Matter From Thin Air (is Copyrighted)
NoEinstein
article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
links following the article.
Matter From Thin Air
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
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 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, or 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 three seconds, and Coriolis's formula says
that it will impact with a force of 18 weight units. The momentum
equivalent of that would be 6 weight units. So, by saying that KE is
scalar, Einstein would require that a one pound steel ball increase to
at least 12 pounds in mass in just three seconds, yet the dent in the
clay must remain the same size... 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!
__________
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
Respectfully submitted,
-- NoEinstein --
biggus
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:472800e9-c036-4b21...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crap>
> Einstein got his idea for E=mc^2 from Coriolis's 1830 equation
> for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2.
WRONG.
Dirk Van de moortel
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:472800e9-c036-4b21...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> not welcomed.
POSTURE!
CHEST BEAT!
Dirk Vdm
PD
> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> links following the article.
>
Thoughtful replies are often harsh critiques. How do you (personally)
tell the difference between a thoughtful, harsh critique and posturing
or chest beating?
PD
Igor
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://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 Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
> Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> -- NoEinstein --
So, what type of experiment did you perform to disprove Einstein? And
jcon
> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> article;
Are there any points of science in the article? They must have
been truncated by your newsgroup posting software
and replaced with mewling drivel.
Nevertheless...
> (...snip content-free whining...)
> The E in E=mc^2 stands for kinetic energy.
No, it doesn't.
> The total equation,
> including a divisor Beta, purports to tell the amount of energy a unit
> mass will have as the velocity approaches c.
No, it's the amount of energy a mass will have at rest.
> Einstein teaches that
> velocity increases the mass of all moving objects.
No, he didn't.
> Atoms of steel,
> supposedly, become more atoms of steel simply by being made to move
> very fast.
No, they don't.
> 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.
No, he didn't.
> 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.
They don't conflict, because momentum and
kinetic energy are two different things. You would
have learned this if you'd ever taken a physics class.
> 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 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, or 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.
Sorry, that one's not salvageable.
> 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.
That would be pretty weird, if anyone had said it, but no one did -
except you, of course.
> 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 three seconds, and Coriolis's formula says
> that it will impact with a force of 18 weight units. The momentum
> equivalent of that would be 6 weight units. So, by saying that KE is
> scalar, Einstein would require that a one pound steel ball increase to
> at least 12 pounds in mass in just three seconds, yet the dent in the
> clay must remain the same size... Is anyone grasping the mindlessness
> of Einstein's would-have-been thinking?
Correcton: the mindlessness of *your* misunderstanding
of Einstein's 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!"
But they are clearly beyond yours.
-jc
> 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!
> __________
>
> Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://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 Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
> Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
> Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
Sam Wormley
> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> links following the article.
>
> Matter From Thin Air
>
> 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
> 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.
This sums it up...
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
Dear biggus: "Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of
science in the article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest
beating, are not welcomed." Please explain yourself, or make your
comments on other posts. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:472800e9-c036-4b21...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> > article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> > not welcomed.
>
> POSTURE!
> CHEST BEAT!
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dear Dirk: If you think I posture or chest beat, explain something
about my article that you take issue with, and make a counter
argument. Unless you can do so, please refrain from replying on this
post, again. Thanks -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
PD, thanks for asking! Posturing relates to WHO you are, or WHO you
quote or stand for. It seldom, if ever, mentions actual science that
can be openly discussed. Rather, it takes a position that an issue is
beyond review. Those who posture avoid mentioning any point of
science; nor do they state their points of agreement or disagreement
with enough depth that their ideas can be critically evaluated, too.
I want my ideas to be critically evaluated; though I'm not seeking
anyone's votes! The TRUTH isn't an issue up for a vote, but the truth
is up for discussion. When someone just says, "WRONG" without
explaining why, that person will not get a reply from me. The
majority of your many replies to my earlier posts relate to the
strength of your personality vs. the strength of mine. While you may
get pleasure in showing how "strong" you are, you do so at the expense
of discussing science. If you will expose what you know about
science, and don't try to "win" by being more indomitable than me,
then, I "might" begin to respect you. Why don't you give objective
science a try? You might like it! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Igor: First, in just one hour of thought and analysis at my
local library, I learned that the M-M experiment lacks a CONTROL--or
something that is unchanging to which TEST data can be compared.
Michelson couldn't understand why his experiment couldn't detect light
velocity changes. In trying to explain the nil results of M-M,
Lorentz and FitzGerald shoehorned the only-vaguely-related
observations that ELECTRONS "hit a wall" at velocity 'c'; and
reasoned, erroneously, that all matter contracts in the direction of
motion...
No one, before yours truly, was willing to test the simple hypothesis
that: Light speeds up and slows down due to the velocity of the
source, the same way that sound does. I did this mathematically
(using simple high school algebra) by calculating the TIMES required
for each of the two light courses to circuit the M-M apparatus, and at
every possible azimuth of the instrument's rotation. What I found is
that the TIMES never vary. Oh, the distances vary up and down, and
the speeds vary up and down, depending on which leg of a light course
I was calculating. But for every increase in a travel distance, there
was an exactly compensating increase in speed. And for every decrease
in a distance of a leg of a course, there is always an exactly
matching decrease in the speed of the light. The reason? Both the
light source, and the mirror or target toward which it is aimed, are
speeded up or slowed down, equally, by the same component of Earth's
velocity vector! And the 45 degree beam splitter that each light
course reflected from, once, has the effect of automatically
correcting for light velocity changes.
To prove my hypothesis, experimentally as well, I designed an
interferometer that places a CONTROL light course on the Z axis, that
NEVER REFLECTS FROM A 45 DEGREE MIRROR, and thus isn't affected by
changes in the Earth's velocity vector.. And I let the TEST light
course reflect from a 45 degree mirror; to a first surface,
perpendicular mirror; back to the 45 degree mirror; and up through the
normal 30R-70T beam splitter to the target that I glued to the front
of the helium-neon laser. And I detect Earth's movement in the Cosmos--
something that moron Einstein said would be impossible. Well, I
proved him wrong!
And it all began in just one hour, because I was unwilling to accept
counterintuitive things like: "All of the matter in the Universe was
once compressed, by gravity, to be smaller than a neutron (or etc.)."
Igor, I won't mind explaining myself if people don't reply with their
minds already made up... You have done that numbers of times in the
past, like 'what you know or believe' is the standard of truth, and
everything else is "...overly speculative". Learning needs to be a
present tense activity, rather than just a past tense activity that
you, and the other Einsteiniacs, must be defensive about for the rest
of your lives. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam: "...and in conclusion", your sarcastic comment, above, amounts to
posturing. Unless you can talk science, refrain from replying to ANY
of my posts, again! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
PD
Point of clarity: In science, the truth is not determined by
discussion, by force of logic, or by mathematical proof. The truth is
determined by confrontation with observations of nature in controlled
experiment. Lack of familiarity of the experimental evidence would be
a distinct disadvantage on your part. Lack of interest in becoming
familiar with the experimental evidence would be foolishness on your
part.
PD
jcon
You said something patently wrong. He told you you were wrong.
That is a "thoughtful reply", in the sense that he thought and
you didn't. If it hurt your feelings, too bad.
-jc
Don Stockbauer
******************
Thin air IS matter (is not copyrighted)
Dirk Van de moortel
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:39580d3b-0e2a-4b56...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 17, 12:31 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:472800e9-c036-4b21...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> > Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
>> > article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
>> > not welcomed.
>>
>> POSTURE!
>> CHEST BEAT!
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Dear Dirk: If you think I posture or chest beat,
Of course I don't think that you do that.
*I* posture and *I* chest beat.
You merely squirt nonsense.
Dirk Vdm
Puppet_Sock
[snip various prolix irrelevant prose]
> Until me, no one has said,
> "If this agrees with Einstein, then, look for another explanation that
> doesn't require suspension of common sense."
Relativity does not require suspension
of common sense. And you are by no means the first
person to look for alternative explanations.
> The E in E=mc^2 stands for kinetic energy.
No it does not. It's the energy equivalent of the
rest mass.
The kinetic energy in relativity is (gamma -1) mc^2.
Here, gamma is 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). When v is very
small compared to c, then the leading term in the
kinetic energy equation is just 1/2 m v^2, as is
familar highschool students. And this formula only
works for particles with non-zero rest mass.
> The total equation,
> including a divisor Beta, purports to tell the amount of energy a unit
> mass will have as the velocity approaches c.
No it does not.
You have not given any "total equation."
The total energy of an object moving with velocity v has
a gamma in it, not a beta.
E = gamma mc^2
This includes both the kinetic energy and the rest
mass energy, and only works for particles with
non-zero rest mass.
The energy of a particle with non-zero rest mass will
diverge as its velocity approaches c. This is verified
on a wide basis in accelerators all over the world.
> Einstein teaches that
> velocity increases the mass of all moving objects.
No he does not. Relativity has the result that it
becomes more difficult to increase an object's
velocity as it gets closer to the speed of light.
This can be thought of as the mass increasing.
The so called "relativistic mass" was a convenience
for doing certain calculations, and is largely dropped
by modern relativists.
But the rest mass is an invariant quantity. It
does not change.
> Atoms of steel,
> supposedly, become more atoms of steel simply by being made to move
> very fast.
Nope. You simply have misunderstood this aspect
of relativity.
> Perhaps a small diamond would become huge if one could
> just make it go fast enough...
Again, nope. The rest mass of an accelerated object
remains constant.
> Einstein got his idea for E=mc^2 from Coriolis's 1830 equation
> for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2.
Nope. You might want to actually open a book and see
where the mass/energy equivalence arises. It is not
from kinetic energy. For example, note that the mass/
energy equivalence is still applicable for a mass at rest.
Indeed, that's where it's easiest to see the rest mass.
> Early tests of KE were made by
> dropping objects and observing the destructions, penetrations into
> clay, etc.
Possibly. Though not relevant. Penetration and destruction
power are not trivially related to kinetic energy.
> Another formula that seems to conflict with Coriolis's is
> the formula for momentum, F=mv.
Maybe you mean P = mv, since this is not a force.
Or maybe you simply don't understand at all.
> Both seem to tell how hard a falling
> object will hit. Why aren't those the same?
Again, because "how hard a falling object will hit"
is not simply related to kinetic energy. And kinetic
energy is not identical with momentum. And
momentum is also not simply related to "how hard
a falling object will hit."
> Are there two Laws of
> Nature at work here?
No, there is just mechanics at work here. This is
well over a century old stuff. How is it that you can
make such heavy going of it and still think you
understand anything on the subject?
> Einstein saw the disparity. But he rationalized
> that KE is a scalar quantity, while momentum is a vector quantity.
He didn't "rationalize" anything.
Kinetic energy is a single number for a particle. Momentum
is a vector, that is, more than one number.
> The former would have an energy that is not directional, that would be
> manifested by being internalized, or by causing an increase in an
> object's mass.
You are drastically misunderstanding this. And also where the
mass/energy equivalency arises.
> So Einstein attributes a falling object's hitting
> power to an increase in the object's mass.
Not at all. He studied mechanics. He understood it.
> Drop a large steel ball
> bearing, and extra steel atoms are created (according to Einstein) so
> that the observed penetrations into clay can happen.
You made this up.
> Following the
> penetration, the extra mass just disappears into thin air, so that the
> ball bearing can be the same weight as before.
You made this up also.
> 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.
If relativity said that, I might be interested in it. But relativity
does not say that. You made it up.
> 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?
Since Einstein never claimed what you say he claimed,
none of this is relevant. It also has nothing to do with
wether or not "Coriolis's equation" is scalar. And kinetic
energy is energy, not a vector. Though it involves a
vector, the velocity.
> Drop an object for three seconds, and Coriolis's formula says
> that it will impact with a force of 18 weight units.
The "Coriolis's formula" you introduced earlier relates
kinetic energy and velocity. At no point does impact
force enter.
Let us attempt to divine what your claims mean.
Let's round off g near the surface of the Earth to 10 m/s^2.
So in 3 seconds, an object will fall 1/2 a t^2 or 45 meters.
It will have a speed of 30 m/s, and a kinetic energy of
1/2 m x 900, meaning 450 Joules / kg. Hmmm... No 18
there.
The weight of the object is mg, or 10 Newtons per kg.
So this amounts to 45 Joules per Newton of weight.
Again no 18.
> The momentum
> equivalent of that would be 6 weight units.
It's momentum will be (30 m/s) m, with m in kg and the result
in kg m/s. Hmmm... Again no 18. And no 6. And not simple
ratio of 3 with the kinetic energy.
I wonder if you can possibly have any notion of defining
what a "weight unit" is, or how it relates to this case.
Since you never described the impact, it is silly to ask
what the impact force is. To calculate the force of the
impact requires us to know the duration of the impact.
This is why padding in helmets helps keep people from
breaking their skulls on impact.
Maybe a helmet is something you should have looked
into some years ago.
> So, by saying that KE is
> scalar, Einstein would require that a one pound steel ball increase to
> at least 12 pounds in mass in just three seconds, yet the dent in the
> clay must remain the same size... Is anyone grasping the mindlessness
> of Einstein's would-have-been thinking?
Well, you clearly have no notion of mechanics.
Since relativity does not require any such change in mass,
the paragraph is pretty silly. Also, you have pulled the
result of 12 pounds out of the air.
> Daily, I explain things about my discoveries from more and more
> perspectives, hoping to get through the veil of disbelief of many.
You *fail* to explain, because you fail to understand the things
you moan on about.
> "Smart things aren't necessarily always beyond
> understanding!"
They do seem to be escaping you.
> 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?
A lie gets round the world before truth gets his boots on.
The time it takes to understand something has no simple
relationship to how valid that thing is.
Socks
Sam Wormley
Show that "Einstein got his idea for E=mc^2 from Coriolis's 1830
equation for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2". <laughing>
Quoting from
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its
mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from
the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference,
so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of
a body is a measure of its energy-content"
m = L/c²
m = E/c²
E = mc²
<laughing>
Sam Wormley
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear PD: Your negativity continues to outshine any points of
science. You only argue procedures, and that amounts to posturing--
because it is your way of dominating; i.e., your personality against
mine, as if 'that' somehow determines what is TRUTH in science. You
manifest those things by continuing to shift the subject of discussion
away from the subject of my post, and onto YOUR IDEAS about how
science is done. Show me where it is written, other than by you, that
science must conform to your ideas. But you can't do that, nor
anything else positive for that matter. Therefore, you will get only
cut and paste replies from me in the future. Save both of us a lot of
time by never replying to my posts again. You aren't a "scientist",
you are just a pompous pest! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear jc: You apparently only wish to posture. Discuss points of
science, or never reply to my posts, again. Thanks! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Don: If that is a point of science, explain yourself. I can't
reply to vagueness. -- NoEinstein --
Dirk Van de moortel
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1680f7b5-0295-4f4c...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
"No posturing, or chest beating, please, you pompous pest!":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PompousPest.html
This is absolutely brilliant.
Too bad you will remain anonymous now you've received this
modest ticket to eternal fame.
Dirk Vdm
PD
Try a book. If you're lazy, try these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
http://www2.selu.edu/Academics/Education/EDF600/Mod3/index.htm
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=45
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scimeth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
http://plantphys.info/Plants_Human/scimeth.html
If you want to know what science is, ask a scientist. If you want to
do something else other than what they tell you, that's fine, just
don't call it "science", because the term "science" is already used.
> But you can't do that, nor
> anything else positive for that matter. Therefore, you will get only
> cut and paste replies from me in the future. Save both of us a lot of
> time by never replying to my posts again.
Sorry, you're posting to a public forum. You do not control your
audience. If you want a controlled audience, then create your own blog
somewhere, post your ideas, and moderate the comments you get. A blog
is an excellent channel for hearing yourself talk.
NoEinstein
> On Dec 17, 8:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [snip various prolix irrelevant prose]
>
Your long reply mixes approximately equal parts of science and
posturing; or is the latter just your passion? The only variable in
Einstein's SR equation is the velocity, v, that occurs only in the
divisor. What that means is that the scalar (non vector) increase in
energy has to be KE, because the source of that E is velocity, and
velocity alone. Einstein, 'the GOD', (Ha, Hee, Hee) creates mass from
thin air, just by making it go faster.
Later, you argue that mass doesn't increase. Well... Einstein's mantra
is: "Mass and energy are equivalent. Mass may be changed into energy;
and energy may be changed into mass." The 'evidence' for such
increases in mass were the deviations of charged particles in magnetic
fields. And the greater deviations of very fast particles showed that
the mass had to have INCREASED. Note: That increase was actually due
to ETHER impact effects--NOT space-time, or anything relating to
relativity.
Einstein's main argument that 'c' is the maximum velocity in the
Universe, repeats this very offensive (to me) statement: "There isn't
enough energy in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter
to travel to the speed of light." That erroneous assumption is based
on three things: (1.) Coriolis's 1830 equation: KE = 1/2 mv^2 that
states--without any mathematical nor experimental evidence that
conforms to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD--that KE increases non-linearly, or
semi-parabolically. (2.) The prevailing definition of the
Acceleration Due to Gravity: 'g' = 32.2 feet per sec.^2 wrongly
implies (because of that ^2) that velocity, or the forces resulting
from velocity, are exponential, or greater in any second than in the
previous second. (3.) Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation has
forces increasing inversely as the SQUARE of the distance between the
centers of mass.
Einstein, the moron, was a copycat. He wanted his equation to be a
square... anything. My own KE experiments prove that KE increases
LINEARLY in dropped objects, not exponentially! My previous posts
explain that experiment in detail.
The Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction factor was called "Beta", and that
is: the reciprocal of (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2
The... "It hits a wall at velocity 'c'. " observations using particle
accelerators fail to take into account that ether pervades ever the
best "vacuum". Slam a particle into polar ether and the ether clumps
together as an ENERGY resistor to increasing velocity, much like a
circus performer falling into a net. The harder the net is hit, the
harder the tensors resist.
Why do you enjoy saying:
> ...non-zero rest mass...?
Do you think that my ideas relate to energy, and not mass?
Puppet: It is most obvious that you understand, and support, all of
the mental flip-flops inherent in Einstein's theories. My various
articles explain, and answer most of your questions. At no point has
my goal been to understand the hocus pocus of Einstein's moronic
reasoning. Why should I? As soon as I realized that his ideas
required suspension-of-disbelief, I rebelled. But rather than just
bitching, I did something about it: I invalidated M-M (no control);
Disproved Coriolis (KE increases linearly, not semi-parabolically, due
to a uniform acceleration; and I designed, constructed and
successfully tested my own interferometer design that detects Earth's
movement in the Cosmos--something that moron Einstein said would be
impossible.
Please realize that my present post is more for "poking-fun-at"
Einstein's reasoning, than for having it be viewed as the one and only
basis of my disproof of that "cute and studious looking" man.
Obviously, much of your intellectual self esteem is being challenged
by what I have accomplished. But I never started out to hurt you, nor
anyone! I had no way of knowing, when I started, how much value most
intellectuals place on having their views, or their understanding of
how things work, upheld.
I like that you are so passionate about your views. But I can reply
to only one issue at a time. You have made at least six points that I
would love to explain. But the breadth of your comments would require
customizing a BOOK just for you. I can't have as a goal in life to
challenge you on every disagreement that you have--many due to your
confusion over 'definitions' in mechanics--just because you have read
or learned something that is contrary. But if you would like to argue
any of the admittedly narrow scope of issues raised in my OTHER posts
(not just in this poke-fun post), I will try to reply appropriately.
I'm sure that you have niches of knowledge that I am not qualified to
argue. I can't be all things for all people! If you will keep your
replies concise and focus just on my crux arguments, we can test the
strength of our respective "truths". Thanks for taking the time to
write! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 7:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> NoEinstein wrote:
> >>> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> >>> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> >>> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> >>> links following the article.
> >>> Matter From Thin Air
> >>> 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
> >>> 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.
> >> This sums it up...
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sam: "...and in conclusion", your sarcastic comment, above, amounts to
> > posturing. Unless you can talk science, refrain from replying to ANY
> > of my posts, again! -- NoEinstein --
>
> Show that "Einstein got his idea for E=mc^2 from Coriolis's 1830
> equation for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2". <laughing>
>
> Quoting from
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its
> mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from
> the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference,
> so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of
> a body is a measure of its energy-content"
>
> m = L/c²
>
> m = E/c²
>
> E = mc²
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: Look in: "RELATIVITY, The Special and the General Theory";
Chapter XV, page 45. Einstein references the "...well-known
expression mv^2/2" as being his point of departure. But he doesn't
mention Coriolis by name. Obvious, all that Einstein did was to add a
divisor from Lorentz and FitzGerald, and drop that "1/2", for whatever
reason. So, he copied both the upper and lower parts of the
equation. However he came up with it, I have disproved him! --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 7:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> NoEinstein wrote:
> >>> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> >>> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> >>> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> >>> links following the article.
> >>> Matter From Thin Air
> >>> 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
> >>> 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.
> >> This sums it up...
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sam: "...and in conclusion", your sarcastic comment, above, amounts to
> > posturing. Unless you can talk science, refrain from replying to ANY
> > of my posts, again! -- NoEinstein --
>
> Show that "Einstein got his idea for E=mc^2 from Coriolis's 1830
> equation for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2". <laughing>
>
> Quoting from
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its
> mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from
> the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference,
> so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of
> a body is a measure of its energy-content"
>
> m = L/c²
>
> m = E/c²
>
> E = mc²
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Once more. Dear Sam: Look in: "RELATIVITY, The Special and the
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:1680f7b5-0295-4f4c...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your point of science is? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> If you want to know what science is, ask a scientist. If you want to
> do something else other than what they tell you, that's fine, just
> don't call it "science", because the term "science" is already used.
>
> > But you can't do that, nor
> > anything else positive for that matter. Therefore, you will get only
> > cut and paste replies from me in the future. Save both of us a lot of
> > time by never replying to my posts again.
>
> Sorry, you're posting to a public forum. You do not control your
> audience. If you want a controlled audience, then create your own blog
> somewhere, post your ideas, and moderate the comments you get. A blog
> is an excellent channel for hearing yourself talk.
>
>
>
> > You aren't a "scientist",
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD: You apparently only wish to posture. Discuss points of
PD
>
> > If you want to know what science is, ask a scientist. If you want to
> > do something else other than what they tell you, that's fine, just
> > don't call it "science", because the term "science" is already used.
>
> > > But you can't do that, nor
> > > anything else positive for that matter. Therefore, you will get only
> > > cut and paste replies from me in the future. Save both of us a lot of
> > > time by never replying to my posts again.
>
> > Sorry, you're posting to a public forum. You do not control your
> > audience. If you want a controlled audience, then create your own blog
> > somewhere, post your ideas, and moderate the comments you get. A blog
> > is an excellent channel for hearing yourself talk.
>
> > > You aren't a "scientist",
> > > you are just a pompous pest! -- NoEinstein- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> PD: You apparently only wish to posture.
Gee, and here what I thought I was doing was answering a direct
question. You asked me directly who else, besides me, believes that
science operates the way that I said it does. And I gave you a list of
readings in direct answer to your question.
Now it appears that you consider anyone who answers a direct question
you pose is posturing, and you're not interested in the answer.
So who's posturing, bub?
As I've mentioned to you, there are better vehicles where you can hear
yourself talk and be in control of your respondents.
> Discuss points of
> science, or never reply to my posts, again. Thanks!
In reverse order,
- thanks not necessary
- not on your life; I'll respond as I please to any post you place in
the public spotlight
- I just gave you a number of readings on the scientific method; I
believe those would be points of science.
Dirk Van de moortel
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:63c97426-fe1f-4942...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If by now you haven't figured out that my point of psychology
is that you are not equipped to grasp any point of science by
anyone, you will never figure it out.
Since you are too dense to read articles packed with points
of science, consider having a bite at these articles of village
idiot psychology:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm
Dirk Vdm
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> But I can reply
> to only one issue at a time.
When do you plan to start? You have not replied
to any of them. You simply reiterated a few of
your previous claims. There are still all these
things that you made up or got totally wrong.
Maybe you could start with a grade-school
level physics book.
Socks
Randy Poe
> > [snip various prolix irrelevant prose]
>
> Dear Puppet:
>
> Your long reply mixes approximately equal parts of science and
> posturing; or is the latter just your passion? The only variable in
> Einstein's SR equation is the velocity, v, that occurs only in the
> divisor. What that means is that the scalar (non vector) increase in
> energy has to be KE, because the source of that E is velocity, and
> velocity alone. Einstein, 'the GOD', (Ha, Hee, Hee) creates mass from
> thin air, just by making it go faster.
Mass is invariant. It does not increase with velocity.
> Later, you argue that mass doesn't increase.
Anybody "arguing" that is correct. If you want to argue about
"SR says mass increases" you are arguing against a
strawman, a statement which is not part of SR.
> Well... Einstein's mantra
> is: "Mass and energy are equivalent. Mass may be changed into energy;
> and energy may be changed into mass."
The equations of SR are not vague verbal statements
which can be easily misinterpreted. The actual SR relationship
between mass and energy is this:
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
So what it actually says is that the energy has two
components. One is invariant (because it depends on the
invariant mass) and the other is momentum-dependent,
and thus increases as particle velocity increases.
That's the actual SR theory. Is there something you
want to say about that instead of your various
strawmen?
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:23b5ce68-c595-426f...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
For massive particles, with the momentum definition of
p = m v / sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2 )
you can easily cast this equation
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
into the form
E = m c^2 / sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2 ),
which, provided ones *redefines* "mass" as the quantity
m / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 ),
does indeed say something along the lines of
"SR says that "mass" increases".
And indeed in this regard, the increase in energy is actually
kinetic energy, since the latter is *defined* as
KE = E - m c^2
and thus as
KE = m c^2 ( gamma - 1 )
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear Sam: Look in: "RELATIVITY, The Special and the General Theory";
> Chapter XV, page 45. Einstein references the "...well-known
> expression mv^2/2" as being his point of departure. But he doesn't
> mention Coriolis by name. Obvious, all that Einstein did was to add a
> divisor from Lorentz and FitzGerald, and drop that "1/2", for whatever
> reason. So, he copied both the upper and lower parts of the
> equation. However he came up with it, I have disproved him! --
> NoEinstein --
<laughing>
Why are you wasting all this time fooling yourself?
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear PD: Your negativity continues to outshine any points of
> science. You only argue procedures, and that amounts to posturing--
> because it is your way of dominating; i.e., your personality against
> mine, as if 'that' somehow determines what is TRUTH in science. You
> manifest those things by continuing to shift the subject of discussion
> away from the subject of my post, and onto YOUR IDEAS about how
> science is done. Show me where it is written, other than by you, that
> science must conform to your ideas. But you can't do that, nor
> anything else positive for that matter. Therefore, you will get only
> cut and paste replies from me in the future. Save both of us a lot of
> time by never replying to my posts again. You aren't a "scientist",
> you are just a pompous pest! -- NoEinstein --
>
This is how NoEinstein talks to a working physicist! Too funny!
<laughing>
Sam Wormley
> On Dec 18, 1:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Quoting from
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
>>
>> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its
>> mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from
>> the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference,
>> so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of
>> a body is a measure of its energy-content"
>>
>> m = L/c²
>>
>> m = E/c²
>>
>> E = mc²
>>
>> <laughing>
>>
>
> Once more. Dear Sam: Look in: "RELATIVITY, The Special and the
> General Theory"; Chapter XV, page 45. Einstein references the
> "...well-known expression mv^2/2" as being his point of departure.
> But he doesn't mention Coriolis by name. Obvious, all that Einstein
> did was to add a divisor from Lorentz and FitzGerald, and drop that
> "1/2", for whatever reason. So, he copied both the upper and lower
> parts of the equation. However he came up with it, I have disproved
> him! -- NoEinstein --
Puppet_Sock
> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> article;
Here's a thought. You are 14 years old.
Socks
jcon
You said "Einstein got his idea
for E=mc^2 from Coriolis's 1830 equation for kinetic energy,
KE=1/2mv^2". Since this is a non-standard interpretation,
the burden of proof is on you to establish this.
In fact, you cannot support this statement, both because it is
inaccurate
as stated, and because your remarks elsewhere in the post indicate
you are completely confused about the entire topic.
-jc
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 7:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> NoEinstein wrote:
> >>> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> >>> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> >>> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> >>> links following the article.
> >>> Matter From Thin Air
> >>> 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
> >>> 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.
> >> This sums it up...
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sam: "...and in conclusion", your sarcastic comment, above, amounts to
> > posturing. Unless you can talk science, refrain from replying to ANY
> > of my posts, again! -- NoEinstein --
>
> Show that "Einstein got his idea for E=mc^2 from Coriolis's 1830
> equation for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2". <laughing>
>
> Quoting from
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its
> mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from
> the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference,
> so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of
> a body is a measure of its energy-content"
>
> m = L/c²
>
> m = E/c²
>
> E = mc²
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: The huge problem that "theoretical" physicists, and
Einstein in particular, face is that they seldom if ever substitute
actual numbers into their equations. For the record: There is no
energy relationship in nature that is a function of the velocity of
light squared. Einstein wanted it to be so, and he did a lifetime of
the manipulating of equations that cover pages and pages--wow! And the
various conversions may conform to the mathematical conventions. But
the man, and most physicists, had zero idea regarding the actual
physical nature of any of the quantities, nor how those are
discerned. As with those "hooked on" doing word or number puzzles in
the newspapers, Einstein was hooked on DOODLING equations.
By my invalidating M-M (no CONTROL), I invalidate: Lorentz-FitzGerald;
J. C. Maxwell (relative to his ideas about M-M); and Einstein and his
loyal army of moronic Einsteiniacs. They worship pages of the man's
equations, but like Einstein, have zero idea what any of those
quantities imply, nor what the correct "units" of the equations would
be if they did.
Sam, by so readily finding articles on this or that point in science,
you prove only one thing: There are a lot of 'trash cans', and other
garbage, that will need to be dumped. I recommend that three-forths
of the physicists, especially in academia, be... "thrown out with the
bathwater". -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 7:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> NoEinstein wrote:
> >>> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> >>> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> >>> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> >>> links following the article.
> >>> Matter From Thin Air
> >>> 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
> >>> 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.
> >> This sums it up...
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sam: "...and in conclusion", your sarcastic comment, above, amounts to
> > posturing. Unless you can talk science, refrain from replying to ANY
> > of my posts, again! -- NoEinstein --
>
> Show that "Einstein got his idea for E=mc^2 from Coriolis's 1830
> equation for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2". <laughing>
>
> Quoting from
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its
> mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from
> the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference,
> so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of
> a body is a measure of its energy-content"
>
> m = L/c²
>
> m = E/c²
>
> E = mc²
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And again... Dear Sam: The huge problem that "theoretical"
NoEinstein
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:1680f7b5-0295-4f4c...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk who? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> If you want to know what science is, ask a scientist. If you want to
> do something else other than what they tell you, that's fine, just
> don't call it "science", because the term "science" is already used.
>
> > But you can't do that, nor
> > anything else positive for that matter. Therefore, you will get only
> > cut and paste replies from me in the future. Save both of us a lot of
> > time by never replying to my posts again.
>
> Sorry, you're posting to a public forum. You do not control your
> audience. If you want a controlled audience, then create your own blog
> somewhere, post your ideas, and moderate the comments you get. A blog
> is an excellent channel for hearing yourself talk.
>
>
>
> > You aren't a "scientist",
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear PD: You talk and talk, but never manage to say anything about
science.
"Those who can, do; those who can't teach (talk)." That's not my
quote, but it
certainly applies to those who "profess" to teach physics in our
universities. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear PD: Obviously, you would love to send me on as many of your wild-
goose-chases as you can. Where is that "research paper" of yours that
I requested weeks ago? You don't have one! So, what you do is to
show links to the work of others; then you sit on your couch and swell
with pride how much you are contributing to the cause of science. But
be it known, I won't read any of your links unless and until you can
show yourself worthy of being listened to in any regard. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:63c97426-fe1f-4942...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk who? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Puppet: Sorry if I have challenged your deluded intellect with
facts. I was hoping that you would choose a point of discussion that
is focused enough not to be... "off of the screen". Many are too lazy
to read comments that require them to click for more.
But while waiting for your reply, I decided that the one thing that I
would most like for you to tell us is: If you accept that Einstein's
"E" is scalar; and if, as you claim, there is "no mass increase" as a
body accelerates; then, what is 'the form' that that "E" takes? Is it
elevated temperature? Or is it a physical change at all? Or is it
just Einstein's over-worn "escape" that 'nothing changes' but space-
time?
If you say the latter, then, please explain how "space-time" can
change (sic) if there is no increase in the mass of the moving
object? Are you saying that space-time changes, because the space-
time changed? Ha, haa, hee, he! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> On Dec 19, 8:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 12:14 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 17, 8:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > [snip various prolix irrelevant prose]
Dear Randy: Long time not hearing from you! Did you have a stint in
the slammer? Well, my statement: "Mass and energy are equivalent.
Mass may be changed into energy; and energy may be changed into mass."
is a quote from Einstein himself, not from some scarecrow. But if you
think that there is both a scalar and a vector component of Einstein's
"E", please answer this question that I also posed to Pupper_Sock:
If you accept that Einstein's "E" is scalar; and if, as you claim,
there is "no mass increase" as a body accelerates; then, what is 'the
form' that that "E" takes? Is it elevated temperature? Or is it a
physical change at all? Or is it just Einstein's over-worn "escape"
that 'nothing changes' but space-time? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:23b5ce68-c595-426f...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Dirk: Now I'm beginning to know who you are! Thanks for agreeing
with me "on something"! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 1:11 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> NoEinstein wrote:
> >>> On Dec 17, 7:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>> NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> >>>>> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> >>>>> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> >>>>> links following the article.
> >>>>> Matter From Thin Air
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> This sums it up...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam: I'm following YOUR lead! Isn't wasting your and my time,
what you do? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: "Working..." you say? Using your difficult to locate
'brain' to repeat the science nonsense you 'learned' in school, isn't
"Work". By definition: Work is a force acting on a mass and moving
such in a desired direction. You are moving NOTHING with your
comments; and if you were, it wouldn't be movement in a desired
direction. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam: Because I like to make you laugh! Isn't that how comics get
their highs? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Puppet: Is that in dog years, or "space travel" years? I hope it's
the latter, because that means I'll be around a very long time! --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear jc: Mostly you have been posturing, but this time you ask a
logical question. Like I told Sam, who asked the same thing, my proof
that Einstein knew about Coriolis is found in: "RELATIVITY, The
Special and the General Theory"; Chapter XV; second paragraph. It
says: "In accordance with the theory of relativity the kinetic energy
of a material point of mass 'm' is no longer given by the well-known
expression: mv^2/2, but by mc^2 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2].
The above proves that Coriolis's formula was the point of departure
for SR. The only difference in the equations is that Einstein
substituted 'c' (a velocity) for v (a velocity); and he dropped the 1/2
--probably because he wasn't a "do the math" person, but a DOODLE the
equations person.
Before Einstein can lay claim to the top half of his equation, it must
be HIS. The U. S. Patent and Copyright Office couldn't care less how
he, or anyone, came up with his or their "invention". Even though
Coriolis's equation was wrong (as has been proved by yours truly), his
equation was the majority of "the invention"--which was: the
exponential portion of the equation.
Most of Einstein's equation derivations have one and only one
objective, which is: to disguise his plagiarism of everything he
(didn't) do. He knew the observations in nature BEFORE he tried to
write equations to agree with such. Then, he claimed that his
equations (space-time) were the CAUSE of the observations! Go back
into your holes, Einsteiniacs; your cause is lost! -- NoEinstein --
PD
Oh, for crying out loud.
Here's one for starters.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v74/i14/p2632_1
> So, what you do is to
> show links to the work of others; then you sit on your couch and swell
> with pride how much you are contributing to the cause of science. But
> be it known, I won't read any of your links unless and until you can
> show yourself worthy of being listened to in any regard. -- NoEinstein ---
So your whining about not being spoonfeed my research papers is
pointless anyway, because you're not interested? And why would I be
interested in showing myself worthy *in your estimation*?
PD
PD
>
> > If you want to know what science is, ask a scientist. If you want to
> > do something else other than what they tell you, that's fine, just
> > don't call it "science", because the term "science" is already used.
>
> > > But you can't do that, nor
> > > anything else positive for that matter. Therefore, you will get only
> > > cut and paste replies from me in the future. Save both of us a lot of
> > > time by never replying to my posts again.
>
> > Sorry, you're posting to a public forum. You do not control your
> > audience. If you want a controlled audience, then create your own blog
> > somewhere, post your ideas, and moderate the comments you get. A blog
> > is an excellent channel for hearing yourself talk.
>
> > > You aren't a "scientist",
> > > you are just a pompous pest! -- NoEinstein- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dear PD: You talk and talk, but never manage to say anything about
> science.
As I said earlier, you find the links provided about the scientific
method and what I tell you about how science is done, has nothing to
do with science?
Just what is science, in your estimation then?
> "Those who can, do; those who can't teach (talk)." That's not my
> quote, but it
> certainly applies to those who "profess" to teach physics in our
> universities. -- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
PD
OK, so you've just established yourself as a heckler and nothing more.
Do you find that to be constructive?
PD
Randy Poe
> On Dec 19, 10:48 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 8:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 12:14 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 17, 8:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > [snip various prolix irrelevant prose]
>
> Dear Randy: Long time not hearing from you! Did you have a stint in
> the slammer?
Do you only read your own threads? Don't answer that, the
answer is obviously "yes".
> Well, my statement: "Mass and energy are equivalent.
> Mass may be changed into energy; and energy may be changed into mass."
> is a quote from Einstein himself, not from some scarecrow. But if you
> think that there is both a scalar and a vector component of Einstein's
> "E",
Scalars and vectors don't add. I think that both terms
are scalars.
> please answer this question that I also posed to Pupper_Sock:
>
> If you accept that Einstein's "E" is scalar; and if, as you claim,
> there is "no mass increase" as a body accelerates; then, what is 'the
> form' that that "E" takes?
Rest energy plus kinetic energy.
> Is it elevated temperature?
I suppose you could call KE an "elevated temperature".
> Or is it a
> physical change at all?
It is an increase in KE. Crackpots tend to assign a special
mystical meaning to "physical change". Since I don't know
how you're using that term, I can't answer yes or no.
> Or is it just Einstein's over-worn "escape"
> that 'nothing changes' but space-time? -- NoEinstein --
Is it fun making stuff up so you have something to object to?
I can't see the point myself.
- Randy
Puppet_Sock
> facts.
What was that you were saying about avoiding posturing?
Heh heh. Hypocrisy is funny.
> I was hoping that you would choose a point of discussion that
> is focused enough not to be... "off of the screen". Many are too lazy
> to read comments that require them to click for more.
Um. So after detailing many things wrong with your OP, you
are now claiming you can't be bothered responding to
them because there were too many to fit on one screen?
Heh heh. You funny.
> But while waiting for your reply, I decided that the one thing that I
> would most like for you to tell us is: If you accept that Einstein's
> "E" is scalar; and if, as you claim, there is "no mass increase" as a
> body accelerates; then, what is 'the form' that that "E" takes? Is it
> elevated temperature? Or is it a physical change at all? Or is it
> just Einstein's over-worn "escape" that 'nothing changes' but space-
> time?
It's none of those.
In this equation
E = mc^2
we have the energy equivalent of the rest mass of a particle.
This is routinely verified, as for example, in nuclear reactors.
It involves the rest mass of a particle. You measure the mass
before, and after, and multiply the difference by c^2, and you
get the energy released.
You don't need any accelerated bodies to do the measurement.
You start with mass at rest. You end with mass at rest.
You measure the energy given off by the change. It satisifes
that equation.
When you do have a mass in motion, there is a different equation.
E = gamma mc^2
In this equation, we have the total energy, the rest mass energy,
and the kinetic energy. (And the symbol used is gamma, not
beta. The symbol beta is used for another thing in relativity,
and you've not gotten to that yet.)
And the point of relativity is, kinetic energy is a very particular
thing. It is the amount of work you would have to do to get
a moving object to come to rest in your frame. Or, equivalently,
to get an object at rest to start moving.
But here's the thing. In a frame co-moving with the particle,
that particle is at rest. So in that frame, the kinetic energy
is zero for that particle.
So there is no change such as mass increase or temperature
increase or any of those things. Kinetic energy is a relative
quantity. And it's a single number.
> If you say the latter, then, please explain how "space-time" can
> change (sic) if there is no increase in the mass of the moving
> object? Are you saying that space-time changes, because the space-
> time changed? Ha, haa, hee, he! -- NoEinstein --
And we are still in special relativity here. The space-time is
Minkowski space, and it does not change due to acceleration.
Really, you should open a book or two on this topic. You
make yourself look like a petulant child by insisting on all
these incorrect things.
Socks
Puppet_Sock
> logical question. Like I told Sam, who asked the same thing, my proof
> that Einstein knew about Coriolis is found in: "RELATIVITY, The
> Special and the General Theory"; Chapter XV; second paragraph. It
> says: "In accordance with the theory of relativity the kinetic energy
> of a material point of mass 'm' is no longer given by the well-known
> expression: mv^2/2, but by mc^2 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2].
Pretty sure you've got a typo there. Should be this.
Ek = mc^2(1 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2] -1)
Notice the extra -1 in there.
If the text you cite (and you have only an incomplete cite, not
even the name of the author) really says that, you need a new
textbook.
> The above proves that Coriolis's formula was the point of departure
> for SR. The only difference in the equations is that Einstein
> substituted 'c' (a velocity) for v (a velocity); and he dropped the 1/2
> --probably because he wasn't a "do the math" person, but a DOODLE the
> equations person.
Wow. You've packed a lot of mistakes into two paragraphs.
Ok, let's do the easy ones. The symbol c is used for the
*speed* of light. Velocity is a vector quantity. That is, it
has more than one component. The speed of light is a
particular single number. The v in these equations is the
magnitude of the velocity vector.
It is the speed of light (in vac.) that is constant, not the
velocity.
The equation was not obtained through the modifications
you suggest. It's not a substitution of c for v. You might
consider reading that book (or a better one if that one
really has that error) instead of just picking out single
words.
Consider the case when v is much smaller than c. In that
case, you can take the Taylor expansion of square root.
And what you get is this.
1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1
= 1/2 v^2/c^2 plus terms with higher powers of v^2/c^2
If v is very small compared to c, then these higher powers
of v^2/c^2 will be smaller still.
That is, when v is very small compared to c, you get the
kinetic energy from relativity as this.
Ek = m c^2 (1/2 v^2/c^2 + higher order terms)
= 1/2 m v^2 + higher order terms
That is, the relativity formula reverts to the old formula
when v is small compared to c. Einstein didn't do
what you suggest to get the relativity formula.
It's not a subsitution into the old formula. It's a formula
that arises from entirely new methods and physics,
and that agrees with the old formula in the slow motion
limit. And it's a lot of fun to understand it instead of
stamping your feet and claiming it's wrong.
[prolix prose about patent offices snipped]
Socks
Igor
> > >>> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> > >>> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> > >>> links following the article.
> > >>> 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
> > >>> 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.
> > >> This sums it up...
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > posturing. Unless you can talk science, refrain from replying to ANY
> > > of my posts, again! -- NoEinstein --
>
> > equation for kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv^2". <laughing>
>
> > Quoting from
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
>
> > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its
> > mass diminishes by L/c². The fact that the energy withdrawn from
> > the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference,
> > so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of
> > a body is a measure of its energy-content"
>
> > m = L/c²
>
> > m = E/c²
>
> > E = mc²
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Chapter XV, page 45. Einstein references the "...well-known
> expression mv^2/2" as being his point of departure. But he doesn't
> mention Coriolis by name. Obvious, all that Einstein did was to add a
> divisor from Lorentz and FitzGerald, and drop that "1/2", for whatever
> reason. So, he copied both the upper and lower parts of the
> equation. However he came up with it, I have disproved him! --
> NoEinstein
Rotflmfao! You have disproved something that you admit you know
absolutely nothing about. What will you do for your encore? Frankly,
I hope you tell a few chicken jokes.
jcon
Nice response.
Totally wasted on NoBrain, but a nice response nonetheless.
-jc
Puppet_Sock
> On Dec 20, 10:58 am, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nice response.
In the words of a fairly famous fictional character:
"Aw shucks."
> Totally wasted on NoBrain, but a nice response nonetheless.
You are almost certainly right about it being wasted.
But it's little trouble and might help somebody.
Socks
Dirk Van de moortel
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e451991a-fe47-45d1...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 20, 6:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Dear jc: Mostly you have been posturing, but this time you ask a
>> logical question. Like I told Sam, who asked the same thing, my proof
>> that Einstein knew about Coriolis is found in: "RELATIVITY, The
>> Special and the General Theory"; Chapter XV; second paragraph. It
>> says: "In accordance with the theory of relativity the kinetic energy
>> of a material point of mass 'm' is no longer given by the well-known
>> expression: mv^2/2, but by mc^2 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2].
>
> Pretty sure you've got a typo there. Should be this.
>
> Ek = mc^2(1 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2] -1)
>
> Notice the extra -1 in there.
>
> If the text you cite (and you have only an incomplete cite, not
> even the name of the author) really says that, you need a new
> textbook.
The error can be found all over the place:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ch15.htm
http://bartleby.com/173/15.html
and it is in my Dutch translation as well.
It's even in the original German edition:
http://www.uni-kiel.de/ub/digiport/ab1800/G4378.html
(go 'Zu Seite' 41)
Bottom line advice to the layman:
first learn physics, then try to read Einstein's books.
Dirk Vdm
PD
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e451991a-fe47-45d1...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 20, 6:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> Dear jc: Mostly you have been posturing, but this time you ask a
> >> logical question. Like I told Sam, who asked the same thing, my proof
> >> that Einstein knew about Coriolis is found in: "RELATIVITY, The
> >> Special and the General Theory"; Chapter XV; second paragraph. It
> >> says: "In accordance with the theory of relativity the kinetic energy
> >> of a material point of mass 'm' is no longer given by the well-known
> >> expression: mv^2/2, but by mc^2 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2].
>
> > Pretty sure you've got a typo there. Should be this.
>
> > Ek = mc^2(1 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2] -1)
>
> > Notice the extra -1 in there.
>
> > If the text you cite (and you have only an incomplete cite, not
> > even the name of the author) really says that, you need a new
> > textbook.
>
> The error can be found all over the place:
> http://bartleby.com/173/15.html
> and it is in my Dutch translation as well.
> It's even in the original German edition:
> http://www.uni-kiel.de/ub/digiport/ab1800/G4378.html
> (go 'Zu Seite' 41)
>
> Bottom line advice to the layman:
> first learn physics, then try to read Einstein's books.
>
When I first took quantum field theory, we were using two textbooks.
The homework assignment for the first semester was to find all the
errors in the first textbook. The homework assignment for the second
semester was to find all the errors in the second.
Now, I suppose there are some who would bristle and say that QFT must
be completely bogus, then. Of course, this is ridiculous. As you point
out, it must have been a decent physics student who penciled the
question mark on the scanned version of page 41 of the German
translation. A practiced physicist would say, "Whoops, boo-boo," check
that the error does not propagate later, and move on.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:43a55c7c-bfd8-4d5b...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
You had an excellent QFT professor.
In his second year (bio-engineer) my son had a course in
probablity and statistics. To be able to help him, I decided
to take a refresher and work through the course in andvance.
The 300+ pages pdf contained 248 errors (I counted them)
My son did not have an excellent statistics professor.
He was glad to have his dad.
>
> Now, I suppose there are some who would bristle and say that QFT must
> be completely bogus, then. Of course, this is ridiculous. As you point
> out, it must have been a decent physics student who penciled the
> question mark on the scanned version of page 41 of the German
> translation. A practiced physicist would say, "Whoops, boo-boo," check
> that the error does not propagate later, and move on.
Yes, I was *delighted* to see that question mark :-)
Dirk Vdm
NoEinstein
> On Dec 20, 5:34 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 19, 10:48 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 8:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 12:14 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 17, 8:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > [snip various prolix irrelevant prose]
>
> > Dear Randy: Long time not hearing from you! Did you have a stint in
> > the slammer?
>
> Do you only read your own threads? Don't answer that, the
> answer is obviously "yes".
Dear Randy: Which slammer was that?
>
> > Well, my statement: "Mass and energy are equivalent.
> > Mass may be changed into energy; and energy may be changed into mass."
> > is a quote from Einstein himself, not from some scarecrow. But if you
> > think that there is both a scalar and a vector component of Einstein's
> > "E",
>
> Scalars and vectors don't add. I think that both terms
> are scalars.
So, you say that momentum has no direction? Does that mean that a
football player impacts someone just as hard, even if he isn't headed
toward such person?
>
> > please answer this question that I also posed to Pupper_Sock:
>
> > If you accept that Einstein's "E" is scalar; and if, as you claim,
> > there is "no mass increase" as a body accelerates; then, what is 'the
> > form' that that "E" takes?
>
> Rest energy plus kinetic energy.
If the "rest energy" is that in, say, an ounce of uranium, then you
are telling me that at velocity 'c' that rest energy hasn't
increased. So, the only energy increase due to velocity, in your
mind, is just the KE, given by Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2. But I have
disproved such, because KE increases linearly, NOT exponentially.
It seems that your defense of Einstein is neglecting Einstein's main
assertion that: "Masses will flatten to thickness zero, and become
infinite at velocity 'c'." Of course that is wrong, but that's how
the man saw it.
> > Is it elevated temperature?
>
> I suppose you could call KE an "elevated temperature".
So, a space-ship can't be air conditioned, because you say that it
gets 'hot' in the vacuum of space? If that's true, then why did our
manned Moon missions have to have heaters to keep the men alive?
>
> > Or is it a
> > physical change at all?
>
> It is an increase in KE. Crackpots tend to assign a special
> mystical meaning to "physical change". Since I don't know
> how you're using that term, I can't answer yes or no.
Jaw-waggers like you sometimes think that their utterances are true.
The main "physical change" would be to have an increase in mass. But
do that, and one must account for the EXPLOSION of mass into energy
when a steel ball finally comes to a stop in soft clay. But there are
no such explosions, nor has there ever been any validity in Einstein's
supposed theories of relativity.
>
> > Or is it just Einstein's over-worn "escape"
> > that 'nothing changes' but space-time? -- NoEinstein --
>
> Is it fun making stuff up so you have something to object to?
Is it fun being so lacking in analytical ability?
>
> I can't see the point myself.
Nor can I--in replying to you, again. Find someone else's posts to
pollute with your shallowness. -- NoEinstein --
Randy Poe
> On Dec 20, 10:32 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 5:34 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 10:48 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 8:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 18, 12:14 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 17, 8:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > [snip various prolix irrelevant prose]
>
> > > Dear Randy: Long time not hearing from you! Did you have a stint in
> > > the slammer?
>
> > Do you only read your own threads? Don't answer that, the
> > answer is obviously "yes".
>
> Dear Randy: Which slammer was that?
Did you really have trouble decoding which question
that "yes" was the answer to? Hint: Not the "slammer"
question.
Why do so many discussions with cranks seem to involve
education about basic reading comprehension? Is
there a connection between reading ability and
physics education?
> > > Well, my statement: "Mass and energy are equivalent.
> > > Mass may be changed into energy; and energy may be changed into mass."
> > > is a quote from Einstein himself, not from some scarecrow. But if you
> > > think that there is both a scalar and a vector component of Einstein's
> > > "E",
>
> > Scalars and vectors don't add. I think that both terms
> > are scalars.
>
> So, you say that momentum has no direction?
No, I say that the symbol p in the equation
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
stands for the magnitude of the momentum vector.
> Does that mean that a
> football player impacts someone just as hard, even if he isn't headed
> toward such person?
Since the answer to the first question is "no", I'll
ignore this silliness.
> > > please answer this question that I also posed to Pupper_Sock:
>
> > > If you accept that Einstein's "E" is scalar; and if, as you claim,
> > > there is "no mass increase" as a body accelerates; then, what is 'the
> > > form' that that "E" takes?
>
> > Rest energy plus kinetic energy.
>
> If the "rest energy" is that in, say, an ounce of uranium, then you
> are telling me that at velocity 'c' that rest energy hasn't
> increased.
That's correct.
> So, the only energy increase due to velocity, in your
> mind, is just the KE,
Yes.
> given by Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2.
No. There's no absolute rule that says KE must
have that form, even if somebody hypothesized a
few centuries ago that it did.
> But I have
> disproved such, because KE increases linearly, NOT exponentially.
Linearly or exponentially with what?
Experimentally, KE agrees with the SR prediction. Have
you "proved" that your theory is right and nature is wrong?
- Randy
NoEinstein
> On Dec 20, 5:14 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Dear Puppet: Sorry if I have challenged your deluded intellect with
> > facts.
>
> What was that you were saying about avoiding posturing?
Dear Puppet: I'll give as good as I get. If you won't abide by my no
posturing rules, then I won't.
>
> Heh heh. Hypocrisy is funny.
But your period of enjoyment is running out. Talk science truths, or
go to other posts for your fun.
>
> > I was hoping that you would choose a point of discussion that
> > is focused enough not to be... "off of the screen". Many are too lazy
> > to read comments that require them to click for more.
>
> Um. So after detailing many things wrong with your OP, you
> are now claiming you can't be bothered responding to
> them because there were too many to fit on one screen?
You are beginning to remind me of PD. Today, I declared him the be a
persona non grata. You are right on the threshold, yourself.
>
> Heh heh. You funny.
>
> > But while waiting for your reply, I decided that the one thing that I
> > would most like for you to tell us is: If you accept that Einstein's
> > "E" is scalar; and if, as you claim, there is "no mass increase" as a
> > body accelerates; then, what is 'the form' that that "E" takes? Is it
> > elevated temperature? Or is it a physical change at all? Or is it
> > just Einstein's over-worn "escape" that 'nothing changes' but space-
> > time?
>
> It's none of those.
>
> In this equation
>
> E = mc^2
>
> we have the energy equivalent of the rest mass of a particle.
> This is routinely verified, as for example, in nuclear reactors.
> It involves the rest mass of a particle. You measure the mass
> before, and after, and multiply the difference by c^2, and you
> get the energy released.
>
> You don't need any accelerated bodies to do the measurement.
> You start with mass at rest. You end with mass at rest.
> You measure the energy given off by the change. It satisfes
> that equation.
Math satisfies only mathematicians and accountants.
>
> When you do have a mass in motion, there is a different equation.
>
> E = gamma mc^2
No, the KE of a mass in motion is my own equation: KE = a/g (m) + v/
32.174 (m). Note that the equation is linear, NOT exponential.
>
> In this equation, we have the total energy, the rest mass energy,
> and the kinetic energy. (And the symbol used is gamma, not
> beta. The symbol beta is used for another thing in relativity,
> and you've not gotten to that yet.)
A huge problem with physics is that the symbols of equations have
different meanings for different people.
>
> And the point of relativity is, kinetic energy is a very particular
> thing. It is the amount of work you would have to do to get
> a moving object to come to rest in your frame. Or, equivalently,
> to get an object at rest to start moving.
Oh, now KE is WORK?
>
> But here's the thing. In a frame co-moving with the particle,
> that particle is at rest. So in that frame, the kinetic energy
> is zero for that particle.
OK
>
> So there is no change such as mass increase or temperature
> increase or any of those things. Kinetic energy is a relative
> quantity. And it's a single number.
Then, you are saying that there is no increase in the KE of a mass
moving toward velocity 'c', because "the frame" is moving, too. Ha!
>
> > If you say the latter, then, please explain how "space-time" can
> > change (sic) if there is no increase in the mass of the moving
> > object? Are you saying that space-time changes, because the space-
> > time changed? Ha, haa, hee, he! -- NoEinstein --
>
> And we are still in special relativity here. The space-time is
> Minkowski space, and it does not change due to acceleration.
>
> Really, you should open a book or two on this topic. You
> make yourself look like a petulant child by insisting on all
> these incorrect things.
Really Puppet, look in the mirror and say to yourself: "I'm smarter
than Albert Einstein--IQ: 85!" -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> On Dec 20, 6:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Dear jc: Mostly you have been posturing, but this time you ask a
> > logical question. Like I told Sam, who asked the same thing, my proof
> > that Einstein knew about Coriolis is found in: "RELATIVITY, The
> > Special and the General Theory"; Chapter XV; second paragraph. It
> > says: "In accordance with the theory of relativity the kinetic energy
> > of a material point of mass 'm' is no longer given by the well-known
> > expression: mv^2/2, but by mc^2 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2].
>
> Pretty sure you've got a typo there. Should be this.
>
> Ek = mc^2(1 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2] -1)
>
> Notice the extra -1 in there.
Nope; I copied it straight from the book.
>
> If the text you cite (and you have only an incomplete cite, not
> even the name of the author) really says that, you need a new
> textbook.
The "author" is Albert Einstein. But the translation is by Robert W.
Lawson.
>
> > The above proves that Coriolis's formula was the point of departure
> > for SR. The only difference in the equations is that Einstein
> > substituted 'c' (a velocity) for v (a velocity); and he dropped the 1/2
> > --probably because he wasn't a "do the math" person, but a DOODLE the
> > equations person.
>
> Wow. You've packed a lot of mistakes into two paragraphs.
I wish YOU could be so concise!
>
> Ok, let's do the easy ones. The symbol c is used for the
> *speed* of light. Velocity is a vector quantity. That is, it
> has more than one component. The speed of light is a
> particular single number. The v in these equations is the
> magnitude of the velocity vector.
>
> It is the speed of light (in vac.) that is constant, not the
> velocity.
OK... if you add or subtract the velocity of the light source. That's
('c' plus or minus v).
>
> The equation was not obtained through the modifications
> you suggest. It's not a substitution of c for v. You might
> consider reading that book (or a better one if that one
> really has that error) instead of just picking out single
> words.
If the velocity of light, 'c', isn't a velocity, then what do you say
that 'c' is?
>
> Consider the case when v is much smaller than c. In that
> case, you can take the Taylor expansion of square root.
> And what you get is this.
>
> 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1
> = 1/2 v^2/c^2 plus terms with higher powers of v^2/c^2
>
> If v is very small compared to c, then these higher powers
> of v^2/c^2 will be smaller still.
>
> That is, when v is very small compared to c, you get the
> kinetic energy from relativity as this.
>
> Ek = m c^2 (1/2 v^2/c^2 + higher order terms)
> = 1/2 m v^2 + higher order terms
>
> That is, the relativity formula reverts to the old formula
> when v is small compared to c. Einstein didn't do
> what you suggest to get the relativity formula.
> It's not a subsitution into the old formula. It's a formula
> that arises from entirely new methods and physics,
> and that agrees with the old formula in the slow motion
> limit. And it's a lot of fun to understand it instead of
> stamping your feet and claiming it's wrong.
As I have explained before: If Einstein's SR invention applied for a
Patent or Copyright, Coriolis's 1/2 mv^2 would be seen as taking
precedence. No one in that government office would care how many
times Einstein scratched himself before he came up with "his"
version. The substance is the issue, NOT the process! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> On Dec 19, 9:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 1:11 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > On Dec 17, 7:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > >> NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >>> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> > > >>> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> > > >>> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> > > >>> links following the article.
> > > >>> Matter From Thin Air
> > > >>> 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
> > > >>> 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.
> > > >> This sums it up...
>
> - Show quoted text -
How about this: "Why did Igor cross the street?" He wanted more
corn! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jc: The kindergarten teams have been drawn, folks! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Positive motives are always appreciated! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e451991a-fe47-45d1...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 20, 6:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> Dear jc: Mostly you have been posturing, but this time you ask a
> >> logical question. Like I told Sam, who asked the same thing, my proof
> >> that Einstein knew about Coriolis is found in: "RELATIVITY, The
> >> Special and the General Theory"; Chapter XV; second paragraph. It
> >> says: "In accordance with the theory of relativity the kinetic energy
> >> of a material point of mass 'm' is no longer given by the well-known
> >> expression: mv^2/2, but by mc^2 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2].
>
> > Pretty sure you've got a typo there. Should be this.
>
> > Ek = mc^2(1 / sq. r.[1-v^2/c^2] -1)
>
> > Notice the extra -1 in there.
>
> > If the text you cite (and you have only an incomplete cite, not
> > even the name of the author) really says that, you need a new
> > textbook.
>
> The error can be found all over the place:
> http://bartleby.com/173/15.html
> and it is in my Dutch translation as well.
> It's even in the original German edition:
> http://www.uni-kiel.de/ub/digiport/ab1800/G4378.html
> (go 'Zu Seite' 41)
>
> Bottom line advice to the layman:
> first learn physics, then try to read Einstein's books.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk: Even better advice: Don't waste time reading ANY books about
Einstein! Learn to think things through for yourselves! Thanks for
being agreeable; that's very rare, indeed!
-- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:43a55c7c-bfd8-4d5b...@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk: Several years ago a physics professor from NC was lamenting the
poor quality of textbooks. He complained that a "stylized" map in an
illustration showed the land masses of the western hemisphere so
misshaped, no wonder students can't learn what is where. When I first
read Einstein's SR book from a direct translation from the German, I
was amazed that he could only maintain a train of thought for one
paragraph. The words in successive paragraphs "sounded" studious, but
made little collective sense. Sadly for science, he inherited enough
money to hire translators to clean up his many mental mistakes. But
even so, those errors are on every page.
That professor you complimented for questioning Einstein, should have
gone one step further and refused to teach the course at all. But as
I have learned: Pay someone enough money, and they will land their
government-pensioned job, to "teach it". There isn't a physics major
in the USA that doesn't require the professors to have suspended
disbelief. To spare their embarrassment, they turn their backs to the
class as they "derive" the many absurdities. Oh well... Anyone got
any good things to say about academia? -- NoEinstein --
Dirk Van de moortel
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:fc3a9cb6-bb83-48e0...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Your parents obviously failed to train you not to jump
into adult's conversations.
Dirk Vdm
PD
>
> That professor you complimented for questioning Einstein, should have
> gone one step further and refused to teach the course at all.
The professor was mine, the course was on QFT, not on Einstein, and
Einstein was not the author of either book. And the professor *was*
very good, and he taught us QFT with the errors corrected, which is
what practicing physicists use.
I don't know why you've singled out Einstein, when it's apparent that
your bone is with everyone who worked on classical mechanics from
1829. Thus you should be attacking essentially everyone other than
Einstein, but somehow Einstein has drawn your attention. I don't know
why you're not bothering with, for example, Lagrange, Hamilton,
Liouville, Jacobi, Euler, Le Verrier, and a host of others whom you
have a closer argument.
> But as
> I have learned: Pay someone enough money, and they will land their
> government-pensioned job, to "teach it". There isn't a physics major
> in the USA that doesn't require the professors to have suspended
> disbelief.
> To spare their embarrassment, they turn their backs to the
> class as they "derive" the many absurdities. Oh well... Anyone got
> any good things to say about academia? -- NoEinstein
I have no idea what kind of a university experience you had. Mine was
apparently different. I don't believe you should extrapolate your
personal disillusionment and limited experience to an
overgeneralization about professors at large.
Since you do not trust teachers, and you are having a hard time
understanding books when you read them, and you are not a very careful
experimenter to discover things for yourself, I'd say you are fairly
far up the creek.
But bluster and foam away at your heart's content.
PD
PD
>
> You are beginning to remind me of PD. Today, I declared him the be a
> persona non grata. You are right on the threshold, yourself.
>
Oh, I'm hurt. Pained. Vexed.
And what do you think will be the practical result of declaring
everyone persona non grata on this newsgroup who thinks you're a loon?
To whom will you be speaking?
It may be simpler for you to print your posts, run to the nearest
Kinko's (I know they have them in NC), make about 400 copies or so,
and staple them to telephone poles. That way, they'll be seen by more
people than will see them here, and you'll encounter no ... what was
it you called it? ... oh yes, posturing.
PD
PD
Puppet_Sock
Are you dyslexic? Or is English not your first language?
Let's copy down the paragraph you are ignoring.
> > Ok, let's do the easy ones. The symbol c is used for the
> > *speed* of light. Velocity is a vector quantity. That is, it
> > has more than one component. The speed of light is a
> > particular single number. The v in these equations is the
> > magnitude of the velocity vector.
Seriously, you need some remedial mechanics classes
before you can ever understand any of this. This is far
too much to expect to learn over the internet.
If you have a lot of money to waste, I'd be willing to teach
you this stuff. But not for free. It's time consuming getting
such things into another person's brain, especially if they
are predisposed to think they already know everything.
Or you could get a couple first year undergrad texts and
do all the homework problems. When I was in first year
the text was Tipler, though there seems to be some
dislike of the current version due to "dumbing down."
And the man seems to have gone, well, a tad strange
in these latter days.
That seems to have been replaced by Halliday, Resnick
and Walker these days. The cover sure is pretty.
or snipped
Get a first year text and start working through the
mechanics section. Do the homework questions.
If you can manage that, then come back and ask
some more questions. Folks will be a lot less inclined
to just dismiss you as a nutbar if you know the words.
But stop trying to read Einstein. You are not up to it.
Socks
Puppet_Sock
> > It is the speed of light (in vac.) that is constant, not the
> > velocity.
>
> OK... if you add or subtract the velocity of the light source. That's
> ('c' plus or minus v).
Whoops. I missed that one.
The speed of the light source is one of those things that physics
has managed to beat to death, scrape up into a paste, mix
with flour and eggs, bake for 45 minutes per kilo, then beat
to death once again.
There are several experiments that show that the speed of light
is completely unaffected by the speed of the source. For example,
muons travelling at very nearly the speed of light can emit light.
And when this light is detected in the forward or the backward
direction, its speed is identical. This measurement is accurate
to some huge number of digits. I could hunt down the ref, but
I think this would make a much better homework problem
for you.
Socks
NoEinstein
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 1:11 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > On Dec 17, 7:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > >> NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >>> Thoughtful replies are solicited on the points of science in the
> > > >>> article; but replies that are just posturing, or chest beating, are
> > > >>> not welcomed. Other posts of mine this year can be accessed via the
> > > >>> links following the article.
> > > >>> Matter From Thin Air
> > > >>> 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
> > > >>> 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.
> > > >> This sums it up...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Igor: The gullible take the Einstein courses. The wise don't
waste their time on falsehoods. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear jc: Einstein's formula uses Coriolis for the top half, and
Lorentz-FitzGerald for the bottom half. I have invalidated Coriolis
[acceleration is a linear increase in velocity, rather than a semi-
parabolic increase]; and invalidated L-F [M-M simply lacked a CONTROL,
so no space-time varying explanation by L-F was needed]. Where is the
contribution of Einstein to anything other than Brownian motion? --
NoEinstein --
Sam Wormley
>
> Dear jc: Einstein's formula uses Coriolis for the top half, and
> Lorentz-FitzGerald for the bottom half. I have invalidated Coriolis
> [acceleration is a linear increase in velocity, rather than a semi-
> parabolic increase]; and invalidated L-F [M-M simply lacked a CONTROL,
> so no space-time varying explanation by L-F was needed]. Where is the
> contribution of Einstein to anything other than Brownian motion? --
> NoEinstein --
<laughing>
NoEinstein
Dear Puppet: If you try to "help", it would be the blind leading the
blind! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> On Dec 21, 1:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Dear Randy: Long time not hearing from you! Did you have a stint in
> > > > the slammer?
>
> > > Do you only read your own threads? Don't answer that, the
> > > answer is obviously "yes".
>
> > Dear Randy: Which slammer was that?
>
> Did you really have trouble decoding which question
> that "yes" was the answer to? Hint: Not the "slammer"
> question.
>
> Why do so many discussions with cranks seem to involve
> education about basic reading comprehension? Is
> there a connection between reading ability and
> physics education?
There is: Einstein could barely talk, nor write. His vocabulary was
150 words, max. He couldn't figure things out, only make things up,
like: space-time. So, see, there IS a connection between verbal
skills and science aptitude!
>
> > > > Well, my statement: "Mass and energy are equivalent.
> > > > Mass may be changed into energy; and energy may be changed into mass."
> > > > is a quote from Einstein himself, not from some scarecrow. But if you
> > > > think that there is both a scalar and a vector component of Einstein's
> > > > "E",
>
> > > Scalars and vectors don't add. I think that both terms
> > > are scalars.
>
> > So, you say that momentum has no direction?
>
> No, I say that the symbol p in the equation
>
> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
How does that equation, or any similar made-up equation, help to
improve the world?
>
> stands for the magnitude of the momentum vector.
The magnitude of the momentum vector is: f = mv.
>
> > Does that mean that a
> > football player impacts someone just as hard, even if he isn't headed
> > toward such person?
>
> Since the answer to the first question is "no", I'll
> ignore this silliness.
>
> > > > please answer this question that I also posed to Pupper_Sock:
>
> > > > If you accept that Einstein's "E" is scalar; and if, as you claim,
> > > > there is "no mass increase" as a body accelerates; then, what is 'the
> > > > form' that that "E" takes?
>
> > > Rest energy plus kinetic energy.
>
> > If the "rest energy" is that in, say, an ounce of uranium, then you
> > are telling me that at velocity 'c' that rest energy hasn't
> > increased.
>
> That's correct.
>
> > So, the only energy increase due to velocity, in your
> > mind, is just the KE,
>
> Yes.
>
> > given by Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2.
>
> No. There's no absolute rule that says KE must
> have that form, even if somebody hypothesized a
> few centuries ago that it did.
I have disproved Coriolis, remember?
>
> > But I have
> > disproved such, because KE increases linearly, NOT exponentially.
>
> Linearly or exponentially with what?
Dear Randy: For a falling object, draw: Time vs. distance [an inverted
parabola]; then, velocity vs. time [a straight line beginning at the
origin]; then, Coriolis's KE vs. time [a semi-parabola]; then,
momentum vs. time [a straight line beginning at time zero, and
*distance 16.087 feet]--all for the same falling object. *Note: My
contribution to those graphs is in realizing that all falling objects
start out with a "KE" of one weight unit, or one 'g'. Accelerating
objects reach their "name" velocity at one second's fall time, and
since it falls 16.087 feet in the first second, then that is the point
of beginning for the linear momentum line.
People got the mistaken idea that KE increases exponentially, because
no one before me realized that the accrued velocity at the end of any
particular second, can't be considered as contributing KE in the next
second. The reason? You can only count an accruing KE once for each
second! If you consider the numeric velocity, not just the velocity
INCREASE, in any second, effectively, you are recounting the KE that
you have already counted! That is why the equation is parabolic.
Fall distance is increasing by a time factor that is occurring TWICE!
Since the velocity increase is linear, then the momentum line has to
be linear, and the KE line is also linear, rather than exponential.
The above disproves Coriolis, and Einstein's theories of relativity,
and should be intelligible to any smart middle school student. --
NoEinstein --
>
> Experimentally, KE agrees with the SR prediction. Have
> you "proved" that your theory is right and nature is wrong?
My theory IS what nature shows! My X-Y-Z interferometer design, and
my sound based KE audio spectograph experiments prove it!
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:fc3a9cb6-bb83-48e0...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Good manners are indeed important! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> On Dec 21, 1:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That professor you complimented for questioning Einstein, should have
> > gone one step further and refused to teach the course at all.
>
> The professor was mine, the course was on QFT, not on Einstein, and
> Einstein was not the author of either book. And the professor *was*
> very good, and he taught us QFT with the errors corrected, which is
> what practicing physicists use.
I stand corrected. Since the present post is for refuting Einstein, I
over generalized that your QFT course related to the same subject.
>
> I don't know why you've singled out Einstein, when it's apparent that
> your bone is with everyone who worked on classical mechanics from
> 1829. Thus you should be attacking essentially everyone other than
> Einstein, but somehow Einstein has drawn your attention. I don't know
> why you're not bothering with, for example, Lagrange, Hamilton,
> Liouville, Jacobi, Euler, Le Verrier, and a host of others whom you
> have a closer argument.
PD: As I have often explained (if you would read, and remember): The
suspension-of-common-sense in science began with Lorentz's "all matter
contracts in the direction of motion" explanation for the nil results
of M-M. Since I don't like counter-intuitive things, I immediately
questioned M-M, and found it lacked a CONTROL. And because Einstein's
space-time nonsense depended on that L-F factor Beta, then by
invalidating M-M, I disprove Einstein. There is nothing to be
salvaged of his theories; but you keep trying your darnedest. --
NoEinstein --
>
> > But as
> > I have learned: Pay someone enough money, and they will land their
> > government-pensioned job, to "teach it". There isn't a physics major
> > in the USA that doesn't require the professors to have suspended
> > disbelief.
> > To spare their embarrassment, they turn their backs to the
> > class as they "derive" the many absurdities. Oh well... Anyone got
> > any good things to say about academia? -- NoEinstein
>
> I have no idea what kind of a university experience you had. Mine was
> apparently different. I don't believe you should extrapolate your
> personal disillusionment and limited experience to an
> overgeneralization about professors at large.
Please note: This year, none of the physics departments in fourteen
used-to-be-respected universities were objective enough to request to
see my already built X-Y-Z interferometer demonstrated. Universities'
main goal is to preserve the status quo, NOT to advance the cause of
science. Case rests!
>
> Since you do not trust teachers, and you are having a hard time
> understanding books when you read them, and you are not a very careful
> experimenter to discover things for yourself, I'd say you are fairly
> far up the creek.
By intentionally saying falsehoods, you join the liars club! --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
PD: Your skin is too tough to be made into pork rinds; and your
brains are too lacking to be scrambled; so, your squeal is the most
attention you'll ever get! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> or snipped
>
> http://snipurl.com/1vobh
>
> Get a first year text and start working through the
> mechanics section. Do the homework questions.
> If you can manage that, then come back and ask
> some more questions. Folks will be a lot less inclined
> to just dismiss you as a nutbar if you know the words.
>
> But stop trying to read Einstein. You are not up to it.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you have any fun, yet? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Tell me Puppet: What was the method used to measure the one-way speed
of that muon's light? Everyone knows we can't measure even "normal"
light speed one way. So, how can they do it at 2c? -- NoEinstein --
Sam Wormley
> There is: Einstein could barely talk, nor write. His vocabulary was
> 150 words, max. He couldn't figure things out, only make things up,
> like: space-time. So, see, there IS a connection between verbal
> skills and science aptitude!
<too funny>
Randy Poe
Yes, varies as sqrt(d).
> then, velocity vs. time [a straight line beginning at the
> origin]; then, Coriolis's KE vs. time [a semi-parabola];
v = at
E = 0.5*ma^2t^2
All true so far...
> then,
> momentum vs. time [a straight line beginning at time zero, and
> *distance 16.087 feet]--all for the same falling object.
p = mat
Yes...
> *Note: My
> contribution to those graphs is in realizing that all falling objects
> start out with a "KE" of one weight unit, or one 'g'.
OK, so you start going wrong when you add your own "contribution".
The value of 0.5*mv^2 is not "one" anything when v=0,
and g does not have units of energy.
Thus, everything below this point is nonsense.
Did you know that "making some inconsistent and meaningless
nonsense up off the top of my head" is different from
"discovering something"?
- Randy
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: Degrees of laughing, also, correspond to degrees of
stupidity. Get serious, want you! -- NoEinstein --
Sam Wormley
I know women that want me... but I'm not flattered if you want
me.
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: You were doing so good up until the last sentence! To
explain: Objects resting on the surface of the Earth are actually
accelerating 32.174 feet per second EACH second into the Earth; but
any motion is arrested by the Earth itself. That acceleration can
best be visualized by placing a heavy steel ball on a hard and level
lab table or platform. Now place a platform scale with the top of it
exactly level with the lab table or platform, and right next to such.
Next, slowly roll the heavy steel ball off of the lab table or
platform, and onto the platform scale. In as little as a .001"
vertical movement of the scale's platform, it can measure the entire
"impact" of that ball rolling onto the scale. The above is why the
"KE" for falling objects must include an object's weight! Since my
new physics expresses KE in weight units, then all falling objects
begin with a KE of one 'g' or whatever the weight of the falling
object happens to be.
>
> The value of 0.5*mv^2 is not "one" anything when v=0,
> and g does not have units of energy.
You don't evaluate new science by using old science as the standard.
>
> Thus, everything below this point is nonsense.
>
> Did you know that "making some inconsistent and meaningless
> nonsense up off the top of my head" is different from
> "discovering something"?
>
And did you know that jaw-wagging isn't the same as rational
communication? -- NoEinstein --
Randy Poe
So your "new science" jumbles up the concepts of
energy, force, and momentum, and this is supposed to
somehow be superior.
Yet the "old science" in which these things are
considered separately has better predictive power.
Energy has a definition. It is the ability to do
work. Your "kinetic energy" of an object sitting
still has no meaning in terms of being able to
do work, or get energy out. Your jumbling of
force and momentum means you can't predict the
difference between something which falls 10 feet
onto a pillow and something which falls 10 feet
onto steel.
What do I gain by calling the weight of this
object "kinetic energy"? In what sense is it
the same kind of "kinetic energy" that I get
when I burn actual fuel to cause actual motion
in an object?
- Randy
NoEinstein
Dear Sam: I wish you could laugh: <Too funny for words>, and then
just shut up! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Chalk one up for Sam, folks, won't you? Actually, I should have said:
I want you to go away! -- NoEinstein --
Note: This is an English usage and spelling issue, NOT a science
issue. Sam can't discuss the latter; just can't.
Sam Wormley
<laughing>
Sam Wormley
Careful NoEinstein -- post something about physics... see what
happens.
<laughing>