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 10 Jul 2010 11:55 On Jul 9, 11:21 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 9:34 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > A perfect species would live forever. > > Such species do not do well in changing environments. > You might want to read up on how species evolve to > adapt to changing environments. Sam Wormley is a... species that is incapable of evolving. Thankfully, his line will be going extinct! NE
From: NoEinstein on 10 Jul 2010 12:01 On Jul 9, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD the DUNCE: That old stratagem of yours to over-generalize my statements to the absurd, "hoping" to make me look absurd has never worked. I cover the physics of the whole Universe. You only cover the physics of that plane that you falling from. NE > > On Jul 9, 9:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > So let's see, John, if you explained this properly. > > Suppose I'm hanging from the wing of an airplane at 10,000 ft above > the ground. Both the plane and the earth are pulling me > gravitationally. The Earth is pulling me down and the plane is pulling > me up. But the plane is closer to me. So if I let go, the pull of the > plane will be greater and keep me from falling.... > > There's the small business that the Sun is a third of a million times > more massive than the Earth. So explain again to me why we aren't > sucked up toward the Sun? > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 10 Jul 2010 12:08 On Jul 10, 11:01 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 9, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD the DUNCE: That old stratagem of yours to over-generalize my > statements to the absurd, "hoping" to make me look absurd has never > worked. I cover the physics of the whole Universe. You only cover the > physics of that plane that you falling from. NE John, you said the reason WHY you don't fall up to the sun is because you're closer to the Earth. So if that's the reason, that same reason should work with the plane. If it does not work in that case, then it must not be the reason. Or you should explain why it works in one case and not in the other. > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > So let's see, John, if you explained this properly. > > > Suppose I'm hanging from the wing of an airplane at 10,000 ft above > > the ground. Both the plane and the earth are pulling me > > gravitationally. The Earth is pulling me down and the plane is pulling > > me up. But the plane is closer to me. So if I let go, the pull of the > > plane will be greater and keep me from falling.... > > > There's the small business that the Sun is a third of a million times > > more massive than the Earth. So explain again to me why we aren't > > sucked up toward the Sun? > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 10 Jul 2010 12:12 On Jul 9, 3:50 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: What about "light being able to pass through the Swiss Cheese voids between galaxies" don't you understand? If light required a medium (the ether) for its propagation, we couldn't see more than 10% of the Universe! Photons are 'red shifted' in passing through glass. There's no need that light be a wave in order for that to happen. Do us all a favor: Stop pasting your same old ideas in each reply you make. I, nor most readers, ever look at your comments below the first two paragraphs. NE > > Armistead has refuted Galilean relativity; well, if > he can sell that, he should get a "Nobel in economics!" > > > Dumb or not, the concept is supported by observation. > > thus&so: > it's easy to show redshifting of waves, propogated in the lab, > via the refractive index of some transparent material. so, > the burden of proof is upon those, who believe > in an absolute vacuum, through which "photons" must > be aimed at the rods & cones of one's retina. > > > I meant that light emitted in a lab will never display Hubble redshift > > unless the experiment lasts a million years. > > thus&so: > Pascal experimentally discovered the perfect vacuum > basically with a barometer (he also showed the heighth-limit > of a suction pump (stage) so, there), but he didn't know > of "partial pressures" ... he called it, the Plenum. > > aether seems to be a paradigm that was brought > into being by the barely-understood phenomena of atoms > -- the real heresy of Galileo, not ye olde Copernicusism -- > to wit the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space, > permitivity & permeability (becauseth, > ain't no a b s o l u t e v a c u u m .-) > > thus&so: > I repeat myself to Norton's God-am bot: > "Time is not a dimension; or, it's the only dimension, > whereby we perceive any others," Bucky saith, compared > to Minkowski's ridiculous slogan about a mere phase-space > (then, he died). > > thus&so: > the thing about the "inverse" of cosines of multiple angles, > was cool; does it work with sines, trivially? > > >http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/www/programs/delphi.htm#chemie > > thus&so: > are they still using just urban 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&trade ... > 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, > thatt'd be a lot like a VAT, it's 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 be #1 consumers of Gulf and Alaskan, > 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, > another example of British perfidy (*prefide Albion*), that > Climategate could have purposely been leaked, because > the "mainstream" is so hegemonic with their rough-hewn GCMs, > which simply cannot predict weather with much fidelity, > for any length of time & given approximation > to "initializing-the-model 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; dyscuss! > > > >>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: > 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 10 Jul 2010 12:15
On Jul 10, 5:51 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > 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. Bravo, kado! NoEinstein |