Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Eric Gisse on 8 Nov 2005 17:13 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 7 Nov 2005 18:05:46 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 7 Nov 2005 15:13:36 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >You can't even give me a simple literature citation for a classical > >> >derivation of E = mc^2! > >> > >> I like giving you a chance to use your own brain. > > > >Wrong answer. > > > >It is NOT our job to do your work for you. If you assert something as > >fact you better have a way of showing that it is. > > > >You don't even have the first clue if E=mc^2 was around 'before > >Einstein' or not, and no amount of telling me "to use my brain" will > >change the fact you don't know. > > E= Mc^2 if a natural fact. Einstein didn't invent it. He simply publicised it. > Since all you ever say is that it is a 'natural fact', it is obvious you are incapable of providing a citation that predates 1905. So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. > ....just like I'm publicising the natural principle that light is ballistic and > travels at c wrt its source. It will never be published because you are incapable of creating a mathematical formalism to describe it. It will never be published because you incapable of defending your theory without insulting the intelligence of those who take the time to ask you questions instead of laughing in your face. ....and most of all, it will never be published because it is wrong by fundamental experiment. > > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Eric Gisse on 8 Nov 2005 17:20 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:38:24 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >news:nlhvm11gdhmpjgvo1qv8f81rg6t6nch7i6(a)4ax.com: > > > > > > >What questions of your have I refused to answer? > > > >Were they answerable questions or 'why' questions of the type that science > >can not answer? > > > >Is my ability to answer them critical to my being able to do develope my > >theory? The answer must be no, because I do not have a theory that I am > >trying to develop and sell to the world. > > > >Your ability to answer our questions is critical to the development of your > >theory. > > > >Without answers to those questions, you have no theory, only a conjecture. > > > >If your conjecture explained many unexplained pheonomina and were backed by > >sound math, it would stand a chance. > > > >Unfortunately, you must keep adding new ad hoc 'fixes' to your conjecture > >to explain data that is easily explained by other theories. > > > >Unfortunately, you do NOT have sound math behind your conjecture. > > > >Unfortunately, you grow angry, defensive and abusive when presented with > >questions that your theory MUST be able to answer if it is ever to stand on > >its own. > > > >You have written some 'interesting' computer programs that draw pretty > >pictures. Computer program writing is very well adapted to adding ad hoc > >fixes to 'make things work'. > > > >Unfortunately physics doesn't work the same way. > > But aeroplanes still fly even though they are designed with computer > simulations. Way to not understand, Henri. Computer programs are based on actual math and not a "make it up as you go along" attitude. You still can't even give me the basic theory that your light deflection program is based on. You just mumble about it being "bloody complicated" then change the subject. > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Nov 2005 17:45 On 8 Nov 2005 14:13:58 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 7 Nov 2005 18:05:46 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I like giving you a chance to use your own brain. >> > >> >Wrong answer. >> > >> >It is NOT our job to do your work for you. If you assert something as >> >fact you better have a way of showing that it is. >> > >> >You don't even have the first clue if E=mc^2 was around 'before >> >Einstein' or not, and no amount of telling me "to use my brain" will >> >change the fact you don't know. >> >> E= Mc^2 if a natural fact. Einstein didn't invent it. He simply publicised it. >> > >Since all you ever say is that it is a 'natural fact', it is obvious >you are incapable of providing a citation that predates 1905. > >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. It was obvious. Just integrate mv.dv from 0 to c. > >> ....just like I'm publicising the natural principle that light is ballistic and >> travels at c wrt its source. > >It will never be published because you are incapable of creating a >mathematical formalism to describe it. Here is the maths Geesey. Light speed = c (wrt source) Happy now? > >It will never be published because you incapable of defending your >theory without insulting the intelligence of those who take the time to >ask you questions instead of laughing in your face. As the ever wise Androcles asked recently, " how can one insult zero intelligence?" HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Nov 2005 17:46 On 8 Nov 2005 14:20:17 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:38:24 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> >news:nlhvm11gdhmpjgvo1qv8f81rg6t6nch7i6(a)4ax.com: >> >Without answers to those questions, you have no theory, only a conjecture. >> > >> >If your conjecture explained many unexplained pheonomina and were backed by >> >sound math, it would stand a chance. >> > >> >Unfortunately, you must keep adding new ad hoc 'fixes' to your conjecture >> >to explain data that is easily explained by other theories. >> > >> >Unfortunately, you do NOT have sound math behind your conjecture. >> > >> >Unfortunately, you grow angry, defensive and abusive when presented with >> >questions that your theory MUST be able to answer if it is ever to stand on >> >its own. >> > >> >You have written some 'interesting' computer programs that draw pretty >> >pictures. Computer program writing is very well adapted to adding ad hoc >> >fixes to 'make things work'. >> > >> >Unfortunately physics doesn't work the same way. >> >> But aeroplanes still fly even though they are designed with computer >> simulations. > >Way to not understand, Henri. > >Computer programs are based on actual math and not a "make it up as you >go along" attitude. > >You still can't even give me the basic theory that your light >deflection program is based on. You just mumble about it being "bloody >complicated" then change the subject. > Geese you will never be as famous as I am if you maintian this negative attitude. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: hanson on 8 Nov 2005 19:36
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> lectured in message news:1131488038.238146.13700(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... to/over and about Henri Wilson, HW(a)bigpond.net.au who w/i news:ela2n15oejr6i30i6c4foh12mb8h9csjka(a)4ax.com... > [Gisse] >> >> >You, Henry, can't even give me a simple literature >> >> >citation for a classical derivation of E = mc^2! >> >You, Henry, don't even have the first clue if E=mc^2 was >> >around 'before Einstein' or not.... > [Henri] >> E= Mc^2 if a natural fact. Einstein didn't invent it. >> He simply publicised it. >> [Gisse] > Since all you ever say is that it is a 'natural fact', it is obvious > you are incapable of providing a citation that predates 1905. > So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. > You cannot prove otherwise. > [hanson] ..... ahahaha... AHAHA... Eric, you sound like a highschool kid hearing about Einstein for the 1st time and decided to become his disciple. Henri seems to have a much deeper insight into the matter, than you do with your B&W assertions. Eric, do yourself a favor and see what other folks have echoed about this issue... Go google and you'll find: .............. = 6,160 hits for E=mc2 before 1905 = ............. The ones right on the surface are: > --- start refs--- htttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ancestors.html == Wherein it says: Without these three visionary thinkers, Einstein's equation might have been inconceivable. > To boot: http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm == Wherein it says: Mileva was co-author, or sole author, of the 1905 papers, quoted some of Albert's words, as found in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, and bear in mind that the vast majority of Mileva's letters to Albert were destroyed, with there being no more likely reasons for their destruction, than to hide her contribution and the fact that the works were unoriginal... > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b == Wherein it says: Einstein's Christian wife, Mileva Maric, who really had the ideas and performed the math in the manuscript. She urged/nagged her hubby, Albert, to publish HER work under his name, (given the status women had back then) which he apparently reluctantly did ... and in the process did not care to include any citations, etc. But, the moment the paper made a splash, their marriage soured and he dumped her.... One can wonder why Einstein acquiesced to her divorce demands for him to give her all the money that he got from his Nobel price... Hush money? The vast number of the interviewed professionals subscribed to the scenario that it was Maric who was the creator and inventor of SR, and not Einstein who cashed in on the laurels.... > http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/emc2.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,3928978-103681,00.html http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/events/events_home.cfm == Wherein it says: Olinto De Pretto, a native of the Veneto region of Italy, published an article in which he gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published on June 16, 1903, and published again in February 27, 1904, the second time in the Atti of the Reale Instituto Veneto di Scienze. De Pretto thereby preceded Einstein's famous 1905 "E=mc^2" paper by at least a year-and-a-half. > http://catholicintl.com/scienceissues/critique-dermott3.htm == Wherein it says: Prior to Einstein, in his experiments with electricity and induction coils, Michael Faraday had already produced the reciprocal equation c^2 = E/m, and in 1881, J. J. Thompson had produced E= 4/3mc^2. [100] In 1903 the Italian scientist Olinto De Pretto had already published E=mc2, which Einstein included as a mere footnote in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity. Poincare had also used the formula long before Einstein commandeered it for Relativity. [101] > http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/CIPD.htm http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/emc2.htm == Wherein it says: Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, by Christopher Bjerknes. Albert Einstein never even came close to such insights. . . . Maxwell's equations implicitly contain the formula E = mc^2. Simon Newcomb pioneered the concept of relativistic energy in 1889. [224] Preston, J.J. Thompson, [225] Poincare, [226] Olinto De Pretto,[227] Fritz Hasenohrl, [228] [etc.etc. etc.] each effectively presented the formula E = mc^2, before 1905. --- end refs--- > [hanson] All that and such will not impress you of course because you are one of those COMMON specimens who made physics into their religion, for all to see, but you yourself denying it to your dying breath.. ahahahaha... having gone thru your life adoring and ruminating and regurgitating what others have done. At least, Wilson, __right or wrong__ ,is thinking for himself and is trying to push the envelop... Reprieve: Both of you make hilarious reading, for which I do thank you. So, as I say: *** Let'em sing... all of'em... it's beautiful choir *** ahahaha... ahahanson PS: Besides, Henri has it right because m/2*v^2 becomes m*c^2 by definition and rule the moment you dictate/assume/declare that "c" is the limiting value of/for "v" in this pix .... ahahahaha...... |