velocity increases the mass of all moving objects. Atoms of steel,
supposedly, become more atoms of steel simply by being made to move
very fast. Perhaps a small diamond would become huge if one could
just make it go fast enough…
Einstein got his idea for E=mc^2 from Coriolis’s 1830 equation
for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2. Early tests of KE were made by
dropping objects and observing the destructions, penetrations into
clay, etc. Another formula that seems to conflict with Coriolis’s is
the formula for momentum, F=mv. Both seem to tell how hard a falling
object will hit. Why aren’t those the same? Are there two Laws of
Nature at work here? Einstein saw the disparity. But he rationalized
that KE is a partially scalar quantity, while momentum is a vector
quantity. The former would have an energy that is not directional,
that would be manifested by being internalized, as by causing an
increase in an object’s mass. So Einstein attributes a falling
object’s hitting power to an increase in the object’s mass. Drop a
large steel ball bearing, and extra steel atoms are created (according
to Einstein) so that the observed penetrations into clay can happen.
Following the penetration, the extra mass just disappears into thin
air, so that the ball bearing can be the same weight as before.
Note: If I paused to write “sic” after every statement about
Einstein’s thinking, I would be greatly slowed in writing. Pro
Einstein thinkers (or should that be pro Einstein non thinkers) must
accept: Matter (such as steel) is created in seconds, then, disappears
in an instant without so much as a puff of gas being visible.
Einstein’s defense of such an improbable thing has been to say that
mass increases don’t become significant till an object gets to 90% or
more of the velocity c. Such defense might be valid for his special
relativity equation. But can the same defense be used to argue that
Coriolis’s equation is scalar?
Drop an object for four seconds, and Coriolis’s formula says that
it will impact with a force of 8 weight units. The momentum
equivalent of that would be 5 weight units (including the object’s
static weight). So, by saying that KE is partly scalar, Einstein
would require that a one pound steel ball increase to at least 1.60
pounds in mass in just four seconds. Yet the diameter of the hole in
the clay would remain the same. Is anyone grasping the mindlessness
of Einstein’s would-have-been thinking?
Daily, I explain things about my discoveries from more and more
perspectives, hoping to get through the veil of disbelief of many.
Writing ‘all of this’ would not be necessary if people would just use
common sense, and be confident enough to act upon what they themselves
can understand. “Smart things aren’t necessarily always beyond
understanding!”
Most people should be able to grasp my disproofs of Einstein in
the time that it takes to read such. In the last century, can anyone—
scholars or otherwise—say that they have understood Einstein in the
time that it takes to read his writings?
All ye thinking men, it is time to arise!
__________
Matthew Lybanon
measure of how much force is required to produce a given acceleration.
In an extended body the mass is the sum (integral) of the masses of
individual volume elements, so it seems that mass tells you about the
quantity of matter. But in the case of an elementary particle there are
no "parts." Mass is the coefficient in the equation that relates force
and acceleration. As for what mass "is" in the case of elementary
particles, physicists are still working on the problem. If the mass of
an elementary particle increases with speed, no matter is being created.
It is still the same thing. The laws of nature are such that, as speed
increases, the force required to accelerate it is not simply linearly
proportional to the acceleration. The theory's prediction agrees with
experiment, and just because we don't yet know what mass "is" doesn't
mean that relativity is wrong. Aspirin cured people's headaches for 100
years before physicians understood how it works.
Androcles
"Matthew Lybanon" <lyb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lybanon-BF2311...@earthlink.us.supernews.com...
Uh oh, here we go again.
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Just because Einstein invented a parallel "time" doesn't mean the laws
of Nature are wrong, you babbling fuckwit, it means YOU are.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Matthew: No amount of “smoke and mirrors” can disguise the
context-illogic of Einstein’s notion: “Energy is mass and mass is
energy.” The apt context of my present post is: There has never been
a single instance in which VELOCITY, or more specifically, an increase
in velocity in free space, and without any collisions with another
mass(es) taking place, producing even one subatomic particle! The
correct definition of mass is: “Any concentration of energy which is
capable of resisting, but not stopping the flow of ether through it.
AND… All masses, even subatomic particles, must be capable of giving
off at least one photon.” Without that photon available for being
exchanged, there can be no gravitational attraction.
KE is the only non-mass-increase, energy increase that is possible in
free space. The accepted formula is that for MOMENTUM: F = mv. But
it is necessary to explain that “Earth” force units of pounds require
that the force be measured in multiples of the ‘g’ velocity of 32.174
feet per second. Double such velocity and you double the force of
impact.
Inertial mass is a term argued over by those debating relativity. It
is simply the static weight of a particular mass near the Earth’s
surface. The force that must be applied to accelerate any object only
needs to be UNIFORM and long lasting. The “words” of Newton’s 3rd Law
of Motion explain: “For every force there can be one and only one
acceleration for a unit mass.”
Einstein has asserted: “There isn’t enough energy in the entire
Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to velocity ‘c’.”
His rationale was that objects will become more and more massive with
increases in velocity, such that there isn’t enough energy to make the
objects continue to accelerate. BUT… Einstein didn’t understand what
acceleration is! Galileo and Newton supposed ‘g’ is = 32 feet /
sec.^2. Coriolis supposed that KE = ½ mv^2. So, Einstein, the MORON,
assumed that the energy must go to INFINITY at velocity ’c’. Einstein
mistook acceleration-of-the-acceleration for simple acceleration!
I know for a fact that a one pound object can be accelerated to
velocity ‘c’ in about one year’s time by any rocket motor capable of
applying a one pound uniform force to the object. The only proviso is
that the ether in the path be RIPPED apart so as not to flow through
the mass and cause drag. In my book, mass and matter are
interchangeable. But the attempted differentiation of those is a worn-
out smoke-and-mirrors escape from the illogic that is SR and
relativity in general. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Androcles: If Einstein said the velocity of light from A to B is c -
v; and from B to A is c + v; and the time both ways is the same, for
ONCE in his life he was correct! The light in the M-M experiment
speeds up when traveling in the direction of Earth's motion and slows
down when traveling counter to Earth's motion. And the times both
ways don't change! Here's why: the M-M apparatus is moving at the
same velocity as the Earth on which it sits. The light gets, say,
speeded up going in the same direction as the Earth. The faster speed
"should" cause the light to get to the next mirror QUICKER. But it
doesn't, because that mirror is moving at exactly the SAME velocity as
in the "c + v". So the TIME of travel is unchanged. No one before
yours truly has realized that light isn't physically connected to the
MOVING M-M experiment. And that movement ALWAYS is identical to the
increase or decrease in the velocity of the light!
Einstein, the MORON, went on to rationalize that the light wasn't
"really" traveling faster than 'c', because of Lorentz's imbecilic
"rubber rulers", which I have also handily disproved! — NoEinstein —
>
> "Matthew Lybanon" <lyba...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Androcles
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7747c1e0-5172-4003...@q26g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c8edb56$0$29452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
|
| "NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
| news:7747c1e0-5172-4003...@q26g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
| wrote:
| >
| Androcles: If Einstein said the velocity of light from A to B is c -
| v; and from B to A is c + v; and the time both ways is the same,
|
| He didn't.
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t+
x'/(c-v))
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
There is no x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v)) in that, Webb said so.
Webb can't read algebra. Ignore the silly fuck.
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
news:n1Bjo.3221$vf....@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4c8edb56$0$29452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> |
> | "NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> |
> news:7747c1e0-5172-4003...@q26g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> | On Sep 13, 11:14 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
> | wrote:
> | >
> | Androcles: If Einstein said the velocity of light from A to B is c -
> | v; and from B to A is c + v; and the time both ways is the same,
> |
> | _________________________________
> | He didn't.
>
> 1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t+
> x'/(c-v))
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
That is not what you said Einstein said.
> There is no x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v)) in that, Webb said so.
> Webb can't read algebra. Ignore the silly fuck.
>
Have you a reference for where Einstein said "the velocity of light from A
to B is c - | v; and from B to A is c + v; and the time both ways is the
same" ? That is NOT what the page you linked to says.
Why do you have to lie?
Androcles
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity
Paragraph 6 for those that can count.
we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.
§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a
Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation
Relatively to the Former
Paragraph 8 for those that can count.
But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the
stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif>
Why are you a dumb cunt?
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Why did you invent a quote from Einstein which was merely your incorrect
paraphrasing of him?
Androcles
Verbatim:
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Verbatim:
"Einstein said the velocity of light from A to B is c -v; and from B to A is
c + v; and the time both ways is the same"
Why did you invent a quote from Einstein which was merely your incorrect
paraphrasing of him?
Androcles
You lying bastard... Einstein said the "time" each way is the same.
Not even insane Einstein would say the time both ways was the same.
Why are you an illiterate cunt who can't tell "time" from time?
John Polasek
<noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> My disproving Einstein has been a snap compared to bursting the
>bubble that he was the greatest mind of the past century. When easy
>to understand disproofs of his theories are shown, there is this very
>real fear in the readers that some difficult to understand
>Einstein’s defense of such an improbable thing has been to say that
>mass increases don’t become significant till an object gets to 90% or
>more of the velocity c. Such defense might be valid for his special
>relativity equation. But can the same defense be used to argue that
>Coriolis’s equation is scalar?
> Drop an object for four seconds, and Coriolis’s formula says that
>it will impact with a force of 8 weight units.
Coriolis’s formula doesn't make good sense does it:
Drop it for four seconds and
if it stops in four seconds the force is W.
If it stops in two seconds, it's 2W.
if it stops in one second it's 4W.
If it stops in 1/10 of a second it's 40W
>The momentum
>equivalent of that would be 5 weight units (including the object’s
>static weight). So, by saying that KE is partly scalar, Einstein
>would require that a one pound steel ball increase to at least 1.60
>pounds in mass in just four seconds. Yet the diameter of the hole in
>the clay would remain the same. Is anyone grasping the mindlessness
>of Einstein’s would-have-been thinking?
> Daily, I explain things about my discoveries from more and more
>perspectives, hoping to get through the veil of disbelief of many.
>Writing ‘all of this’ would not be necessary if people would just use
>common sense, and be confident enough to act upon what they themselves
>can understand. “Smart things aren’t necessarily always beyond
>understanding!”
> Most people should be able to grasp my disproofs of Einstein in
>the time that it takes to read such. In the last century, can anyone—
>scholars or otherwise—say that they have understood Einstein in the
>time that it takes to read his writings?
> All ye thinking men, it is time to arise!
John Polasek_________
Igor
NoEinstein wrote:
> All ye thinking men, it is time to arise!
After reading your ridiculous post, I think we can safely say all ye
non-thinking men, it is time to brain fart.
Igor
You have to understand that Androcles is a consummate contrarian and
not interested in the facts. Arguing logically with him gets you
nowhere. He claims again and again that the time out and time back
for the light ray are not the same, yet he also says there is no
aether and that relativity is wrong. I've asked him again and again
what there is in space that makes it anisotropic, but he just keeps
calling people names. He's an angry son of a bitch with absolutely no
morals nor a sense of reality. Best to leave him to stew in his own
juices.
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Androcles: I'll forgive your name calling if you will let me explain
a simple analogy to the A to B and B to A light travel times. Assume
a military type machine gun is mounted on a long flat bed train. With
the train sitting still on perfectly straight tracks, the bullets
take .1 of a second to travel from the tip of the barrel to a target
mounted on the back of the train's engine.
Now, increase the speed of the train to 100 mph. The bullets leaving
the barrel of the gun will have their "sitting still" velocity added
to the velocity of the train. The velocity increase is exactly 100
mph. Right? Since the bullets are traveling 100 mph FASTER than
before, they should get to the target sooner, shouldn't they? But it
will still require exactly .1 of a second to reach the target. How is
that possible? Because the train-mounted gun and the target are both
moving ahead 100 mph faster, exactly matching the speed increase of
the bullet! One of my Laws of Light says: "In any system moving as a
set, the times of travel of the light will always be the same as if
the entire system is sitting at rest!" That is why the M-M experiment
had no fringe shifts! The times of travel for both light courses were
totally unaffected by the velocity of the apparatus in any direction.
Frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not Einstein "said" the
things you quoted. He was all-over-the-place on so many things, one
can pick and choose just what that man's (imagined) science was. —
NoEinstein —
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4c8ee9e1$0$29378$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> || "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
>
> |news:n1Bjo.3221$vf....@newsfe18.ams2...
> | >
> | > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> | >news:4c8edb56$0$29452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> | > |
> | > | "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
NoEinstein
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
Dear Peter: Who gives a damn who said it? The important thing is it
was TRUE; and I have given the correct explanation why! — NoEinstein
—
>
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
>
> news:ioGjo.107317$w13.1...@newsfe08.ams2...
>
> > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:4c8ee9e1$0$29378$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > |
> > | "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
> > |news:n1Bjo.3221$vf....@newsfe18.ams2...
> > | >
> > | > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > | >news:4c8edb56$0$29452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > | > |
> > | > | "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Androcles: The only reason the times might not be the same is if the
velocity of either A or B changes, respectively, while the light is in
transit. In the case of Earthly separation distances, and light
reflected from a normal mirror for the return course, the times of
travel will be IDENTICAL, even though the light velocity on one leg is
c + v, and on the other leg c - v. If one averages the two speeds, it
will be c and only c. THAT is why hard-headed scientists wrongly have
concluded that the velocity of light is... 'c', only. But they are so
wrong! — NoEinstein —
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4c8fa6b0$0$16546$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> || "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
>
> |news:yxLjo.108087$w13....@newsfe08.ams2...
> | >
> | > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> | >news:4c8f79e4$0$3030$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> | > |
> | > | "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
> | > |news:ioGjo.107317$w13.1...@newsfe08.ams2...
> | > | >
> | > | > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> | > | >news:4c8ee9e1$0$29378$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
> | > | > |news:n1Bjo.3221$vf....@newsfe18.ams2...
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
> | > message
> | > | > | >news:4c8edb56$0$29452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
NoEinstein
>
Dear John: Indeed, Coriolis makes no sense! But you have the
"hitting power", w, wrong!
It a mass stops after 4 seconds it hits with 5 weight units of force;
3 seconds: 4 weight units; 2 seconds: 3 wt. units; 1 second: 2 wt.
units. At acceleration 'g' there is one additional weight unit of
force added per second of fall. The reason the hitting power is
always one weight unit HIGHER than that is because the continuous
static weight of the object adds in one extra weight multiple of force
at the end. The correct formula is my own: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174
(m). This had been confirmed in two very exacting experiments. —
NoEinstein —
>
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 22:11:40 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
>
Peter Webb
> | > | Why did you invent a quote from Einstein which was merely your
> incorrect
> | > | paraphrasing of him?
> | >
> | > Verbatim:
> | >
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif>
> | > Why are you a dumb cunt?
> | >
> |
> | Verbatim:
> |
> | "Einstein said the velocity of light from A to B is c -v; and from B to
> A
> is
> | c + v; and the time both ways is the same"
>
> You lying bastard... Einstein said the "time" each way is the same.
> Not even insane Einstein would say the time both ways was the same.
> Why are you an illiterate cunt who can't tell "time" from time?
>
>
Gee, more supposed quotes from Einstein which turn out to be only your
clumsy paraphrasing of something different Einstein said!
If you want to quote Einstein, quote what he said, not something you
invented him saying. Or is there nothing in what Einstein actually said that
you disagree with, so you are forced to invent things he didn't say to
disagree with?
Either way, its pretty simple to quote somebody correctly and fully using
copy and paste, and you should practice that. It will make it much easier
for to quote Einstein again in the future; saves you having to invent things
he didn't say and type them up.
HTH
Androcles
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:6e45f83c-92ec-471f...@l17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Talking about me instead of physics won't gain you any understanding,
worthless illiterate fuckwit.
--
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Webb thinks time is "time", the stupid fuck can't read double apostrophes
and neither can you.
Androcles
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4829b8ad-b0f0-42d5...@g18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:46ccf115-12fb-4577...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
|
| > | > | Why did you invent a quote from Einstein which was merely your
| > incorrect
| > | > | paraphrasing of him?
| > | >
| > | > Verbatim:
| > | >
| > <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif>
| > | > Why are you a dumb cunt?
| > | >
| > |
| > | Verbatim:
| > |
| > | "Einstein said the velocity of light from A to B is c -v; and from B
to
| > A
| > is
| > | c + v; and the time both ways is the same"
| >
| > You lying bastard... Einstein said the "time" each way is the same.
| > Not even insane Einstein would say the time both ways was the same.
| > Why are you an illiterate cunt who can't tell "time" from time?
| >
| >
|
| Gee, more supposed quotes from Einstein which turn out to be only your
| clumsy paraphrasing of something different Einstein said!
Why are you an illiterate LYING cunt who can't tell "time" from time?
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4c9027f9$0$6016$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> |
> | > | > | Why did you invent a quote from Einstein which was merely your
> | > incorrect
> | > | > | paraphrasing of him?
> | > | >
> | > | > Verbatim:
> | > | >
> | >
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif>
> | > | > Why are you a dumb cunt?
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | Verbatim:
> | > |
> | > You lying bastard... Einstein said the "time" each way is the same.
> | > Not even insane Einstein would say the time both ways was the same.
> | > Why are you an illiterate cunt who can't tell "time" from time?
> | >
> | >
> |
> | Gee, more supposed quotes from Einstein which turn out to be only your
> | clumsy paraphrasing of something different Einstein said!
>
> Why are you an illiterate LYING cunt who can't tell "time" from time?
>
The difference between what you claimed Einstein said and the equation you
posted is not the difference between "time" and time.
They are completely different. One is a jumbled an incoherent statement in
English, the other is an equation. They are not even similar.
Now, have you got an actual quote where Einstein said "Have you a reference
for where Einstein said "the velocity of light from A to B is c - v; and
from B to A is c + v; and the time both ways is the same" ?
No?
Who actually said this, was it just you? If so, your statement that
Einstein's equations are not the same as the silly text you invented is
hardly a surprise.
So, if it wasn't Einstein who made that ridiculous statement, was it you?
You must have got it from somewhere ...
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
| news:AkWjo.173026$ki7....@newsfe24.ams2...
| >
| > "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:4c9027f9$0$6016$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > |
| > | > | > | Why did you invent a quote from Einstein which was merely your
| > | > incorrect
| > | > | > | paraphrasing of him?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Verbatim:
| > | > | >
| > | >
| > <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif>
| > | > | > Why are you a dumb cunt?
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | Verbatim:
| > | > |
| > | > | ". I have the power to control American policy."> | >
| > | > You lying bastard... Einstein said the "time" each way is the same.
| > | > Not even insane Einstein would say the time both ways was the same.
| > | > Why are you an illiterate cunt who can't tell "time" from time?
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > | Gee, more supposed quotes from Einstein which turn out to be only your
| > | clumsy paraphrasing of something different Einstein said!
| >
| > Why are you an illiterate LYING cunt who can't tell "time" from time?
| >
|
| The difference between what you claimed Einstein said and the equation you
| posted is not the difference between "time" and time.
tau and t are different, you blind illiterate cunt.
|
| They are completely different. One is a jumbled an incoherent statement in
| English, the other is an equation. They are not even similar.
The other is a jumbled inequality, it's no equation, and it is quite
incoherent
to you since you can't read algebra.
time corresponds to t, "time" corresponds to tau.
Why are you an illiterate LYING cunt who can't tell tau-"time" from t-time?
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
So you have no cite for Einstein saying "the velocity of light from A to B
is c - v; and from B to A is c + v; and the time both ways is the same" ?
And no recollection at all where this sentence came from, or who said it
first?
OK.
Androcles
t-time, LOSER?
Igor
wrote:
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6e45f83c-92ec-471f...@l17g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> |
> || Peter Webb wrote:
>
> | >news:n1Bjo.3221$vf....@newsfe18.ams2...
> | > >
> | > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> | > >news:4c8edb56$0$29452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> | > > |
> | > > | "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> | > > |
> | > >news:7747c1e0-5172-4003...@q26g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> | > > | On Sep 13, 11:14 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
> | > > | wrote:
> | > > | >
> | > > | Androcles: If Einstein said the velocity of light from A to B is
> c -
> | > > | v; and from B to A is c + v; and the time both ways is the same,
> | > > |
> | > > | _________________________________
> | > > | He didn't.
> | > >
> | > > 1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0, t+
> | > > x'/(c-v))
> | > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> | > >
> | >
> | > That is not what you said Einstein said.
> | >
> | > > There is no x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v)) in that, Webb said so.
> | > > Webb can't read algebra. Ignore the silly fuck.
> | > >
> | >
> | > Have you a reference for where Einstein said "the velocity of light from
> A
> | > to B is c - | v; and from B to A is c + v; and the time both ways is the
> | > same" ? That is NOT what the page you linked to says.
> | >
> | > Why do you have to lie?
> |
> | You have to understand that Androcles
>
> Talking about me instead of physics won't gain you any understanding,
> worthless illiterate fuckwit.
I have tried to talk physics with you, but you never understood it,
dumbass!
> Ref:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?
>
> Webb thinks time is "time", the stupid fuck can't read double apostrophes
> and neither can you.
Double apostrophes? Oh, you mean the quotation marks. That's
hilarious. But I'll ask you one more time. What is there in space
that would make it anisotropic as you claim? And if you don't
understand the question, look it up, meathead!
PD
> My disproving Einstein has been a snap compared to bursting the
> bubble that he was the greatest mind of the past century. When easy
> to understand disproofs of his theories are shown, there is this very
> real fear in the readers that some difficult to understand
> rather than taking the risk of siding with the ‘new man on the block’,
> the prevailing wisdom (or should that be stupidity?) is to continue to
> support the status quo.
Actually, the prevailing wisdom is to rely on the arbitration of
replicated experimental results, which in science always trumps in the
competition between "logical arguments". You have failed to do that,
and so do not operate or investigate scientifically.
> People of average intelligence may have difficulty understanding
> things that are technical, or perhaps difficult to visualize. So,
> they often bestow a mystique of brilliance on those professing to
> understand those type things.
While that may be true for the inexpert population as a matter of
expediency, it is not the case for professionals in the same arena. In
that case, all kudos must be *earned*, using the basis I just
mentioned above.
> Similarly, if people of higher
> intelligence have difficulty understanding things, they too will
> confer an even greater brilliance on a person, such as Einstein, who
> seems to know answers to the unexplained—like what gravity is.
> The
> more difficult something is, the greater is the mass-minded elevation
> of such a person to a position of high intellect.
Again, stop projecting your own behavior on others. There is no
unquestioning elevation of anyone in science. The status of theories
produced by ANY physicist is garnered from replicated experimental
results.
> Average folks can have niches of expertise. They can also have a
> thing that is more important than mere high intelligence; that is:
> common sense. Men of letters aren’t guaranteed to be men with common
> sense. But those with common sense will tend to see through anything
> that sounds ridiculous when explained. Most of Einstein’s theories
> fit the latter. Those with common sense have never wasted their time
> on such things. From very early, Einstein’s audiences have been
> composed of people with a dearth of common sense.
Common sense is a liar and a cheat. Common sense is an evolutionary
adaptation that allows us to extrapolate rules from 90% of events in
our common everyday experience to apply to the remaining 10% of our
common everyday experience. This has proven to be on average a useful
survival strategy, as long as the circumstances are similar to our
everyday life, which for the purposes of survival is usually the case.
However, we have discovered that our small slice of the universe
mapped by our everyday experience is not representative of the way
most of the universe works. This is why where it is useful to stop
relying on common sense and instead rely on replicated experimental
measurement -- because so much of what we measure has turned out to be
very surprising and completely counter to common sense.
> Since 1905 Einstein has taught that nothing, not even light, can
> exceed velocity c. In that era, no human had gone much faster than a
> hundred mph. So, why would anyone care if anything that unimportant
> and out of the daily realm might be true?
More importantly, this was a claim that was experimentally testable in
the years following. It turned out to be quite right.
> By design, Einstein
> selected for his specialty, science, which was understood by very
> few.
Don't be ridiculous. Science is not only well understood but practiced
by literally hundreds of thousand of people. It is readily understood
by those who take the time to study it.
> To disguise his low intelligence (85 - 90), he had to specialize
> in something that wouldn’t cause him to have to deal with very many
> people who have common sense. By becoming a scientist, he was
> guaranteeing that few would waste their time arguing about anything
> that he said. And when the counterarguments to his theories were few,
> Einstein came to believe that he was invincible. And such attitude—
> that was manifested in his arrogant defense of his theories—won over
> more and more. But those people were responding more to the confident
> sound of the speaker than to the reasonableness of the speeches.
That may be true for newspaper readers, but it certainly wasn't true
among scientists.
As I said before, reputation in science is not earned by personality
or bluster, but by agreement with replicated experimental results.
> After that 1919 solar eclipse, where Einstein had “predicted” the
> angle of bending of a star’s light by the gravity of the Sun, he got
> lifted to greatness. From then on, Einstein wasn’t someone to be
> proved, he became ‘the explanation’ for more and more observations in
> nature. If anything obeys, say, the inverse square law, or hits-a-
> wall at high velocity, such became co-proofs of the observed phenomena
> and of Einstein. There was this… “See! The data agrees with
> Einstein. So, the data must be correct!”
Don't be ridiculous! The data, if replicated by independent
investigators, is correct because that's how nature reveals itself.
The fact of agreement between Einstein and the data meant that
Einstein's theory was validated, not the data.
> Until me, no one has said,
> “If this agrees with Einstein, then, look for another explanation that
> doesn’t require suspension of common sense.”
This is faulty on a number of points.
1. You claim you are the first to say this. You are wrong. You are
just another in a long and steady stream of amateurs, hobbyists, and
wannabes that have professed the very same thing -- the VERY same
thing -- you've said. "Surely there's a better explanation that is
accessible to everyone because it appeals to common sense." You are
absolutely no different. In fact you exhibit many of the same
psychological symptoms that most of the others do too.
2. In science, the word "explanation" has certain requirements. It
REQUIRES the proposer to derive from the premises of his theory the
mathematics that would allow the calculation of quantitative
predictions of measurable phenomena. You've not done that, and so you
have not provided anything that satisfies the scientific criteria for
an explanation.
3. There has NEVER, in the whole of science, been two disjoint
explanations that provided exactly the same experimental predictions.
Theories are in fact distinguished by predictions that are different
between them, rather than in the areas where they agree. If two
theories agree on every prediction, then it has ALWAYS been the case
that they can be shown to be logically and physically equivalent.
4. See above for the value of common sense in science. In science, the
ONLY premium is on agreement with experimental results. You place way
too high a premium on common sense, which is after all only an
evolutionary survival strategy that offers no warranty of value
outside of everyday experience.
> The E in E=mc^2 stands for kinetic energy. The total equation,
> including a divisor Beta, purports to tell the amount of energy a unit
> mass will have as the velocity approaches c. Einstein teaches that
> velocity increases the mass of all moving objects.
Where mass has a very specific meaning.
> Atoms of steel,
> supposedly, become more atoms of steel simply by being made to move
> very fast.
No, this is NOT what Einstein teaches, and this goes to the point
above. You have erroneously concluded that more mass means more atoms,
more volume. That is certainly NOT the meaning to mass that is
referred to here.
> Perhaps a small diamond would become huge if one could
> just make it go fast enough…
> Einstein got his idea for E=mc^2 from Coriolis’s 1830 equation
> for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2. Early tests of KE were made by
> dropping objects and observing the destructions, penetrations into
> clay, etc.
Fortunately, those early tests were followed by nearly two hundred
years of much more precise measurements and validation of that theory.
Repetition of the early and imprecise tests in no way changes the
results found by later and more precise tests.
> Another formula that seems to conflict with Coriolis’s is
> the formula for momentum, F=mv.
That formula does not appear in any physics book. F is not a symbol
used for momentum in physics books.
> Both seem to tell how hard a falling
> object will hit.
No, they do not say that at all. Momentum and kinetic energy are
distinct properties that are different than "how hard a falling object
will hit", although there is a *relationship* between them. Any vague
nonsense that IDENTIFIES momentum and kinetic energy with "how hard a
falling object will hit" leads immediately to problems due to
oversimplification, which you yourself produce.
> Why aren’t those the same? Are there two Laws of
> Nature at work here?
Yes, there ARE two laws of nature here. Conservation of energy and
conservation of momentum are different laws, and both of those are
different from F=ma (Newton's second law), although in many
situations, they will all apply separately and impose independent
constraints.
> Einstein saw the disparity. But he rationalized
> that KE is a partially scalar quantity, while momentum is a vector
> quantity.
Einstein did not do that. That was done long before him.
> The former would have an energy that is not directional,
> that would be manifested by being internalized, as by causing an
> increase in an object’s mass. So Einstein attributes a falling
> object’s hitting power to an increase in the object’s mass.
He does no such thing. YOU do.
> Drop a
> large steel ball bearing, and extra steel atoms are created (according
> to Einstein)
He says no such thing. YOU do. And you're wrong. Increased mass does
not mean "more steel".
> so that the observed penetrations into clay can happen.
> Following the penetration, the extra mass just disappears into thin
> air, so that the ball bearing can be the same weight as before.
> Note: If I paused to write “sic” after every statement about
> Einstein’s thinking, I would be greatly slowed in writing. Pro
> Einstein thinkers (or should that be pro Einstein non thinkers) must
> accept: Matter (such as steel) is created in seconds, then, disappears
> in an instant without so much as a puff of gas being visible.
> Einstein’s defense of such an improbable thing has been to say that
> mass increases don’t become significant till an object gets to 90% or
> more of the velocity c. Such defense might be valid for his special
> relativity equation. But can the same defense be used to argue that
> Coriolis’s equation is scalar?
> Drop an object for four seconds, and Coriolis’s formula says that
> it will impact with a force of 8 weight units.
No, it does not. You cannot calculate with Coriolis' formula to save
your life.
> The momentum
> equivalent of that would be 5 weight units (including the object’s
> static weight). So, by saying that KE is partly scalar, Einstein
> would require that a one pound steel ball increase to at least 1.60
> pounds in mass in just four seconds.
No, Einstein's formula does not say that at all.
> Yet the diameter of the hole in
> the clay would remain the same. Is anyone grasping the mindlessness
> of Einstein’s would-have-been thinking?
> Daily, I explain things about my discoveries from more and more
> perspectives, hoping to get through the veil of disbelief of many.
> Writing ‘all of this’ would not be necessary if people would just use
> common sense, and be confident enough to act upon what they themselves
> can understand. “Smart things aren’t necessarily always beyond
> understanding!”
> Most people should be able to grasp my disproofs of Einstein in
> the time that it takes to read such. In the last century, can anyone—
> scholars or otherwise—say that they have understood Einstein in the
> time that it takes to read his writings?
> All ye thinking men, it is time to arise!
> __________
Androcles
========================================
Definition of ANISOTROPIC
: exhibiting properties with different values when measured in different
directions
That's hilarious! I never made any such claim, you lying fuck, I quoted
Einstein's inequality and translated it into plain English!
hanson
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
> That's hilarious! ....plain English!
>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:i6s3t1$2ndk$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
|
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....
NoEinstein
whether Einstein, the MORON, is quoted correctly? I have handily
disproved that fraud of a scientiest at every turn! There is no
"smoke and mirrors" argument over details that can save his, or your
ass. Androcles knows this: "Science is never grossly illogical or
counterintuitive." To accept Einstein as one's God, one must WORSHIP
the illogical and the counterintuitive! Your cause in support of the
status quo has failed from the start. George Washington said, "Be not
the first on whom the new is tried, nor the last to put the old
aside." The latter just might be... you, Peter. — NoEinstein —
>
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
>
> news:ioGjo.107317$w13.1...@newsfe08.ams2...
>
> > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:4c8ee9e1$0$29378$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > |
> > | "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
> > |news:n1Bjo.3221$vf....@newsfe18.ams2...
> > | >
> > | > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > | >news:4c8edb56$0$29452$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > | > |
> > | > | "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
NoEinstein
Dear Igor: Years ago, your first reply to me was so libelous that I
could have sued you. In all that time you have never spoken of my New
Science, you only comment on the messenger, me, who has so easily shot
down every Einsteiniac on Earth! If you suppose you have any
credibility at all, please give the titles and the links to your '+new
posts', if you've ever made any. Some of my '+new posts' are copied
below. — NoEinstein —
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
NoEinstein
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
Dear Peter: I have been making that "quote" about light velocity
changing (plus and minus), while the times of travel remain identical,
for about the last ten years. Not only have I made the statement, I
have proved, algebraically, that light velocity DOES exceed 'c'. I've
also designed, built, and tested my X, Y, & Z interferometer that
easily detects Earth's motion in the Cosmos. Einstein said: "If any
Earth-based experiment ever detects Earth's velocity, my SR theory
will have been disproved." But the easiest disproof of SR is to show
that such violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Peter, your
contributions to science... are what? — NoEinstein —
>
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
>
> news:AkWjo.173026$ki7....@newsfe24.ams2...
>
> > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
PD
> Androcles knows this: "Science is never grossly illogical or
> counterintuitive."
And you and Androcles are wrong about this. Nature is quite often
surprising and counterintuitive.
Nobody really cares whether that provokes anxiety in you and you
refuse to accept that.
> To accept Einstein as one's God, one must WORSHIP
> the illogical and the counterintuitive!
It's not a matter of worship anything. It's a matter of accepting what
replicated experimental evidence tells you, even if that is
counterintuitive and illogical. When confirmed experiment and common
sense disagree, then it MUST be common sense that gives way every
time.
Oh, and nobody becomes a God as a result. Einstein is no God to
scientists. Is he God to you? If not, for whom do you think he is God?
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2eaa71d1-ec75-4692...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 17, 1:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Androcles knows this: "Science is never grossly illogical or
> counterintuitive."
And you and Androcles are wrong about this. Nature is quite often
surprising and counterintuitive.
=========================================
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
You are both one-speed-of-light-only freaks, and you are both
wrong about it, whatever your intuitions tell you. Logic isn't
wrong, both your intuitions are.
Nobody really cares
========================================
True enough, shits like you don't give a flying fuck about being
wrong, just preach what your insane "prominent theoretical
physicists" tell you to do. You are both illogical, both insane,
both bigots with opposing religions. You have one god as
Xtians and Molsems do, but yours is the one true holy speed
of light. One claims time dilation and the other claims aether.
Nobody really cares.
--
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Peter Webb
On Sep 14, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
Dear Peter: I have been making that "quote" about light velocity
changing (plus and minus), while the times of travel remain identical,
for about the last ten years. Not only have I made the statement, I
have proved, algebraically, that light velocity DOES exceed 'c'. I've
also designed, built, and tested my X, Y, & Z interferometer that
easily detects Earth's motion in the Cosmos.
______________________________________
You should publish your experimental results in a peer reviewed journal, and
achieve instant fame as the guy who disproved Relativity.
Just out of curiosity, what is earth's velocity relative to stationary?
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: One bright mind on the groups once
commented regarding my disproofs of "established science": "One aw
shit nullifies 100 ata-boys..." The main “aw shit” I have thrown out
there is that SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy.
Those "experiments" you claim support Einstein have never been named,
paraphrased by you and linked to. You are sleep walking if you
suppose any experiment ever done "supporting" Einstein can't easily be
disproved by yours truly in a couple of paragraphs. For the umpteenth
time, PD, cite your experiment(s) or shut up! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Dear Peter: These news groups come closer to "objective exposure of
science" than any journal does. Find the links to my '+new posts',
which I've listed just today, and read my clearly explained
descriptions of both my algebraic and experimental disproofs of
Einstein. The only things stationary relative to Earth's velocity are
experiments such as the M-M that have foundations anchored to the
Earth. So, Earth's motion is matched by the motion of the M-M
apparatus. — NoEinstein —
Peter Webb
_________________________________________
Put a photograph and an engineering drawing of your interferometer on a web
page. Provide a short numerical summary of your findings, including figures
gathered over at least 12 months (as Michelson Morley did, and for the same
reasons).
If you have experimental results which back up your theory as you claim,
then you are going to be very famous very soon.
And what is earth's absolute motion at the moment anyway?
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Androcles: Your pathological aversion to the idea of ether being the
basic energy from which the Universe was built happened well before
you ever replied to me. I would love to hear you calmly explain just
what it is about ether that you find so upsetting. Obviously, you've
had arguments with others in which you repeatedly expressed your
counter-arguments. But I never got to hear those. Hope you will
reply. — NE —
>
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
NoEinstein
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
Dear Peter: Now, you are showing some objectivity! Email me at
noein...@bellsouth.net and I will reply to you with an attachment
drawing of my X, Y & Z interferometer. The "control" (unchanging)
light course is on the Z axis, which is laser down to a normal 60Tx40R
beamsplitter. 40% of the laser light reflects back to a circular
paper target with a precision 1 mm pin-hole to let out the laser
light. 60% of the laser light transmits through the beamsplitter;
reflects 90 degrees from a precision first-surface 45 degree mirror;
travels 12" to a normal, first surface mirror; and reflects back to
the 45 degree mirror. 60% of the initial 60% of the light transpits
to the target, or "36%", vs 40% for the control.
*** This design detects Earth's velocity because (very important!) the
45 degree mirror will move sideways while the laser light (photons)
travels to it. That means that the light will hit off center on the
mirror. The greater the Earth's velocity component, the greater will
be the distance off center! The result of off-center reflections is
to either LENGTHEN or SHORTEN the physical length of the TEST light
course. That slows or speeds up the time of travel of the TEST light
to the target; and that variation will show up as thousands of fringe
shifts in 360 degrees of the apparatus's rotation (on a Lazy Susan)!
Since the interference "bulls eye" is only about 3/8" in diameter, it
isn't possible to accurately count the fringe shifts. Modified
designs, costing a lot more money, should be able to measure Earth's
velocity in the Cosmos, and show Earth's direction of travel, to very
high accuracy. Hope you can understand the concept! — NoEinstein —
> And what is earth's absolute motion at the moment anyway?- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
> > Androcles knows this: "Science is never grossly illogical or
> > counterintuitive."
>
> And you and Androcles are wrong about this. Nature is quite often
> surprising and counterintuitive.
>
indication your understanding is way off. You Einsteiniacs can defend
the status quo to your dying days, but you have NEVER paraphrased any
experiment that shows SR and Coriolis don't violate the Law of the
Conservation of Energy. Until you can do so, you haven't got even a
speck of credibility, still standing at the bottom of the Science Hill
that I am the King of! — NoEinstein —
>
> Nobody really cares whether that provokes anxiety in you and you
> refuse to accept that.
>
> > To accept Einstein as one's God, one must WORSHIP
> > the illogical and the counterintuitive!
>
> It's not a matter of worship anything. It's a matter of accepting what
> replicated experimental evidence tells you, even if that is
> counterintuitive and illogical. When confirmed experiment and common
> sense disagree, then it MUST be common sense that gives way every
> time.
>
> Oh, and nobody becomes a God as a result. Einstein is no God to
> scientists. Is he God to you? If not, for whom do you think he is God?
>
>
>
> > Your cause in support of the
> > status quo has failed from the start. George Washington said, "Be not
> > the first on whom the new is tried, nor the last to put the old
Androcles
--
Androcles does not read top posts from rude bastards who've been informed of
that fact. All text will be snipped unread. Replying in that fashion is
futile. Fuck off, rude bastard.
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:f9af6073-a109-4876...@c32g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Peter Webb
_________________________________________________
You said you had an experimental aparatus that could detect the earth's
movement through the cosmos. Now you appear to be saying that you have an
experimental aparatus that cannot detect the earth's movement to the cosmos.
These are very different propositions. Which one is true?
RP
> Until you can do so, you haven't got even a
> speck of credibility, still standing at the bottom of the Science Hill
> that I am the King of! — NoEinstein —
You're the King? So be it. From henceforth you will be known as
"King...of the River of Shit."
PD
>
> > > Androcles knows this: "Science is never grossly illogical or
> > > counterintuitive."
>
> > And you and Androcles are wrong about this. Nature is quite often
> > surprising and counterintuitive.
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Being "surprised" by nature is an
> indication your understanding is way off.
Aha. Just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it soothes deep
anxieties.
Meanwhile, scientists will enjoy the hunt of the surprising in nature,
as there seems to be no end of interesting surprises provided by
nature.
> You Einsteiniacs can defend
> the status quo to your dying days, but you have NEVER paraphrased any
> experiment that shows SR and Coriolis don't violate the Law of the
> Conservation of Energy.
Of course we have.
You, however, don't have an understanding of fifth grade algebra, and
you steadfastly hold the incorrect notion that if an expression is not
a linear one, then it cannot express a conserved quantity. As long as
you hold that boneheaded mistake as being unquestionable, then there's
no hope for you.
> Until you can do so, you haven't got even a
> speck of credibility,
I really don't care about my credibility in your eyes, or for that
matter anybody's credibility in your eyes, especially since you firmly
believe that no one has any credibility except for you. There's really
no point in trying to persuade a psychotic.
PD
> On Sep 17, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: One bright mind on the groups once
> commented regarding my disproofs of "established science": "One aw
> shit nullifies 100 ata-boys..." The main “aw shit” I have thrown out
> there is that SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy.
No it doesn't. You simply don't understand the Law of Conservation of
Energy and you think it says something other than what it does say.
However, you have protected yourself from the realization of being
wrong about anything, and so you will never learn what it really does
say.
Just remember, the Law of Conservation of Energy was not invented by
you. As long as you are the only one that is saying the boneheaded
things you're saying about it, and everyone else says you're wrong,
then you may want to consider the prospect that you've been saying
something boneheaded about it.
> Those "experiments" you claim support Einstein have never been named,
> paraphrased by you and linked to.
And that's where you're wrong. I have provided links to them.
I've also explained to you why you are not entitled to a paraphrasing,
even though YOU want a paraphrasing, and even though YOU are willing
to paraphrase your own. The world does not exist to serve your whim.
If you want to learn about the experiments, then learn about them, as
they've been pointed to for you. If you don't, then don't. But don't
blame anyone else for your stupid choices.
PD
> suppose any experiment ever done "supporting" Einstein can't easily be
> disproved by yours truly in a couple of paragraphs. For the umpteenth
> time, PD, cite your experiment(s) or shut up! — NoEinstein —
>
Any fool who thinks he can "disprove" experimental evidence with
"common sense" has lost touch with reality.
NoEinstein
wrote:
> --
> Androcles does not read top posts from rude bastards who've been informed of
> that fact. All text will be snipped unread. Replying in that fashion is
> futile. Fuck off, rude bastard.
>
>
> news:f9af6073-a109-4876...@c32g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Androcles: Apparently, you would prefer discursive comments not
easily followed by anyone. Those like me who top post like to have
substantive and cohesive comments that can be read alone, without
needing to put one's self into anyone else’s conversational mindset.
You can reply to me at any point you choose. But I will reply to you
only after considering the totality of your responses, and all-in-one-
place, for the most intelligible reply. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Introduce yourself, RP. You're either the most naive person on the
groups, are you are the most hurt by having your precious Einstein be
so easily disproved. Either way, you are a loser. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
And there is little point in trying to "teach" the brain dead, like
you, PD. — NE —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Dunce: Experiments burning measured substances inside of closed
systems of glass tubes always show that the products out (ash and
gasses) always equals the product in, such as so much wood. I didn't
invent the Law of the Conservation of Energy, but I know that Energy
is never created from the vacuum of space simply by moving some mass
closer and closer to 'c'. The subject of this post asks: Where is the
mass resulting from velocity? If KE = 1/2 mv^2 were correct (It
isn't!) mass would have to be created in dropping a steel ball for 4
seconds. And that mass is about .6 times more than the weight of the
ball.
Tell me this, PD: Where does that .6m go after the steel ball
disipates it's energy into soft clay? And where does the ball find,
say, .6 lb. of Steel in the air to construct the enlarged ball? Or if
you drop a lump of clay, will there be the right type and color of
clay in the air for constructing the enlarged lump? And shouldn't
these mass-building processes be observable via high speed
photography? Your vacuum for a brain can't be logical, now, can it,
PD. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
PD: Until you can cite, PARAPHRASE and link-to any experiment that
can refute any portion of my New Science, you will remain the
laughable fraud of the news groups. — NE —
NoEinstein
CORRECTION: ... OR you are...
Androcles
========================================
Since you have your aetherial head up your arse I don't really give
a flying fuck whether you reply to me or not, but this is the evidence
that your aetherial crap is worthless. Study it.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E>
Get it through your thick head that I could repeat this experiment
with two marbles in pipes and still get them to arrive together without
any air blowing over them. Vertically I could make one arrive
before the other, either way around, as Grusenick does in part two.
Relativity is bullshit and so is aether. Data walks and bullshit only talks.
Now walk the walk instead of talking the talk.
PD
> On Sep 19, 8:48 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
> wrote:
>
> > --
> > Androcles does not read top posts from rude bastards who've been informed of
> > that fact. All text will be snipped unread. Replying in that fashion is
> > futile. Fuck off, rude bastard.
>
> > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:f9af6073-a109-4876...@c32g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> Androcles: Apparently, you would prefer discursive comments not
> easily followed by anyone.
Actually, threaded conversations are easily followed by most people.
You are not among them.
PD
That is an old experiment in support of a supposed conservation of
mass, not conservation of energy. And in fact, if the measurements are
more carefully done than when this experiment was first performed, one
finds that mass is not conserved.
> I didn't
> invent the Law of the Conservation of Energy, but I know that Energy
> is never created from the vacuum of space simply by moving some mass
> closer and closer to 'c'.
Nor is it ever. An object falling from a great height and getting
higher and higher velocity is not pulling energy from the vacuum
either. There is work done on it by a force, which is where the energy
comes from.
Likewise, when you move a mass closer and closer to c, its energy
increases, but that energy comes *directly* from the work done by the
force that accelerates it.
This is 9th grade science, John. You still don't understand it.
> The subject of this post asks: Where is the
> mass resulting from velocity? If KE = 1/2 mv^2 were correct (It
> isn't!) mass would have to be created in dropping a steel ball for 4
> seconds. And that mass is about .6 times more than the weight of the
> ball.
No, it's not. You have not done the calculation at all correctly.
>
> Tell me this, PD: Where does that .6m go after the steel ball
> disipates it's energy into soft clay?
Just to remind you, John, an increase in mass does not mean an
increase in the number of iron atoms, nor does it correspond to more
steel in the ball.
> And where does the ball find,
> say, .6 lb. of Steel in the air to construct the enlarged ball?
It doesn't. Nor does relativity say more steel is added to the ball.
That is wholly out of your head, and it's a mistake.
> Or if
> you drop a lump of clay, will there be the right type and color of
> clay in the air for constructing the enlarged lump?
Nor is there more clay added to the lump when the mass increases.
> And shouldn't
> these mass-building processes be observable via high speed
> photography?
Only if the mass increase corresponded with an increase in the amount
of stuff, but that isn't what mass is.
PD
No sir. Not doing YOUR whim to save YOU work and to make it digestible
for YOU will not make me any fraud anywhere. Only the one who demands
to be spoonfed and is admittedly incapable of looking anything up and
reading it will end up looking like the fraud. That's you, John, and
you know it.
RP
>
> > Introduce yourself, RP. You're either the most naive person on the
> > groups, are you are the most hurt by having your precious Einstein be
> > so easily disproved. Either way, you are a loser. — NoEinstein —
>
> CORRECTION: ... OR you are...
Your instincts have failed you. If you want to discredit SR, then you
need to post something like the following rather than page after page
of sentiment.
Attachment 1: Fizeau: Table of Comparisons
In reference to Fizeau's experimental results of the speed of light in
moving media:
Following is a table of results obtained from three proposed
equations, using a detector at rest wrt the Earth, speed of water
measured wrt Earth, and sodium light as source.
n = 1.332 c = 3e8 w = c/n = 225225225.225
Light and media moving in the same direction wrt detector.
Fizeau W = w + v(1 - 1/n^2)
Galilean W = v + w(c^2 - vc)/(vw + c^2 - vc)
= v + c(c - v)/(v + n(c - v))
(Derivation in 2nd section below)
Relativistic W = (v + w)/(1 + vw/c^2)
= (v + c/n)/(1 + v/nc)
All speeds below are in m/s
_____________________________________________________________
Water W-Fizeau W-Galilean W-Relativistic
1m/s 225225225.662m/s 225225225.662 225225225.662
2 225225226.098 225225226.098 225225226.098
3 225225226.534 225225226.534 225225226.534
4 225225226.971 225225226.971 225225226.971
5 225225227.407 225225227.407 225225227.4071
6 225225227.844 225225227.844 225225227.844
7 225225228.280 225225228.280 225225228.280
8 225225228.716 225225228.716 225225228.716
9 225225229.153 225225229.153 225225229.153
10 225225229.589 225225229.589 225225229.589
Interesting outcome, to say the least. The three equations are in
close agreement at these relatively low water velocities. The
agreement actually extends to a much greater number of significant
digits than provided above.
The results of the three equations begin to diverge at very high
values of v. Despite the divergence, both the Galilean and
Relativistic equations give W = c when v = c.
Due to the close agreement between the equations at the low water
velocities used in the experiments, we are forced by the success of
the Galilean derivation in predicting the outcomes, to conclude that
this particular experiment by Fizeau is incapable of favoring one form
of relativity over the other. One could also argue, that given the
absorption events (producing the propagational delay), Einstein's
derivation is actually an oversimplified account, and when corrected
to account for the absorption delays would take on a different form,
which may or may not remain in close agreement with the experimental
results.
In other words, the relativistic approach discounts the fact that the
velocity of light through a material media is not uniform, but rather
it is discontinuous. Light leaps from molecule to molecule at c, but
is retained in the form of electromagnetic PE within the molecule for
some definite period before being reemitted. It is just this
absorption/emission process that produces the reduced speed through
the media. The overall delay is the sum of the delays along the path,
that is, the brief periods when the light exists in the form of
electromagnetic PE within the molecules and is not propagating at all,
but simply moving along with the molecule. It is this discontinuity in
velocity that produces the strange behavior observed by Fizeau.
_______________________________________________
Attachment 2: Fizeau: The Galilean Derivation
The following is a Galilean derivation of Fizeau's empirical results,
which were obtained from his measurements of the 'speed of light in
moving media' (water).
x = length of column of water between the source and detector
x'= segment of column of water traversed by the source photons
t_o = total duration of the process--emission/detection
dt = time delay introduced by a stationary volume of water
dt'= time delay introduced by a moving volume of water
w = net speed of propagation through stationary column of water
W = net speed of propagation through moving column of water wrt Earth
frame
W' = net speed of propagation through water wrt the water's frame
n = c/w = index of refraction of media (water)
c = speed of light in vacuum at rest wrt Earth
v = speed of moving water column wrt vacuum
We begin with a source of light and a detector located at each end
respectively of a pipe through which water flows. The direction of
water flow will be from source to detector. The object is to derive an
equation based upon the following premises, that will accurately
provide for Fizeau's empirical data, and this will be accomplished
without reference to any experimental data, or to any other
formulations pertaining to this effect that have been thus far
derived, with the exception of the obvious data, e.g. index of
refraction of the media, the speed of light in a vacuum wrt Earth, and
the following premise.
Light moving through a homogenous material media, which is in uniform
motion at a constant velocity, has a speed wrt that media that is
independent of the length of the path through that media. From this
follows that any time delay associated with the speed of propagation
through a given volume of space, which is altered by the presence of a
homogenous material media within that volume, is proportional to the
path length through that media. Stated symbolically:
dt/x = dt'/x'
A photon is emitted from the source and propagates through the space
between the source and the detector, (both of which are at rest wrt
the medium vacuum) and the photon is absorbed at the detector. Its
time of flight is recorded. The tube length is immaterial to the
following argument, per the premise above.
The actual path length traversed by the photon through a stream of
water moving from source to detector at a speed v is given by the
Galilean transform as:
x - vt_o = x'
This follows from the fact that the water is in motion relative to the
source and detector. For this reason the length of the column of water
traversed by the photon will be shorter than the distance between the
source and detector. That is, by the time the photon reaches the
detector a portion of the initial column of water has passed beyond
the detector's position. The total path length through the water,
relative to the frame of reference of the water, is less than the
initial length of the water column.
The time delay experienced by the photon during its flight per above
is:
dt x'/x = dt'
dt, over the length x, is in turn given by
x/w - x/c = dt = x(1/w - 1/c)
Thus dt/x = (1/w - 1/c) = dt'/x'
dt is the difference in the time of flight through water that is at
rest wrt the vacuum, source, and detector, as compared to the time of
flight when the space between the source and detector is evacuated.
From the frame of reference of the water, the water itself is
motionless, i.e. it is at rest. However, from this frame of reference
the medium of propagation is in motion, i.e. the vacuum, source, and
detector are moving away from the observer at v, and any light
propagating through the vacuum is, according to the Galilean
transform, moving relative to our observer at c-v.
From the frame of reference of the water we have:
t_o = x'/(c-v) + dt'
t_o = (x'/(c-v)) + dtx'/x
t_o = x'((1/(c-v)) + dt/x)
t_o = x'((1/(c-v)) + (1/w - 1/c))
W' = x'/t_o
Hence by substitution:
W' = x'/ x'((1/(c-v)) + (1/w - 1/c))
W' = 1/((1/(c-v)) + (1/w - 1/c))
W' = 1/(1/(c-v) + 1/w - 1/c))
W' = 1/(1/(c-v) - 1/c + 1/w))
W' = 1/(v/(c^2-vc) + 1/w))
W' = 1/(vw +(c^2-vc)/(wc^2-wvc))
W' = w(c^2 - vc)/(vw + c^2 - vc)
The Galilean transform gives:
W' = W - v
By substitution we get finally:
W = v + w(c^2 - vc)/(vw + c^2 - vc)
As already shown, this equation agrees immaculately with the results
of Fizeau's experiments, to several decimal places when v is small, as
was the case in all of the experiments of this sort that have been
conducted.
It is tempting to speculate that SR is actually a short-cut method of
sorts, a lumping of several obscure microscopic details together and
treating them as factors affecting space and time.
This approach no doubt provides a very good approximation in a large
number of situations per the experimental data. However, there are
situations where the Lorentz contraction can be shown to be a
mathematical artifice only, with no physical reality corresponding to
it.
Such is the case where a single electron moving parallel to a
conductor experiences a Lorentz force. For a long line of charges
parallel to the conductor the Lorentz length contraction of that line
of charge can account for the magnetic component of force on the
charges that is observed, in that it provides for a relative change in
the line density of charge (see Purcell). But for a single electron
the length contraction avails nothing since there is no longer a line
of charge. How is the magnetic component of force accounted for in
this case?
It is evident then that the Lorentz factor, which is required to
account for the magnetic component of force, cannot apply as a
contraction of the length of the line of charge, but rather has some
other significance which is as of yet unexplained. For now we should
simply note that the motion of charges relative to each other gives
rise to an apparent increase in the Coulomb forces between them, and
suspend judgment as to "why" this occurs. It should be of some
interest that Purcell's equations were derived collectively by Weber,
Gauss, and Ampere even before Maxwell's field equations were first
published. Long before Special Relativity was postulated.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
... Easily followed, perhaps. But only if folks are willing to
eavesdrop on the disjointed conversation. Top posting allows making
textbook-like explanations of the science without being limited by the
mindset of the person being replied to. My New Science can best be
explained that way. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
adding atoms, or "stuff"? Ha, ha, HA! The ENERGY on the IN side of
the LCE equation is the uniform static weight of the falling object.
But Coriolis has the energy OUT being exponential, or WRONG!
Momentum, plus the initial static weight of the object, accounts for
100% of the KE, as by my correct equation: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174
(m). Deduct the momentum from the Coriolis equation and the physical
mass of an object falling for four seconds must increase 60%. That
has to be 60%... "stuff" and atoms. Einstein said repeatedly that
objects become more massive as they approach 'c'. He never resorted
to your notion that the Law of the Conservation of Energy can, at will
(i.e., smoke and mirrors), become the non existent Law of the
Conservation of… Mass. My own correct definition of mass is: "Any
concentration of ENERGY which can resist, but never stop the flow of
ether through the mass; and which is capable of giving off at least
one photon." In my New Science there is no "law" of the conservation
of mass! So, it is YOU, PD who are confused! — NoEinstein —
>
> > Your vacuum for a brain can't be logical, now, can it,
NoEinstein
Dear PD: I am healthy and well-fed without needing feeding assistance
from you. Besides, what you call... palatable will cause immediate
vomiting in all reasonable and thinking people. Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear RP: My New Science stands alone. Instead of copying and pasting
the data of others, paraphrase what you suppose is a counter-argument
to anything I have said. Then and only then will I explain how the
"supposed" science that you cite is wrongly conceived. — NE —
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Androcles: Thanks for the most interesting Link to the Martin G. M-M
experiments! I would recommend to any of the readers that they see
the video. That man has excellent experiment construction
techniques. However, he misunderstands what interference fringes
are. He wrongly supposes that all “light and dark bands” are
interference fringes. But the latter can NOT, I repeat, NOT, be
magnified by passing the light through any simple lens! Interference
fringes can only be enlarged after first being projected on a paper,
ground glass, or white-painted target. Then, the image can be
enlarged using what Michelson called a telescope, but I call a
magnifying glass.
What Martin G. was showing on the screen was ZONE “pseudo
interference”. Each of the light and dark bands that he recorded are
composed of hundreds of fixed and unmoving TRUE finges that are too
close together to be discerned. The movement of the ZONE bands (not
true interference) was caused by the structural weakness of the off-
center experiment mass, and was not due to his “sudden” detection of
fringes which the original, exceeding precise, M-M experiment at Case
Western Reserve University in Chicago could never detect. That is why
M-M is called the most important FAILED experiment in history. Martin
G. has not suddenly succeeded. He just exposes his lack of
understanding how tiny fringes are, and that they can’t be enlarged
prior to projection on a target. However, a precision beam expander
placed immediately in front of the light source can FLATTEN the
fringes such that one “band” will change from white to dark as the
changes occur. But the improperly designed M-M experiment won’t
benefit by having a beam expander. The results will still be nil!
Androcles, as interesting as your video link is, what possible way
does that video invalidate the existence of ETHER as the fundamental
energy building block of the Universe? Perhaps you have another link
explaining why ether is such an anathema to you. Let me hear. —
NoEinstein —
Androcles
--
Androcles does not read top posts from rude bastards who've been informed of
that fact. All text will be snipped unread. Replying in that fashion is
futile. Fuck off, rude bastard.
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:60e6adb8-1c90-4c93...@c16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
RP
> On Sep 21, 4:57 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear RP: My New Science stands alone. Instead of copying and pasting
> the data of others, paraphrase what you suppose is a counter-argument
> to anything I have said. Then and only then will I explain how the
> "supposed" science that you cite is wrongly conceived. — NE —
>
Wow. I'm still waiting for a correct assumption on your part. What I
cut and pasted (and added to) was all written originally by me. It
wasn't provided as a counterargument to anything you said, but as an
example of the type of argument that would be required to counter the
special theory of relativity. So far I've only seen nonsense posted by
you. A lot of bread, but no meat.
I think the title of this thread adequately explains these repetitive
errors in judgment on your part.
PD
Yes, indeed. Mass is not "amount of stuff".
Laugh all you want, John.
Your assumption that increasing mass means increasing amount of steel
is just a bad mistake on your part.
The rest of your repetitive crapola is ignored.
PD
Then stop whining that you don't get stuff from me that you should
fetch yourself. It is expected of everyone else. You're not a baby.
NoEinstein
wrote:
> --
> Androcles does not read top posts from rude bastards who've been informed of
> that fact. All text will be snipped unread. Replying in that fashion is
> futile. Fuck off, rude bastard.
>
>
> news:60e6adb8-1c90-4c93...@c16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Androcles: I am a gentleman. Nothing that I do is intentionally
rude. I top post for scientific clarity, not to upset you. My guess
is that you prefer to reply in short bursts. You can still do that
with me. Insert your replies anywhere you choose. Short and sweet is
nice. My replies need to be longer, because I am "teaching" my New
Science.
In your own way, won't you explain what it is about the "concept" of
ether that you so disagree with? — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear RP: I don't know you from Adam. Einstein plagiarized much that
he wrote (the different styles of writing). You probably got most of
what you wrote from others. That's what a "research paper" is,
right? If you would like to refute any part of my New Science,
paraphrase your best argument. I'll promise to dispatch you in the
most painless way possible. — NE —
NoEinstein
Alright, PD. If not steel, then what is YOUR increased mass composed
of? — NE —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD: And your point of SCIENCE is? — NE —
Peter Webb
paragraph at a time, why not buy a book and sit down and learn it
systematically?
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c9ab5af$0$25486$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| Instead of getting people in the newsgroup to explain SR to you one
| paragraph at a time, why not buy a book and sit down and learn it
| systematically?
|
Not that you would understand fiction, Duckfoot, but here it is:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Print it out and get mummy to read it to you at bedtime.
Androcles
--
Androcles does not read top posts from rude bastards who've been informed of
that fact. All text will be snipped unread. Replying in that fashion is
futile. Fuck off, rude bastard.
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0804a4d9-73b2-4990...@l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
news:IIymo.9959$vV2....@newsfe16.ams2...
Yes.
As you say, there are lots of good resources on the internet to learn SR.
The above is from Einstein's 1905 paper. Whilst this is readily available on
the internet, its probably not the easiest place to learn about SR; it is a
scientific paper, not a tutorial.
OTOH Einstein's explanation of Relativity targeted at people with limited
maths/physics background is a $2.50 Kindle download, and its not too bad.
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
| news:IIymo.9959$vV2....@newsfe16.ams2...
| >
| > "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:4c9ab5af$0$25486$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > | Instead of getting people in the newsgroup to explain SR to you one
| > | paragraph at a time, why not buy a book and sit down and learn it
| > | systematically?
| > |
| > Only a dumbfuck would buy what you can get on the internet for free.
| > Not that you would understand fiction, Duckfoot, but here it is:
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > Print it out and get mummy to read it to you at bedtime.
| >
|
| Yes.
|
| As you say, there are lots of good resources on the internet to learn SR.
|
| The above is from Einstein's 1905 paper. Whilst this is readily available
on
| the internet, its probably not the easiest place to learn about SR; it is
a
| scientific paper, not a tutorial.
Nope, it is pure fiction. Quite clever, actually, like a good detective
novel,
a who-dunnit.
Too hard for you though, you can't read or understand algebra.
"See Spot Run" is more suited to you, it has pictures in it.
Peter Webb
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
Perhaps if you were to quote the first sentence in the paper that you either
don't understand or don't agree with?
> Too hard for you though, you can't read or understand algebra.
> "See Spot Run" is more suited to you, it has pictures in it.
>
Or, as I said, just buy a book. Learning SR one sentence at a time would
take a long time.
Androcles
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>
| > Too hard for you though, you can't read or understand algebra.
| > "See Spot Run" is more suited to you, it has pictures in it.
| >
|
| Or, as I said, just buy a book. Learning SR one sentence at a time would
| take a long time.
Learning algebra will take you forever.
As I said, SR is pure fiction. Quite clever, actually, like a good
detective
novel, a who-dunnit. Pity you are illiterate or you'd be able to enjoy the
joke.
I've made a picture book version for cretins like you.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/SR4kids.htm
Peter Webb
disagree?
Androcles
--
Androcles does not read top posts or snips from rude bastards who've been
fashion is futile. Fuck off, rude bastard.
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c9b70e3$0$28492$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
PD
Mass is not a measure of the amount of stuff.
If you go searching for more "stuff" when mass increases, this is only
because you've made the mistaken association between mass and stuff.
PD
My point of SCIENCE is the *documented experimental evidence* drawn
from replicated and confirmed experiments, which evidence is openly
and freely available to you, if you will only stop whining about
having it pre-chewed and delivered to your chair.
Science is all about corroborated experimental tests of theoretical
predictions, and so if you do not familiarize yourself with those
experimental tests, then you are not doing science.
THAT is my point of SCIENCE, John.
NoEinstein
Dear Peter: For much of my life I have observed nature and noted the
observations of nature by others. At no point have I considered the
"explanations" of anyone else to be superior to what I myself can
reason. My analytical abilities, logical thinking and common sense
have enabled me to explain things about science that are more
important than the contributions of every single physicist who ever
lived, COMBINED. That is why I am the KING of the Science Hill!
At the top of those contributions is my correct explanation of the
mechanism of gravity—flowing ether maintained by the "hobo ether" sent
back into space between the photons exchanged between attracted
bodies. I've also shown that Black Holes have zero gravity; the Big
Bang never happened; there are no gravity waves; there is no "missing
mass" in the Universe; the Universe isn't expanding; the Universe is
finite and bounded by an electromagnet meniscus in the polar ether;
the ether is the primal energy from which all matter is created; 'c'
isn't the maximum velocity; Einstein's SR violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy; Coriolis's 1830 KE equation violates such law
as well; I've invalidated Newton's (supposed) Law of Universal
Gravitation by showing that gravity isn't mass proportional but heat
exchange proportional; I've correctly explained how light wedging
causes the red shifts observed at greater distances; I've correctly
explained why the M-M experiment had nil results; I've invalidated the
Lorentz transformation and space-time; shown that light can travel
perfectly well with or without an ether medium; shown that the ether
spirals corresponding to the rotation of the massive bodies; shown
that the Swiss Cheese voids between galaxies are bounded by
electromagnetic meniscuses; explained EM as lines of flowing polar
ether "cork-screwing" through the Earth and through space; I've
correctly written the acceleration 'g' as... g = 32.174 feet/sec. EACH
second; I've experimentally detected Earth's motion in the Cosmos via
my X, Y, and Z interferometer, I’ve experimentally disproved
Coriolis’s KE = ½ mv^2; and I've shown that light rays do not have the
capability of PUSHING objects, only pulling objects.
The above are about 75% of what I have concluded about the Universe
without reading a single crappy book! So, Peter, what are your many
contributions to science? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote in message
>
> news:IIymo.9959$vV2....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
>
>
> > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:4c9ab5af$0$25486$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > | Instead of getting people in the newsgroup to explain SR to you one
> > | paragraph at a time, why not buy a book and sit down and learn it
> > | systematically?
> > |
> > Only a dumbfuck would buy what you can get on the internet for free.
> > Not that you would understand fiction, Duckfoot, but here it is:
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> > Print it out and get mummy to read it to you at bedtime.
>
> Yes.
>
> As you say, there are lots of good resources on the internet to learn SR.
>
> The above is from Einstein's 1905 paper. Whilst this is readily available on
> the internet, its probably not the easiest place to learn about SR; it is a
> scientific paper, not a tutorial.
>
> OTOH Einstein's explanation of Relativity targeted at people with limited
> maths/physics background is a $2.50 Kindle download, and its not too bad.
Dear Peter: For much of my life I have observed nature and noted the
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Dunce PD, the Dunce's, Dunce's Dunce: Saying your "no mass
increase" lie about Einstein's SR shows you to be just a scam shell-
game artist. But scams will never cut it as science. Via hard
references, PD, please show where Einstein said that mass increases to
infinity approaching 'c', but that such "mass" isn't really...
"stuff", it's just smoke and mirrors. You can't do that, can you PD?
Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh? Then where is your SPECIFIC paraphrase of an experiment which
reputes any part of my New Science? You only make unconfirmable
generalities about the "ideals" of science. Remember, PD: "One aw
SHIT! will nullify 100 ata-boys..." I've given enough aw shits to
nullify at least 75% of what has tried to pass as science. Ha, ha,
HA! — NoEinstein —
Androcles
=============================
Your Correct Majesty's correct importance to science is truly and correctly
remarkable. "The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that
he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather
than loved. To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men of
history."--Bertrand Russell.
Megalomania is a word defined as:
1.. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies
of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2.. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.
PD
I didn't say mass doesn't increase. I said that the amount of stuff
doesn't increase. Can't you read?
> But scams will never cut it as science. Via hard
> references, PD, please show where Einstein said that mass increases to
> infinity approaching 'c', but that such "mass" isn't really...
> "stuff", it's just smoke and mirrors. You can't do that, can you PD?
> Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
What have you read by Einstein?
NoEinstein
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Are their any experimental predictions of Relativity with which you
> disagree?
How about: 'c' is the max speed of anything; objects become more
massive approaching velocity 'c'; Space gets smaller and time gets
slower close to massive objects, and as one approaches velocity 'c';
objects flatten approaching 'c'; and there isn't enough energy in the
entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to reach velocity
'c'. In short... 100% of SR is wrong! Any questions, Peter? —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD: The Law of the Conservation of ENERGY invalidates every
experiment ever run purporting to uphold the non science of SR. There
is no... "strength in numbers" when 100% of the SR experiments reach
wrong conclusions! — NE —
NoEinstein
wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Can anyone not understanding the concept of ether, as relates to the
whole Universe, be a very good psychologist? — NE —
PD
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Are their any experimental predictions of Relativity with which you
> > disagree?
>
> How about: 'c' is the max speed of anything;
What experimental evidence do you have of objects exceeding c?
> objects become more
> massive approaching velocity 'c';
What experimental evidence do you have that is contrary to this? What
*measurements* of mass are contrary to this?
> Space gets smaller and time gets
> slower close to massive objects, and as one approaches velocity 'c';
What experimental evidence do you have that is contrary to this? What
*measurements* of length and duration are contrary to this?
> objects flatten approaching 'c';
What experimental evidence do you have that is contrary to this?
> and there isn't enough energy in the
> entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to reach velocity
> 'c'.
And what experimental evidence do you have of a finite amount of
energy supplied to a piece of matter and getting it to attain c?
> In short... 100% of SR is wrong! Any questions, Peter? —
> NoEinstein —
Please note the distinction between *experimental evidence* and what
your common sense tells you should happen.