About Einstein's initially submitted STR paper, "P1".
in [Logic]
|
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:32 On Jul 22, 9:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 22, 4:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Alright, PD. You go on thinking... 'you' set the agendas. But tell > me, have you ever bested me in any way? Make your list. I'm sure the > readers will enjoy a good laugh! NE What would be the signal for "besting you", in your mind? > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 4:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the "former" Dunce School Teacher: You don't set the > > > agendas, I do. > > > No, I do. You don't. > > All you can do is splutter and foam and wave your hands vigorously > > when your incompetence is demonstrated. That's the only flexibility > > you are afforded. > > > There, I see you've aligned with this nicely. > > > > I tolerate you like a dog must tolerate fleas. I > > > don't have the time nor the motivation to do your bidding on > > > anything. Understand? NoEinstein > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 21, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: 'Travel calculations' of any kind are > > > > > common in HS Algebra. > > > > > I agree. That's why I invited you to do it for the case below with the > > > > river. > > > > All I want you to do is to work it out on a napkin and answer the > > > > basic question below. How do the times of the two routes compare? Are > > > > they equal? Is one larger, and if so, which one? > > > > > > If you passed 9th grade algebra you should be > > > > > able to write the simple equations for the TIMES of travel of the > > > > > light to the constantly moving mirrors and to the target. There is > > > > > one perpendicular mirror in each light course, and one 45 degree > > > > > mirror. And of course the source and the target are moving as well. > > > > > I won't do the algebra for you. Do it yourself, IF you can. You'll > > > > > confirm after just one equation and one calculation that the time of > > > > > travel doesn't change regardless of the orientation you select > > > > > relative to Earth's velocity vector. Do that a minimum of eight times > > > > > (both light courses, combined) and you will understand why the M-M > > > > > experiment was automatically correcting the times of travel. Such > > > > > experiment was NOT properly designed for detecting velocity of light. > > > > > But my X, Y, & Z interferometer does that quite easily! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > > > > > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > > > > > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > > > > > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > > > > > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > > > > > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > > > > > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > > > > > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > > > > > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment.. > > > > > > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > > > > > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > > > > > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > > > > > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > > > > > > With regard to your above claim, I'd like for you to compare the above > > > > > > to this common problem: > > > > > > A swimmer who can swim at 3 mph with respect to the water, swims in a > > > > > > river with a current of 1 mph straight downstream. The swimmer takes > > > > > > two routes: a) across the river (a distance of 1/4 mile) and back, and > > > > > > b) upstream 1/4 mile and back. How do the times of both routes > > > > > > compare? > > > > > > > PD- 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:35 On Jul 22, 9:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 22, 5:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: PD, the Dunce's Dunce, supposes that he and he alone defines > what constitutes a 'proof''. OK, if you have your own private definition of "proof" that works in what you call your "New Science", then have fun with your "proofs" and what you like to think of as "New Science". Just keep in mind that science, as practiced by scientists, involves completely different metrics and standards to investigation than what you are willing or able to put out. > This guy has never made a '+ new post' > in any news group, You think posts on an unmoderated newsgroup are credentials? You think they're an accomplishment? You've set an awfully low bar for yourself. Why don't you pat yourself on the back for being able to type a complete sentence with punctuation? > Yet, he purports to be the final word on > authenticity. Like our treasonous President Barack Obama, PD is great > at lying and bluffing. But that's all he has to offer: lies and > bluffs. NE > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 11:02 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > Dear Harald: That's BS! Mathperformed by someone who has the > > > science correctcan have a perfectly constructed "experiment" without > > > spending a dime! > > > I'm sorry but that's just not right. Science ALWAYS relies on > > experimental validation -- corroborated experimental validation in > > fact. > > > Now, if in your "New Science," scientists don't have to measure > > anything, they can just prove things to be true with common sense and > > math, then you are welcome to play with your "New Science" game. It's > > just not science. It's *pretending* to do science, like actors > > *pretend* to be lawyers on TV. > > > > But I also have my X, Y, & Z interferometer, which > > > knocks Albert Einstein right out of his coffin! NoEinstein > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > > > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > > > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > > > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > > > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > > > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > > > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > > > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > > > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > > > > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > > > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > > > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > > > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > > > > Dear NoEinstein, > > > > > As you probably know, math cannot prove a physical theory. > > > > > Regards, > > > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: glird on 23 Jul 2010 12:14 On Jul 21, 11:32 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 19, 11:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Dear Glird, > > I'm afraid that a piece of intro is missing here... You are right. I should have said that the following stuff was copied from The Missing Symbol, starting AFTER an analysis of Es published paper (P2) was momentarily finished. > > We will now examine what would happen if someone invents a > > way to measure the one way speed of light, > > Very hypothetical ;-) > > > and uses the relative speeds of > > light, c - v and c + v in the axis of motion, to discover the value of > > Earth's velocity v. > > Suppose unit-rod r'AB is at rest on X' of system K' (x', y', z') > > which is moving in the +x direction at .6c. Imagine that at ends A and > > B of the rod clocks are placed and that with each clock there is an > > observer. Imagine further that these observers set their clocks > > indications to be identical with those of stationary system K (x, y, > > z). Now let a ray of light depart from A at the time tA and let it be > > reflected at B at the time tB and reach A again at the time tA'. > > Taking into consideration the constancy of the velocity of light in > > the stationary system and a dx'/dx = Q contraction of the moving rod > > Why would we "consider" (assume) such an ad-hoc contraction?? Because the symbol that is totally missing in P2 the ratio of lengths, dxi/dx was equal to Q in P1. > > we find that > > tB - tA = dx'/dx/(c - v) = .64/.4 = 1.6 > > and tA' - tB = dx'/dx/(c + v) = .64/1.6 = .4 > > in which dx'/dx denotes the ratio of size of units of length of the > > two systems as measured by stationary system K. Therefore > > tB - tA =/= tA' - tB. > > If dx'/dx = 1 we'd find that > > tB - tA = 1/(c - v) = 2.5 and tA' - tB = 1/(c + v) = .625 > > so again tB - tA =/= tA' - tB. > > From tB = .64/(c - v) = 1.6 we get .64 = 1.6(c - v) and from that we > > get c - v = .64/1.6 > v = c - .4c = .6c. > > Therefore the value of Earth's inertial velocity could easily be found > > and so could the relative velocity of light: > > c'= c +/- v =/= c. > > Our first postulate would thus be proven false! > What postulate do you mean? Einstein's second one? Yes. > > In order to overcome this difficulty we will now postulate that the > > following definition of "synchronous" is universally applicable: > > Clocks of a given system are synchronous if the "time" required by > > light to travel from A to B is equal to the "time" it requires to > > travel from B to A. > > That's not a "postulate" - but then, he corrected such errors in P2 > along with removing many acknowledgements. ;-) An assumption IS a postulate. > > Using Poincare's method of adjusting clocks, the observers on the > > moving system now reset their clocks in accord with this definition. > > To do that, they turn their clock settings back by -vx/c2 seconds, in > > which x is the distance between two clocks as measured by the moving > > system itself. Accordingly, when the origin clock registers to, a > > clock at each successive point on X will indicate that tx = to - > > vx/c2, in which v is the velocity of the given system. > > When setting their clocks by this method, the observers dont need > > to know the velocity of their system in the luminiferous ether, nor > > the amount of length or rate deformations. They merely set their > > clocks to whatever time is needed in order to obey this operational > > definition. > > > Demo: Let t' denote the time of one clock and t denote the time of > > another clock of the same system. The observers on any given system, > > moving or not, set their clocks so that t' = t - vx/c2, in which x is > > the distance between the clocks as measured by the given system > > itself. > > Because the time per clock of a moving system may differ from that > > of a stationary one at the same point, we will hereafter let t' denote > > "the 'time' of the moving system". > > Let a ray start at tA from A towards B, arrive there and be > > reflected at tB, and arrive back at A at tA'. In accordance with > > the above definition, the two clocks are synchronous if > > tB - tA = tA' - tB. > > Little glitch: you already corrected "postulate" to "definition". Though the glitch is miniscule, if a definition is assumed to hold good everywhere, it is equivalent to a postulate. > > We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from > > contradictions and possible for any number of points, and that the > > following relations are universally valid:- > > 1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, then the clock > > at A synchronizes with the clock at B. > > 2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with > > the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each > > other. Clocks that have been set this way are called "Esynched". > > > We will prove that our first postulate is now valid in all > > directions. Let the moving system send a ray from A to B of its unit- > > rod rAB, whose clock A is at the origin and clock B at x' = 1; and let > > it be reflected back to A. > > It will take the ray rAB/(c - v) to reach B and rAB/c + v) for the > > return trip. Since rAB is Q light-units long whether or not it is > > measured by any system, the total time will be > > (1/{c - v} + 1/{c + v})dxi/dx = 2rAB/(c2 - v2) = 2Q/Q = 2 seconds, > > in which the amount of time it took to reach clock B is > > tB - tA = rAB/(c - v) = .64/.4 = 1.6 seconds. > > Cs K' would now measure this outbound time as taking > > t'B = t'1 = [1/(c -v)]dxi/dx + dtau/ > > dx' > > = t + -vx' = 1.6 - .6 = 1 second. > > The return trip will take > > tA' - tB = t2 = Q/(c + v) = .64/1.6 = .4 seconds. > > Cs K' would now measure this as taking > > t'2 = t + vx' = 1 second. > > In the axis of motion, therefore, > > t'A' = t'1 + t'2 = 1 + 1 = 2 seconds. > > On a q-contracted Y' or Z' rod a ray will take > > tB =.8/.8 = 1 second > > each way, so tB = 1 and tA' = 2. > > Since cs K' finds its own rod 1 unit long in all directions, it > > would find that > > c' = 2rAB/(t'A' - t'A) = 2units/2sec > > = 1 unit/second = c. > > Hence, in agreement with our first postulate, both the one-way and two- > > way speed of light now remains c as determined by any esynched system, > > whether or not the system is moving. > > We thus see that the introduction of a luminiferous ether" has now > > become superfluous, since the view herein developed does not require > > an absolutely stationary space provided with special properties, nor > > assign a velocity vector to a point of the space in which > > electromagnetic processes take place. Any point of a system may be > > chosen as referent and any point B as target; and the velocity of > > light will remain c = 1 unit/second in all directions as determined by > > an esynched co-ordinate system attached to an atomic frame of > > reference, whether or not it is stationary. > > Is this meant for Androcles or is it a serious reconstruction attempt? Both. :-] > > I will now interrupt P1 in order to show what happened after > > Poincare's Sur le Dynamique arrived at the post office and, after > > glancing through the three page paper, Einstein ran home to put the > > LTE into P1. > > First, he deleted everything about a Q, q, q change in lengths. > > Then, noticing Poincare's "x' = beta(x + vt)" and realizing that > > + vt" means that the viewed system is moving to the left at -v, rather > > than to the right at +v as in P1's treatment; he switched from k > > (x,y,z) as the stationary system on which K' (x',y',z') moved at v, to > > K (x,y,z) as "the 'stationary' system" on which k (xi, eta,zeta) > > moved at v. > > I'll have to look into it again, but I vaguely remember that there are > other plausible ways to read Einstein's text. What issue do you try to > explain with it? WHY dxi/dx is totally missing from P2! (Though I have known why it for well over a yea, I still havent explained it in these postings.) > > That allowed the typesetters to change his proof copy with a > > minimum of trouble and gave him some room to add an entirely new > > section, which became P2's §3. > > In Posting Two I will show what happened next and will prove the > > following things: > > 1. Since P2 has no symbol for the ratio of lengths in the axis of > > motion, and since the LTE demand that dxi/dx = q, his derivational > > equations along the way are inadequate. Indeed, by omission the value > > of dxi/dx is unity, rather than the Lorentzian value he ended up with. > > 2. His statement, "the equations must be linear on account of the > > properties of homogeneity we attribute to space and time" is > > nonsense. (The real reason for the linearity of the equations, thus > > why delta xi/delta x = dxi/dx, is that the ratio of lengths is > > constant for a given inertial velocity. The value of dxi/dx may be a > > function of v, in which case it will change if v does, but it remains > > constant for a given value of v.) > > 3. In light of his treatment in P2, where he had substituted a for > > delta tau/delta t; his statement that "a is a function phi(v) at > > present unknown" proves that he didn't understand that in Poincare's > > treatment as well as his own, phi(v) denotes the ratio of lengths in > > the perpendicular axes Y and Z; rather than the ratio of rates of the > > two systems. > > Again, I recall quite an assortment of possible explanations/ > interpretations; did you check them? Of course. > > 4. Although he may have borrowed the phrase from Lorentz's 1904 > > paper, his use of "reasons of symmetry" as a way to prove that > > phi(v) = 1 is meaningless. > > Almost certainly he did not study that paper. > > > That proves that he didn't understand either > > Lorentz's use or his own. > > An allegation cannot prove anything. > > > 5. In his entire paper prior to writing Poincare's LTE, he wrote > > "c2 - v2"; but after writing Poincare's equivalent expression as "1 - > > v2/c2", he used that form everywhere but once in the rest of his > > paper. This proves two things: > > a: He copied the LTE and the value of beta directly from > > Poincare's "Sur la Dynamique des l' Eletron". > > "prove" is too strong a word... > > > b: The fact that his prior expression appears once more, many pages > > later, proves that he pasted it there while revising the entire proof > > copy of his paper. > > > Taken together, these things prove that in 1905 Einstein, who was a > > 2nd class clerk yet to be accepted into college, didn't understand his > > own mathematics, let alone that of Lorentz and Poincare'; nor, > > therefore, the physical meanings of his own equations. > > You could just as well allege that it proves that you misinterpret a > few things... > > > The fact that > > no one heretofore ever recognized these things proves that no one else did either. > > It is a fact that much of this has been discussed both in this > newsgroup and in at least one book (I think to have seen at least two > books that discuss it; but such facts are not important enough for me > to remember). Discussed in these newsgroups by ME, and in several books I wrote. > That proves that you failed to do your homework (and no, sorry, I'm > not going to that for you; I keep my claims here as unsustained as > you). ;-) > > Fortunately, as time passed and he did go to college > > When?? I'm afraid your time line is messed up... After 1905. Taken together, these things prove that in 1905 Einstein, who was a 2nd class clerk yet to be accepted into college. > > and learn how > > to do calculus and other forms of mathematics, he never stopped trying > > to understand the physical meanings imposed by his and everyone else's > > equations. He came closer than most people to doing exactly that! > > At least something that we agree on! :-) I know that he came closer than most others because I understand the underlying metaphysics. How do YOU know? > Cheers, > Harald Thank you again, Harald, for your interest and your reasonable attitude. I hope we can continue this discussion. glird
From: NoEinstein on 23 Jul 2010 14:18 On Jul 23, 9:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Dunce's Dunce: Logical thinking is, or should be, a prerequisite for valid science. When Einstein made the absurd popular, logic got thrown out the window. Using anything status quo as a "proof" against New Science, only works in the status quo is correct. Once wrong stuff kept getting printed in physics texts, the lazy physicists started accepting EVERYTHING ever printed as correct. That "logic" has been encouraged, because the Jewish publishers of texts want the books to keep getting thicker, so... they can make more money. You don't qualify as being objective, because you have never acknowledged being wrong. You are incapable of learning anything beyond the GARBAGE you accepted in college. I bypassed the latter problem, by holding back qualifying any aspect of my New Science until I had considered how such affects the other aspects of the observable Universe. That's what logic and the Scientific Method require. Have you ever been... logical, PD? Not since conception! NoEinstein > > On Jul 22, 9:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 4:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Alright, PD. You go on thinking... 'you' set the agendas. But tell > > me, have you ever bested me in any way? Make your list. I'm sure the > > readers will enjoy a good laugh! NE > > What would be the signal for "besting you", in your mind? > > > > On Jul 22, 2:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 4:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the "former" Dunce School Teacher: You don't set the > > > > agendas, I do. > > > > No, I do. You don't. > > > All you can do is splutter and foam and wave your hands vigorously > > > when your incompetence is demonstrated. That's the only flexibility > > > you are afforded. > > > > There, I see you've aligned with this nicely. > > > > > I tolerate you like a dog must tolerate fleas. I > > > > don't have the time nor the motivation to do your bidding on > > > > anything. Understand? NoEinstein > > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: 'Travel calculations' of any kind are > > > > > > common in HS Algebra. > > > > > > I agree. That's why I invited you to do it for the case below with the > > > > > river. > > > > > All I want you to do is to work it out on a napkin and answer the > > > > > basic question below. How do the times of the two routes compare? Are > > > > > they equal? Is one larger, and if so, which one? > > > > > > > If you passed 9th grade algebra you should be > > > > > > able to write the simple equations for the TIMES of travel of the > > > > > > light to the constantly moving mirrors and to the target. There is > > > > > > one perpendicular mirror in each light course, and one 45 degree > > > > > > mirror. And of course the source and the target are moving as well. > > > > > > I won't do the algebra for you. Do it yourself, IF you can. You'll > > > > > > confirm after just one equation and one calculation that the time of > > > > > > travel doesn't change regardless of the orientation you select > > > > > > relative to Earth's velocity vector. Do that a minimum of eight times > > > > > > (both light courses, combined) and you will understand why the M-M > > > > > > experiment was automatically correcting the times of travel. Such > > > > > > experiment was NOT properly designed for detecting velocity of light. > > > > > > But my X, Y, & Z interferometer does that quite easily! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > > > > > > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > > > > > > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > > > > > > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > > > > > > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > > > > > > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > > > > > > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > > > > > > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > > > > > > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > > > > > > > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > > > > > > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > > > > > > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > > > > > > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > With regard to your above claim, I'd like for you to compare the above > > > > > > > to this common problem: > > > > > > > A swimmer who can swim at 3 mph with respect to the water, swims in a > > > > > > > river with a current of 1 mph straight downstream. The swimmer takes > > > > > > > two routes: a) across the river (a distance of 1/4 mile) and back, and > > > > > > > b) upstream 1/4 mile and back. How do the times of both routes > > > > > > > compare? > > > > > > > > PD- 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 14:21
On Jul 23, 1:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 23, 9:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Dunce's Dunce: Logical thinking is, or should be, a > prerequisite for valid science. When Einstein made the absurd > popular, logic got thrown out the window. Using anything status quo > as a "proof" against New Science, only works in the status quo is > correct. Once wrong stuff kept getting printed in physics texts, the > lazy physicists started accepting EVERYTHING ever printed as correct. > That "logic" has been encouraged, because the Jewish publishers of > texts want the books to keep getting thicker, so... they can make more > money. > > You don't qualify as being objective, because you have never > acknowledged being wrong. You are incapable of learning anything > beyond the GARBAGE you accepted in college. I bypassed the latter > problem, by holding back qualifying any aspect of my New Science until > I had considered how such affects the other aspects of the observable > Universe. That's what logic and the Scientific Method require. Have > you ever been... logical, PD? Not since conception! NoEinstein You mentioned the Scientific Method (caps yours). What do you think the Scientific Method entails? Hint: Rather than just making something up, since it's a term that's widely in use already, don't you think you should look it up first? > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 9:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 22, 4:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Alright, PD. You go on thinking... 'you' set the agendas. But tell > > > me, have you ever bested me in any way? Make your list. I'm sure the > > > readers will enjoy a good laugh! NE > > > What would be the signal for "besting you", in your mind? > > > > > On Jul 22, 2:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 21, 4:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD, the "former" Dunce School Teacher: You don't set the > > > > > agendas, I do. > > > > > No, I do. You don't. > > > > All you can do is splutter and foam and wave your hands vigorously > > > > when your incompetence is demonstrated. That's the only flexibility > > > > you are afforded. > > > > > There, I see you've aligned with this nicely. > > > > > > I tolerate you like a dog must tolerate fleas. I > > > > > don't have the time nor the motivation to do your bidding on > > > > > anything. Understand? NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: 'Travel calculations' of any kind are > > > > > > > common in HS Algebra. > > > > > > > I agree. That's why I invited you to do it for the case below with the > > > > > > river. > > > > > > All I want you to do is to work it out on a napkin and answer the > > > > > > basic question below. How do the times of the two routes compare? Are > > > > > > they equal? Is one larger, and if so, which one? > > > > > > > > If you passed 9th grade algebra you should be > > > > > > > able to write the simple equations for the TIMES of travel of the > > > > > > > light to the constantly moving mirrors and to the target. There is > > > > > > > one perpendicular mirror in each light course, and one 45 degree > > > > > > > mirror. And of course the source and the target are moving as well. > > > > > > > I won't do the algebra for you. Do it yourself, IF you can.. You'll > > > > > > > confirm after just one equation and one calculation that the time of > > > > > > > travel doesn't change regardless of the orientation you select > > > > > > > relative to Earth's velocity vector. Do that a minimum of eight times > > > > > > > (both light courses, combined) and you will understand why the M-M > > > > > > > experiment was automatically correcting the times of travel. Such > > > > > > > experiment was NOT properly designed for detecting velocity of light. > > > > > > > But my X, Y, & Z interferometer does that quite easily! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > > > > > > > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > > > > > > > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > > > > > > > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > > > > > > > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > > > > > > > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > > > > > > > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > > > > > > > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > > > > > > > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > > > > > > > > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > > > > > > > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > > > > > > > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > > > > > > > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > With regard to your above claim, I'd like for you to compare the above > > > > > > > > to this common problem: > > > > > > > > A swimmer who can swim at 3 mph with respect to the water, swims in a > > > > > > > > river with a current of 1 mph straight downstream. The swimmer takes > > > > > > > > two routes: a) across the river (a distance of 1/4 mile) and back, and > > > > > > > > b) upstream 1/4 mile and back. How do the times of both routes > > > > > > > > compare? > > > > > > > > > PD- 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |