About Einstein's initially submitted STR paper, "P1".
in [Math]
|
Prev: Operations management 9e ritzman solutions manual
Next: Proofs that standard functions are transcendental
From: NoEinstein on 23 Jul 2010 14:21 On Jul 23, 9:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD, the D's Dunce: 75% of status quo physics is wrong! Try as you do, you remain just a worthless speck at the bottom of the Science HILL that I am the King of. NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 14:23 On Jul 23, 1:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 23, 9:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD, the D's Dunce: 75% of status quo physics is wrong! Try as you > do, you remain just a worthless speck at the bottom of the Science > HILL that I am the King of. NE > Just wanted to remind you to refine your sentence to read "... at the bottom of the New Science hill that I am the King of." Because what you're talking about is what you're doing (New Science), not science. PD
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jul 2010 16:38 On Jul 23, 2:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Dunce: Albert Einstein "made up" space-time variance to "explain" the force of gravity. He never did even the simplest 9th grade algebra to confirm whether such variance was required, or even if worked (It doesn't!). The Scientific Method requires constant skepticism that should motivate finding new ways of assessing the science postulate being proposed. 100% of your... 'purported' confirmations of Einstein are actually the Shoe-Horning of results to seem to be in compliance with Einstein. Confirming Einstein is a MENTAL ILLNESS, not a science. Such illness is tied to salvaging the errant notion that there was a... Big Bang creation event. Without the latter, much of religious dogma is shot-all-to-hell. Since you, PD, don't know right from wrong, it's unlikely you are religious, and you certainly aren't moral. You are at liberty to post on any moderated news group of your choosing. All those moderators know about science is the same status quo garbage that you like to defend. You and those moderators were made for each other. Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jul 2010 16:45 On Jul 23, 2:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: And what you are doing, is 'that' science? You majored in high energy particle physics to make you feel BIG in comparison. My New Science is concerned with the entire, very big Universe. Your inferiority complex is confirmed by your major. Neither you, nor HEPP, has contributed a SPECK to improving the world! NE > > On Jul 23, 1:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 9:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD, the D's Dunce: 75% of status quo physics is wrong! Try as you > > do, you remain just a worthless speck at the bottom of the Science > > HILL that I am the King of. NE > > Just wanted to remind you to refine your sentence to read "... at the > bottom of the New Science hill that I am the King of." > Because what you're talking about is what you're doing (New Science), > not science. > > PD
From: PD on 25 Jul 2010 17:18
On Jul 25, 3:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 23, 2:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Dunce: Albert Einstein "made up" space-time variance to > "explain" the force of gravity. Yes, he did figure this out. > He never did even the simplest 9th > grade algebra to confirm whether such variance was required, Nor do you ever have to SHOW that a theory is REQUIRED. All you have to show is that it does make accurate predictions better than other theories. > or even > if worked (It doesn't!). Oh, but it does. It makes predictions that match experiment much better than other theories that make quantitative predictions. Those explanations that do not make quantitative predictions at all are not theories. > The Scientific Method requires constant > skepticism that should motivate finding new ways of assessing the > science postulate being proposed. Is this what you think the Scientific Method entails? Did you bother looking it up, or did you just decide to make something up. > 100% of your... 'purported' > confirmations of Einstein are actually the Shoe-Horning of results to > seem to be in compliance with Einstein. Gee, now you're claiming data were faked or massaged, an accusation of scientific fraud. Which results do you think are faked? > Confirming Einstein is a > MENTAL ILLNESS, not a science. Such illness is tied to salvaging the > errant notion that there was a... Big Bang creation event. Without > the latter, much of religious dogma is shot-all-to-hell. Since you, > PD, don't know right from wrong, it's unlikely you are religious, and > you certainly aren't moral. > > You are at liberty to post on any moderated news group of your > choosing. All those moderators know about science is the same status > quo garbage that you like to defend. You and those moderators were > made for each other. Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - |