About Einstein's initially submitted STR paper, "P1".
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Foundations of financial management 13e stanley block, geoffrey hirt, bartley test bank
Next: COME SEE KOOKER * HATES US * ONCE AGAIN FAIL TO EXPLAIN HIS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE 9/11 CLAIMS
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 17:15 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 -
From: Androcles on 22 Jul 2010 17:58 "Sebastian Garth" <sebastiangarth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:051e4eae-8f4a-4905-87b7-f0fe8fac4a12(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > The math I did PROVES that the > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > the direction being considered. � NoEinstein � Why, then, has no experiment ever measured it as anything other than C (such as from a galaxy moving rapidly toward or away from us)? ============================================== There is no "experiment" you can perform on a galaxy, dork, all you can do is observe them. Refusing to accept that light's speed is source dependent is your problem. To get around it you wankers have had to invent dork matter and dork energy, which you do not understand. "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" The most useful statement of Ockham's razor for scientists is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg This pencil is bent because I can see it is. Pencils must bend when put in water. I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. This pencil appears bent because light refracts. This galaxy turns too fast because I calculate it does. It must contain dork matter! I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. This galaxy appears to turn too fast because light's speed is source dependent.
From: NoEinstein on 22 Jul 2010 22:25 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 > > 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 -
From: NoEinstein on 22 Jul 2010 22:32 On Jul 22, 5:02 pm, Sebastian Garth <sebastianga...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > The math I did PROVES that the > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > Why, then, has no experiment ever measured it as anything other than C > (such as from a galaxy moving rapidly toward or away from us)? > Sebastian: ... Because not one air-brain scientist has done the simple algebra to prove that the M-M experiment can be explained without resorting to... 'rubber rulers' and space-time variances. There is on means, presently, for measuring light velocity over a one-way course. Doppler shifts have other causes, and so are suspect. Even if light has a particular color, its velocity can vary all over the place, and no one would be the wiser. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 22 Jul 2010 22:39
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''. This guy has never made a '+ new post' in any news group, 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 - |