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: Richard Dobson on 10 Jul 2010 19:07 On 10/07/2010 16:53, NoEinstein wrote: > 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 � That would be "Mr Magoo". Observation can fool by both sight and sound sometimes... Richard Dobson
From: Sam Wormley on 10 Jul 2010 20:34 On 7/10/10 10:47 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > 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 � In other words you cannot do the simple calculation using the masses of the sun and earth and Newton's law of gravity. Pity. >> >> 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 11 Jul 2010 12:29 On Jul 10, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD the Dunce School Teacher: I comment on science for the benefit of the many readers. I'm not here to have any one-on-one conversations with a stone-head like you! I'm a damn good generalist. You are just a small-minded H. E. particle physicist. There's not much demand for those; is there? NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 11 Jul 2010 12:34 On Jul 10, 7:07 pm, Richard Dobson <richarddob...(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Dear Richard: Thanks for your knowledge of movie cartoons! Mine was an 'ear sight' rather than an 'eye sight' problem. Now, I know the spelling is... MAGOO! NoEinstein > > On 10/07/2010 16:53, NoEinstein wrote: > > > 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 > > That would be "Mr Magoo". Observation can fool by both sight and sound > sometimes... > > Richard Dobson
From: NoEinstein on 11 Jul 2010 12:38
On Jul 10, 8:34 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sam: It's good time managenent, and pesty school teacher management. Ha, ha, HA! NE > > On 7/10/10 10:47 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > 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 > > In other words you cannot do the simple calculation using the masses > of the sun and earth and Newton's law of gravity. Pity. > > > > > > >> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |