A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: whoever on 10 Jan 2010 06:22 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6f3c108c-5347-4237-b4a2-51301fb4533e(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 9, 9:37 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct >> > > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. >> >> > The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant >> > degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea >> > that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening >> > is even more absurd. >> >> > Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. >> >> > It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to >> > that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible. >> >> > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do >> > physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? >> >> > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed >> > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is >> > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit >> > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units >> > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. >> >> I don�t care about your personal feelings toward me, just state your >> case for what you have claimed. The same goes for Al. I already made >> him look foolish and so now you want to join him. >> When I first encountered Al >> here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3d2094579aeee47?hl=en >> >> He stated: >> >> > Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same >> > predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place - >> > as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature. You can't have >> > it both ways, buddy boy. Either the equations are parity-even scalars >> > and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and >> > pseudotensors with spacetime torsion. >> >> > Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force. >> >> Since than I have shown how a wave is compressed by Lorentz force, >> which is = to Doppler effect measured as E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 into >> spacetime curvature measured as E=hf=mc^2 as deBroglie stated. >> Just because you cannot see that �c^2�, is not just a mathematical >> conversion factor, with not physical structure, at quantum level, >> where E=hf=mc^2, and energy equals, and turns into matter, because it >> takes on a circular and or spherical form, shows your lack of sense. >> I have analogical, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and >> statistical, evidence to back it, and there is no way around it, >> except to deliberately close your eyes, because you refuse to swallow >> your foolish pride. >> Just keep on believing what you do and make your case for it. >> I will do same and enjoy it. When you know you are right it is easy to >> be confident. >> I don�t blame anyone if they don�t see this right away because it is a >> new discovery, but to deny evidence that is so clear it speaks for >> itself, and is right in your face, is itself ludicrous on its face. >> >> And oh yea, as for �advancing physics on sci physics�, even Al is >> trying to advance physics on sci physics, and thinks that mainstream >> physicist are obstructing its path, did you see his >> link:http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm >> >> And if you think that the so called big boys like �Stephen Hawkings�, >> don�t have teams �data mining�, sites like these for ideas, than your >> a fool. And furthermore, if they truly don�t than they are fools. >> Truth is, some of the greatest ideas come from the out of the box >> thinking of non professionals and my idea- discovery is one of the >> greatest, (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), and I am going to >> enjoy proving it. >> >> You both think your so smart. >> >> I am also going to thoroughly enjoy proving you otherwise. >> >> Conrad J Countess >> >> Remember my name > > ------------------- > Good for you Countless !!!! > > dont let all the imbecile parrot gangsters > hold you back > we are going to win not them!! > (that is why they are in panic !!) Who is in a panic? The only one panicing is you .. when you go flying off the handle throwing insults at those who counter your nonsense and mistakes with physics. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jan 2010 11:41 On Jan 10, 1:22 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6f3c108c-5347-4237-b4a2-51301fb4533e(a)d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jan 9, 9:37 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct > >> > > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. > > >> > The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant > >> > degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea > >> > that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening > >> > is even more absurd. > > >> > Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. > > >> > It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to > >> > that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible. > > >> > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do > >> > physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? > > >> > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed > >> > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is > >> > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit > >> > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units > >> > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. > > >> I dont care about your personal feelings toward me, just state your > >> case for what you have claimed. The same goes for Al. I already made > >> him look foolish and so now you want to join him. > >> When I first encountered Al > >> here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3d2094579aeee47?hl=en > > >> He stated: > > >> > Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same > >> > predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place - > >> > as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature. You can't have > >> > it both ways, buddy boy. Either the equations are parity-even scalars > >> > and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and > >> > pseudotensors with spacetime torsion. > > >> > Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force. > > >> Since than I have shown how a wave is compressed by Lorentz force, > >> which is = to Doppler effect measured as E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 into > >> spacetime curvature measured as E=hf=mc^2 as deBroglie stated. > >> Just because you cannot see that c^2, is not just a mathematical > >> conversion factor, with not physical structure, at quantum level, > >> where E=hf=mc^2, and energy equals, and turns into matter, because it > >> takes on a circular and or spherical form, shows your lack of sense. > >> I have analogical, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and > >> statistical, evidence to back it, and there is no way around it, > >> except to deliberately close your eyes, because you refuse to swallow > >> your foolish pride. > >> Just keep on believing what you do and make your case for it. > >> I will do same and enjoy it. When you know you are right it is easy to > >> be confident. > >> I dont blame anyone if they dont see this right away because it is a > >> new discovery, but to deny evidence that is so clear it speaks for > >> itself, and is right in your face, is itself ludicrous on its face. > > >> And oh yea, as for advancing physics on sci physics, even Al is > >> trying to advance physics on sci physics, and thinks that mainstream > >> physicist are obstructing its path, did you see his > >> link:http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > >> And if you think that the so called big boys like Stephen Hawkings, > >> dont have teams data mining, sites like these for ideas, than your > >> a fool. And furthermore, if they truly dont than they are fools. > >> Truth is, some of the greatest ideas come from the out of the box > >> thinking of non professionals and my idea- discovery is one of the > >> greatest, (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), and I am going to > >> enjoy proving it. > > >> You both think your so smart. > > >> I am also going to thoroughly enjoy proving you otherwise. > > >> Conrad J Countess > > >> Remember my name > > > ------------------- > > Good for you Countless !!!! > > > dont let all the imbecile parrot gangsters > > hold you back > > we are going to win not them!! > > (that is why they are in panic !!) > > Who is in a panic? The only one panicing is you .. when you go flying off > the handle throwing insults at those who counter your nonsense and mistakes > with physics. > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- ---------------- Hi Feuerbacher with his other name if you dont like me go discuss with your friends ----------------
From: glird on 10 Jan 2010 12:21 k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > ><Another site has, "Fortunately, expressing the formulas mathematically helps resolve any ambiguities of language. That's why 'laws' in physics are expressed mathematically." Again I say Bullshit. Only the 4th site quotes from Motte's or Cajori's translations. ... In fact all the current text and reference books leave off ... all the ideas .... found in the quote. This omission has a tremendous impact on the correct understanding of the Third Law. > And on everything else Newton wrote. >There are many reasons why mainline science got >this Law so screwed up. Not only "this Law". Insofar as the structure of the physical universe is concerned, mainline science, via physics, got EVERYTHING screwed up. ><There are many other points, ideas, concepts, etc., of the Classical Newtonian Mechanics that deviate from those presented in the Principia. These are covered in detail the treatise 'The Search for Reality and the Truths'. This book addresses even more about Newton's Second Law. > Where can that book be found? glird
From: Y.Porat on 10 Jan 2010 13:06 On Jan 10, 7:21 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > > ><Another site has, "Fortunately, expressing the formulas > > mathematically helps resolve any ambiguities of language. > That's why 'laws' in physics are expressed mathematically." > Again I say Bullshit. Only the 4th site quotes from > Motte's or Cajori's translations. ... In fact all the current > text and reference books leave off ... all the ideas > ... found in the quote. This omission has a tremendous > impact on the correct understanding of the Third Law. > > > And on everything else Newton wrote. > > >There are many reasons why mainline science got > >this Law so screwed up. > > Not only "this Law". Insofar as the structure of the > physical universe is concerned, mainline science, via > physics, got EVERYTHING screwed up.><There are many other points, ideas, concepts, etc., > > of the Classical Newtonian Mechanics that deviate > from those presented in the Principia. These are covered > in detail the treatise 'The Search for Reality and the > Truths'. > This book addresses even more about Newton's Second Law. > > > Where can that book be found? > > glird --------------------- anyway do you think that there are more than one mass physical entity ??? fo r instance 'gravitational mass'' 'or 'relativistic mass' **in addition** to the inertial mass that Newton first defined TIA Y.Porat ----------------------
From: glird on 10 Jan 2010 13:40
On Jan 6, 7:48 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > > In Principia Mathematica (not "Mathematical"), motion = dp/dt. > If you deny it, you deny the second law, which is against the supposition.. As a wise old sage said: "Engage brain before opening mouth". This time it means, What IS Newton's 2nd Law and HOW is it different than present physics states it? glird |