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 1 Aug 2010 19:35 On Jul 31, 2:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Alright, PD, I'll bite... What are the experimental proofs that you know regarding SR? Remember, SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Could any experiment be relevant in light of such fact? NE > > On Jul 28, 7:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 25, 5:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Dunce: SR has never accurately predicted a thing. > > I believe you've never learned anything about the experimental tests > of special relativity. > Whose problem is that? > > > > > Rubber rulers aren't a FACT of physics. But GR does predict, because > > Einstein spent over a decade writing an empirical equation to describe > > the orbit of the planet Mercury about the sun. Since that orbit was > > determined by NATURES physical laws, Einstein's analogy is useful for > > other gravity systems as well, But Einstein concocted space-time > > variance as the CAUSE of gravity. No one before yours truly has known > > that the forces of gravity are caused by flowing ether, thats > > replenished by the hobo ether trapped between trains of photons being > > exchanged between the attracting bodies. NoEinstein > > > > 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 - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 2 Aug 2010 11:45 On Aug 1, 6:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 31, 2:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Alright, PD, I'll bite... What are the experimental proofs that you > know regarding SR? Remember, SR violates the Law of the Conservation > of Energy. Could any experiment be relevant in light of such fact? > NE > Remember, you don't know what the law of conservation even means. You think it means "velocity in = energy out" or something like that, and this is why you think that energy is proportional to velocity. Heck you don't even know what "proportional" means, because you thought that the equation y = 1/(1-x^2) held that y is proportional to x. But as for experimental support for relativity, there are a few dozen experiments that have been done (and repeated by independent investigators) that have tested different aspects of relativity. I do not intend to provide a description of each of them, though they are all equally important, because your attention span and your ability to read are limited to one or two paragraphs. And you don't know how to use a web browser, so giving you a clickable compendium is of no use to you. So, if you please, ask for something that you are able to consume without gagging on it, and I'll see if I can accommodate. PD
From: NoEinstein on 3 Aug 2010 11:19 On Aug 2, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Dunce's Dunce: Like I've explained to you and the readers, before, velocity has energy that is made manifest by the FORCE needed to cause the velocity. Twice as much velocity needs twice the force, etc. The total energy (big E), in pounds, is equal to the velocity equivalent FORCE in pounds. So, the LCE equation isn't saying force is the SAME THING as velocity, but saying that the energy IN (in pounds) = the energy OUT (in pounds). NE 07/22/10 Dear PD. the Dunce's Dunce: Velocity change, as in the variable MOMENTUM for a unit mass, will cause a velocity-proportional force on the mass being moved. Applied forces manifest ENERGY. If there is energy expressed on EITHER side of the equation, the Law of the Conservation of Energy must hold sway. Try as you will to misunderstand, your understanding isn't a requirement to have my New Science be Universally valid. Truths are truths, plain and simple! NoEinstein > > On Aug 1, 6:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 2:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Alright, PD, I'll bite... What are the experimental proofs that you > > know regarding SR? Remember, SR violates the Law of the Conservation > > of Energy. Could any experiment be relevant in light of such fact? > > NE > > Remember, you don't know what the law of conservation even means. You > think it means "velocity in = energy out" or something like that, and > this is why you think that energy is proportional to velocity. Heck > you don't even know what "proportional" means, because you thought > that the equation y = 1/(1-x^2) held that y is proportional to x. > > But as for experimental support for relativity, there are a few dozen > experiments that have been done (and repeated by independent > investigators) that have tested different aspects of relativity. I do > not intend to provide a description of each of them, though they are > all equally important, because your attention span and your ability to > read are limited to one or two paragraphs. And you don't know how to > use a web browser, so giving you a clickable compendium is of no use > to you. > > So, if you please, ask for something that you are able to consume > without gagging on it, and I'll see if I can accommodate. > > PD
From: PD on 3 Aug 2010 11:32
On Aug 3, 10:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 2, 11:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Dunce's Dunce: Like I've explained to you and the > readers, before, velocity has energy No sir. Velocity is a property of something. Energy is another property of something. Energy is not a property of velocity, any more than the fierce of a tiger has stripes or the red of a balloon has roundness. > that is made manifest by the > FORCE needed to cause the velocity. Twice as much velocity needs > twice the force, etc. No sir. You flunked sixth grade science. Try again. Never mind, don't try again. You're a babbling fool, trying to make enough noise to attract attention. You don't understand the FIRST thing about physics, and yet you try to *masquerade* in an area where you obviously are incompetent. Why would you do that? Only a fool would pretend to be conversant in an area where he knows nothing. A decent imposter knows at least a little. A fool knows nothing but tries anyway. You're a fool, John. I'm sure you've heard this before. You didn't answer how you wanted information about the experimental support for relativity, in a way that is digestible to you. Perhaps you lost track of the train of thought. > The total energy (big E), in pounds, is equal > to the velocity equivalent FORCE in pounds. So, the LCE equation > isn't saying force is the SAME THING as velocity, but saying that the > energy IN (in pounds) = the energy OUT (in pounds). NE > > 07/22/10 > > Dear PD. the Dunce's Dunce: Velocity change, as in the variable > MOMENTUM for a unit mass, will cause a velocity-proportional force on > the mass being moved. Applied forces manifest ENERGY. If there is > energy expressed on EITHER side of the equation, the Law of the > Conservation of Energy must hold sway. Try as you will to > misunderstand, your understanding isn't a requirement to have my New > Science be Universally valid. Truths are truths, plain and simple! > NoEinstein > > > > > On Aug 1, 6:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 2:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Alright, PD, I'll bite... What are the experimental proofs that you > > > know regarding SR? Remember, SR violates the Law of the Conservation > > > of Energy. Could any experiment be relevant in light of such fact? > > > NE > > > Remember, you don't know what the law of conservation even means. You > > think it means "velocity in = energy out" or something like that, and > > this is why you think that energy is proportional to velocity. Heck > > you don't even know what "proportional" means, because you thought > > that the equation y = 1/(1-x^2) held that y is proportional to x. > > > But as for experimental support for relativity, there are a few dozen > > experiments that have been done (and repeated by independent > > investigators) that have tested different aspects of relativity. I do > > not intend to provide a description of each of them, though they are > > all equally important, because your attention span and your ability to > > read are limited to one or two paragraphs. And you don't know how to > > use a web browser, so giving you a clickable compendium is of no use > > to you. > > > So, if you please, ask for something that you are able to consume > > without gagging on it, and I'll see if I can accommodate. > > > PD |