A critique of Einstein’s 1920 lecture on the ether.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Another factual, articulate rebuttal of the government's 9-11 conspiracylies
Next: The Muir Russell Review
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 16:29 On Jul 8, 1:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 7, 5:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the DUNCE School Teacher: In your dreams you imagine being > in a position to 'reject' my proven New Science. But when you awake, > you'll realize that you are still just that imbecilic SPECK at the > bottom of the Science Hill that I am the King of. NoEinstein :>) Is it sunny in this fantasy world you live in? > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 11:18 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > [a work of fiction] > > > Dear John A. Armistead: > > > After having read your submission, I must regretfully inform you that > > we will not be able to publish it. > > > Authors sometimes submit essays that are historical accounts. But > > historical accounts are supported by documented facts, and not just > > the interpretations or fabrications of the author, typically. > > Therefore this does not qualify as a work of history. > > > Authors sometimes submit short stories that are purely fictional. > > However, there is usually a disclaimer that indicates that resemblance > > to real people living or dead is purely coincidental. Since you > > mention real people by name and offer no disclaimer of coincidence, it > > appears you are not submitting this as a short story. > > > Authors sometimes will write fiction that is "based on" historical > > figures or events. Again, however, there is usually a disclaimer that > > the work is a piece of fiction, and that significant portions of the > > work are literary embellishments or wholly invented events or imagined > > intentions of those historical figures. > > > Since you have not identified into which of these categories your > > submission falls, we have no good way to provide editorial advice for > > you on how to improve your work to bring it up to our minimum caliber > > for publication. > > > Regards,- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 8 Jul 2010 19:40 on the wayside, I am not one of Einstein's fanatics or dingleberries; he has just been used to promote the Big Bang et al ad vomitorium, but he wasn't that bad. more of a showman, than a scientist, and as opposed possibly to plagiarist. too bad, that you believe in Newton's completely wrong rock o'light. thus&so: "Time is not a dimension; or, it's the only dimension, whereby we preciece any others," Bucky saith, and that is a commonsensical thing, compared to Minkowski's ridiculous slogan about a mere phase-space, then, he died. thus&so: are they still using the passive albedo & evapotranspiration, ignoring the burning of "fossilized fuels" and nuclear power? there is a longstanding anomaly, not described by any model or GCM, that the nights & winters are warmer than the days & summers; so, do the math! thus&so: arctic ice isn't stable; it's all floating, won't change sea-level if it should melt. (we must take into acount *all* human actions, where possible, not just mere emmssions from Al Gore's footprints .-) here's another thing that I've never seen considered about it, when I read of Buzz Aldrin and company's picnic at the N.Pole: 750K-horsepower Soviet ice-breaker to get there. now, get the schedule for that turkey & do the math of angular momentum! thus&so: the elephant in the water is Waxman's '91 bill on SO2 and NOX, which supposedly was very effective, and it is cap&trade. so, why does the Wall St. J. call his current bill, that's passed, "cap&tax" -- did they refer to Kyoto as cap&tax, also, then? while sequestration probably will not work, there is one way of making fuel out of CO2 from coalplants, combining it with methane to make methyl alcohol, developed by a Nobelist, and used commercially for busses in Europe and Asia, already, along with a further transformation into another fuel. thus&so: Waxman's '91 bill on NOX and SO2 was cap™ Kyoto was cap&trade & Dubya "ought" to have signed it, by his lights as an MBA; Kerry-Lieberman's and Waxman's passed bill are nothing, but "freer trade," cap&trade. so, why can't we just have a simple, small carbon tax?... well, it'd be a lot like a VAT, it'd be so all-encompassing, which Waxman doesn't seem to realize, and is certainly being played-down by the "yeah" and "neigh" sides of this political debate; eh? thus&so: Oilgate is, Californians the #1 consumers of Gulf and Alaska, with Beyond Phossilized Phuels the largest producer -- I think, unless Shell is, in Alaska (but, it's half British). sure, partly because we have the biggest population, but ... thus&so: it easily could have been leaked on purpose, because the "mainstream" is so hegemonic with their rough-edged GCMs, which simply cannot predict weather with any great fidelity, for any length of time & given approximation to "initializing conditions." the funding for the old "cooling" paradigm of the last two million years (Quaternary preiod), went out the door to "warming," with a mid-'70s meeting of the NSF, at which Oliver "Buck" Revelle laid-out the matter -- he, later to be an unindicted co-conspirator of George HW Bush in Iran-contra! (of course, HW was also not indicted, just like for Watergate; see http://tarpley.net). thus&so: took just one of your exempli gratia; let's dyscuss it! > >>Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) > >>I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three > >>explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and > >>tower two started to come down. thus&so: to prove that the redshift was due to velocity, would be some thing. similarly, to prove that half of the stars in the visible universe were not antimatter, would be nothing ... if you could do it! thus&so: so, you believe in the corpuscle, discredited by Young (well, it was never a theory *per se*, from mister Fig "hypothesis non fingo" Knewtonne; that is, he asserted that light goes faster in denser media, which was already (I believe) out of whack with Snell's law of refraction, proven by Fermat). of course, the most important milestone, aside from Roemer's proof of the non-instanteity of light (waves, he didn't know), was the elucidation of the "path of least-time" by Leibniz and Bernoulli -- although, that is just "ray-tracing," which is often interpreted to be the path of a rock o'light! --my broker says to call your broker about cap&trade, and I'll tell you what happens. http://wlym.com
From: kado on 9 Jul 2010 06:04 On Jul 7, 11:29 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > so, all that you need to do, is show that > special relativity is equivalent to your Nude Theory, > in all respects where it had been verified, > that you do not refute by say-so. > (hint: start with Galilean relativity .-) The idea of Galilean Relativity is the dumbest idea to come down the pike since the silly idea of Intelligent Design. Well, I guess dumb is not the correct word in this case, because many smart people have accepted these ideas as true. So wacko or flummox may be more appropriate. How dare I place these 2 ideas into the same category you ask? Well, I can logically do so, because these are brothers under the skin, and are related as both try to meld an idea born (conceived, formulated, etc.,) within a specific philosophy into another incompatible, and some times conflicting and/or contrary philosophy. The intellectual endeavor of philosophy separates into the different spheres of science (the study of the natural), metaphysics (the study of the unnatural), and theology (the study of the supernatural). So any idea of theology just does no apply within the sciences. Therefore it is not possible to scientifically study any idea of theology. This should take care of Intelligent Design (which I deem stupid design, because if your God created man in His image, your God cannot be very wise, because man is far from being wise). On the other hand, Einsteins RELATIVITY and Galileos ideas (that are not at all about any RELATIVITY) are both within the sphere of science. However, the philosophies by which these gentlemen formulated their separate and very different ideas are also completely different and incompatible. Einstein accepted and endorsed the philosophy and mechanics formulated by Leibniz as connoted by the Philosophy of Idealism (i.e., both Leibniz and Einstein firmly believed in the Philosophy of Idealism). This philosophy is basically: Since every phenomenon, object, entity, event, thing, etc., exists only in the mind of man, and as the universe is the sum of the parts, the universe does not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or me, myself and I, the human observers, the human lookers, the human knowers, etc.,) understanding. On the other hand, Galileo based all his notions on the empirical, and what Isaac Newton later formulated as the Philosophiae Naturalis (do not connote Newtons Philosophiae Naturalis as natural philosophy, i.e., Philosophiae Naturalis correctly translates as the Philosophy of Nature, or the Philosophy of Natures Ways, i.e., the Philosophy in accord with the Laws of Nature empirically demonstrated as Natural Phenomena as explained in Book III of Principia [that could be connoted to be very similar to the original Philosophy of Stoicism, i.e., before this noble philosophy was contaminated by the masochists with the addition of the indifference to pleasure and pain], and do not take the current connotation of natural law to be synonymous with the Laws of Nature), wherein reality is independent of mans existence. To condense the above, Einstein based his ideas on human understandings (i.e., the Philosophy of Idealism), whereas Galileo based his ideas on the empirical (i.e., Philosophiae Naturalis) that is independent of human existence. Consequently Galileo empirically proved that Aristotles notions (that are based on the Philosophy of Idealism) that heavy bodies fall faster than lighter ones, that bodies in motion will innately come to a stop, because at rest was the innate state of all bodies, etc., etc., as false. In other words, Aristotle had no concept of inertia. Galileo was the first to understand inertia, but really did not define inertia. Newton later defined inertia in the first chapter of Principia. (It seems to me that many contributing to this newsgroup havent the slightest idea or notion of the concept of inertia [just like Aristotle], or if they do, have it so wrong that any of their concepts that incorporates inertia are all screwed up.) So the Philosophy of Idealism is incompatible with Philosophiae Naturalis. Consequently any notion of Galilean Relativity is just pure BS. There are many other logical reasons to reject the screwball idea of Galilean Relativity that are disclosed in my copyrighted treatise titled: The Search for Reality and the Truths. Unfortunately, there are many within mainline science who will not accept the true as truths, and the false as fallacies, just as there are those of the fundamentalist religious right will NOT EVER accept the true reason how humans came to inhabit the Earth. So please dont interpretate this post to mean that I endorse J. A. Armisteads theory. Furthermore, do not take me as an atheist. I just do not believe that God created man in His image, or that He had chosen people, etc. In other words; I will not tell God how to run His world (universe). I am searching for reality and the truths. My goal is not to prove or disprove any theory. This will come out from finding the truths. To do so, I feel obligated to also point out some of the meaningful errors in the principle current theories that are accepted as true and many of those that are not, and the mistaken thinking of those who accept the many specific fallacies within each of these theories as true within the community that what is commonly called mainline science. However, as there are so many dogmas within the thinking of mainline science, and as soon as one is logically demonstrated as false, another is formulated to take its place to make the fallacy under discussion seem plausible in the eyes of the mistaken (but not mine), this is an impossible task. So I point out the only ones that I (me, not you) believe to be meaningful. All this because humans just hate to ever admit that they are wrong or made a mistake, especially in this newsgroup. D. Y. Kadoshima
From: NoEinstein on 9 Jul 2010 10:08 On Jul 8, 2:54 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: Re read my last reply to you. I made the logical assumption that light speeds up or is slowed down depending upon the direction the light shines in relation to the Earth's direction of travel. Using that 'hypothesis" I tested it on the known design and geometry of the M-M experiment. By writing several simple algebraic equations, I confirmed that the TIMES OF TRAVEL of both light courses are exactly the same, regardless of the orientation of the apparatus, and correct to nine decimal places! The only way that light headed in the direction of travel of the Earth can have an unchanging time of travel, over a GREATER distance (because the 'object' mirror is moving AWAY from the 'source'), is for the light to have its speed increased above 'c'! The converse is true for light shining in the direction OPPOSIT the motion of the Earth. Read that link with the *** to understand what the math must show. Some who suppose that I have no "proofs" of my New Science should realize that the nil results of the M-M experiment is an important part of my proof. My showing, by simple logic, that M-M doesnt have a CONTROL light course, negates the 'need' for Lorentzs rubber rulers and shoots Einsteins space- time all to hell! NoEinstein > > I cannot tell what you are saying, > that'd prove that c is not the max speed of lightwaves. but, then, > you apparently believe in the corpuscle, discredited by Young > (although > it was never a theory *per se*, from mister Fig "hypothesis non fingo" > Knewtonne; that is, he asserted that light goes faster > in denser media, which was already out of whack > with Snell's law of refraction, proven by Fermat). > > none of the below has enough of the hypothesis, > to enable one to determine what happenned; so, > either do the experiment over, or figure-out what went wrong. > > > First off, M-M did not HAVE two orthogonal light courses being > > compared! It had two distinctly TEE SHAPED light courses, each with > > components in BOTH orthogonal directions. > > Additionally, I designed, constructed and tested my X, Y, and Z > > interferometer which places the CONTROL light course on the down and > > back Z axis, without a 45 degree mirror in the path. I easily detect > > hundreds of fringe shifts in 360 degrees of apparatus rotation. > > thus&so: > I agree, your question is ill-posedness, exemplfied > -- and I thank you, for all of we, de newbies! > > also, the trigona to which you refer as "pythagorean," > for any n, are not pythagorean, but they could > be called, fermatian, because they are all associated > with the "fermat curves," as for n=2, > the "right" trigona are inscribed in a semicircle (of course, > there are no right or left trigona .-) > > there is a little book that carries all of that out, > with laborious calculation of side-lengths > for the fermatian trigona, but > it is very sure that the author makes no claim > as to Fermat's "last" theorem (et sequentia .-) > > --my broker says to call your broker about cap&trade, and > I'll tell you what happens.http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 9 Jul 2010 10:13
On Jul 8, 4:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: If you wanted to talk science, you should ask: "If you stand in the sun, are you being pulled toward the Sun?" The answer is: Yes. But you are also being pulled toward the Earth, which, because it is closer to you, prevents you from being sucked into your own personal orbit about the Sun. NoEinstein > > On Jul 8, 1:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 5:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the DUNCE School Teacher: In your dreams you imagine being > > in a position to 'reject' my proven New Science. But when you awake, > > you'll realize that you are still just that imbecilic SPECK at the > > bottom of the Science Hill that I am the King of. NoEinstein > > :>) > Is it sunny in this fantasy world you live in? > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 11:18 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > [a work of fiction] > > > > Dear John A. Armistead: > > > > After having read your submission, I must regretfully inform you that > > > we will not be able to publish it. > > > > Authors sometimes submit essays that are historical accounts. But > > > historical accounts are supported by documented facts, and not just > > > the interpretations or fabrications of the author, typically. > > > Therefore this does not qualify as a work of history. > > > > Authors sometimes submit short stories that are purely fictional. > > > However, there is usually a disclaimer that indicates that resemblance > > > to real people living or dead is purely coincidental. Since you > > > mention real people by name and offer no disclaimer of coincidence, it > > > appears you are not submitting this as a short story. > > > > Authors sometimes will write fiction that is "based on" historical > > > figures or events. Again, however, there is usually a disclaimer that > > > the work is a piece of fiction, and that significant portions of the > > > work are literary embellishments or wholly invented events or imagined > > > intentions of those historical figures. > > > > Since you have not identified into which of these categories your > > > submission falls, we have no good way to provide editorial advice for > > > you on how to improve your work to bring it up to our minimum caliber > > > for publication. > > > > Regards,- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |