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: kado on 10 Jul 2010 05:51 On Jul 9, 8:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 5:04 AM, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > The idea of Galilean Relativity is the dumbest idea > > to come down the pike since the silly idea of > > Intelligent Design. > > Dumb or not, the concept is supported by observation. AH- c'mon Sam- it all depends on how you define 'supported'. Only the Galilean part are true (supported), but the relativity part just does not apply (unsuppoted) within the Philosophae Naturalis. On the other hand, only the relativity part is correct (supported), but the Galilean part is incorrect (unsupported, because Einstein place greater credence in the philosophy of Leibniz than that of Galileo and Newton) within the Philosophy of Idealism. If the statement that observations support this screwball idea is deemed right, this statement is wrong or does not apply in Einstein's Relativity, Galilean mechanics, Philosophae Naturalis, and the Philosophy of Idealism. For those who need a graphic example, it like the shape of Alaska in a Mercator vs. an Azimuthal projection. These depict the shape of Alaska differently, so the shape in a Mercator projection is not correct in an Azimuthal projection, and visa-versa, but are correct within the projection in which these were developed. Furthermore, neither exactly duplicates the form of Alaska on a globe. In other words; there is not any observation that can support the idea of Galilean relativity. D.Y.K.
From: NoEinstein on 10 Jul 2010 11:47 On Jul 9, 11:13 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sam: I set the discussion agendas, not you. If you have an argument counter to any issue of my New Science PARAPHRASE it; don't ask me to do this-or-that at your bidding. NE > > 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: NoEinstein on 10 Jul 2010 11:47 On Jul 9, 11:15 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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"? Dear Sam: I set the discussion agendas, not you. If you have an argument counter to any issue of my New Science PARAPHRASE it; don't ask me to do this-or-that at your bidding. NE
From: NoEinstein on 10 Jul 2010 11:50 On Jul 9, 11:17 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Dear Sam: ... as spoken by a hopeless Einsteiniac... SCHOOL TEACHER. Ha, ha, HA! NE
From: NoEinstein on 10 Jul 2010 11:53
On Jul 9, 11:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 5:04 AM, k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > The idea of Galilean Relativity is the dumbest idea > > to come down the pike since the silly idea of > > Intelligent Design. > > Dumb or not, the concept is supported by observation. Oh yeah? Sam Wormley is more near sighted than "Mr. McGoo". So is "observations" support nothing! NE |