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: NoEinstein on 9 Jul 2010 10:20 On Jul 8, 7:40 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: As usual, I stop reading your replies after about the second paragraph. Some of my replies are long, too, but I stay strictly on the subject of my New Science, without injecting every notion ever discussed in physics. Your fence-straddling has you accepting some of Einstein's ideas, like light needing the ether to travel in. NO WAY! Light is tangles of energy called photons. And nothing anyone has ever said nor done will change that fact! NoEinstein > > 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; > seehttp://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: NoEinstein on 9 Jul 2010 10:34 On Jul 9, 6:04 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > Dear Kado: You express yourself very well. I'm pleased that you haven't endorsed (nor ruled out) J. A. Armistead's theories. The Bible says: "Seek and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened." Don't get all bent-out-of-shape over "God". 'He' is just "the personification of all the natural laws". Calling God... "Mother Nature" works fine. If nature made things perfect from the start, there would be no need for generations of species to reproduce and evolve. A perfect species would live forever. That's what I 'suppose' heaven will be. NoEinstein > > 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: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 11:13 On 7/9/10 9:13 AM, NoEinstein 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 � Begs the question, John: Can YOU calculate the distance between the earth and sun where the force of gravity from the earth equals the force of gravity from the sun? You could say that's the L1 Lagrange Point. But that's not the answer. Can YOU calculate the distance between the earth and sun where the force of gravity from the earth equals the force of gravity from the sun? It's OK to ignore the perturbations of other bodies, such as the earth's moon.
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 11:15 On 7/9/10 9:20 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > Light is tangles of energy called photons. And > nothing anyone has ever said nor done will change that fact! "Tangles" indicates you don't have a clear concept of a photo, John. Care to tell us what you mean by "tangles"?
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 11:17
On 7/9/10 9:08 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > 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. Your assumption is not supported by observation, John! Light propagates at c for all inertial observers. |