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 7 Jul 2010 16:24 On Jul 7, 9:18 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Einstein used Lorentzs BETA in most of his theories. Beta > = 1 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½ plots as what I call a waterfall curve: I believe Lorentz's equation is: x' = x-vt/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 Einstein simplified this to what your refer as BETA. Your Beta is commonly called gamma in my circles. Please do not take this a criticism, but there is also what is commonly called the Lorentz-Poincare Ether Theory (LET, and also many variations thereof) that has been around for some time. D.Y.K.
From: PD on 7 Jul 2010 17:39 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,
From: NoEinstein on 8 Jul 2010 14:47 On Jul 7, 4:24 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > Dear kado: Lorentz modified an equation he had derived to make the force needed to accelerate electrons become infinite at velocity 'c'. 1 / ( 1 - v^2 /c^2 ) 1/2^ becomes infinite at 'c'. I call that BETA, because a lowly Universal Encyclopedia which I have in my home used BETA. The "waterfall curve" is useful in many applications, including explaining the orbit of the planet Mercury. But neither Lorentz nor Einstein realized that the mechanism of gravity is flowing ether, replinished by the 'hobo' ether carried between the attracting objects by the photons being exchanged. Photons are the... "gravitons" that no one (but me) has found! I reasoned that PHOTONS are the only available gravitons, and everything works fine! Please inject your salient comments whenever those might be of interest. I can't improve the entire world, until I can get the science stone-heads to acknowledge the correctness of my long-over-due NEW Science! NoEinstein > > On Jul 7, 9:18 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >Einsteinused Lorentzs BETA in most of his theories. Beta > > = 1 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½ plots as what I call a waterfall curve: > > I believe Lorentz's equation is: > > x' = x-vt/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 > > Einsteinsimplified this to what your refer as BETA. > Your Beta is commonly called gamma in my circles. > > Please do not take this a criticism, but there is also > what is commonly called the Lorentz-PoincareEther > Theory (LET, and also many variations thereof) that has > been around for some time. > > D.Y.K.
From: NoEinstein on 8 Jul 2010 14:51 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 > > 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,
From: spudnik on 8 Jul 2010 14:54
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 |