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: Jerry on 8 Nov 2005 20:38 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 8 Nov 2005 14:13:58 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. > > It was obvious. > Just integrate mv.dv from 0 to c. Are you out to prove that well over two centuries in development of mathematics must be thrown out the window, the same as virtually all of physics? Shall we call your new system of mathematics wcalculus? Don't you have the slightest grasp of how to do a simple integral? Jerry
From: Jerry on 8 Nov 2005 20:50 Jerry wrote: > Are you out to prove that well over two centuries in development > of mathematics must be thrown out the window Correction: well over THREE centuries Jerry
From: Eric Gisse on 8 Nov 2005 22:19 Jerry wrote: > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On 8 Nov 2005 14:13:58 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. > > > > It was obvious. > > Just integrate mv.dv from 0 to c. > > Are you out to prove that well over two centuries in development > of mathematics must be thrown out the window, the same as > virtually all of physics? Shall we call your new system of > mathematics wcalculus? int(mv,dv) = mv^2/2 Henri has shown many times he consideres being off by a factor of 1/2 "close enough" to the real answer. I'm kinda getting tired of dealing with his idiocy, actually. Mathematical subtilties like "being correct" are completely lost upon him. > > Don't you have the slightest grasp of how to do a simple integral? > > Jerry
From: Eric Gisse on 8 Nov 2005 22:28 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. int(v,dv) = v^2/2 Your "method", while completely unjustified physically, doesn't even arrive at the correct answer. So, once again, E=mc^2 wasn't known before 1905 and 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. > > Here is the maths Geesey. > > Light speed = c (wrt source) > > Happy now? Of course not, you completely ignored the spirit of my request. Show me the RESULTS, not one of your assumptions. > > > > >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?" I am merely a representation of whom I deal with. groups.google.com author:"henri wilson" geese - 31 results goose - 7 results geesey - 3 results > > > > 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 22:39
On 8 Nov 2005 19:19:07 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Jerry wrote: >> Henri Wilson wrote: >> > On 8 Nov 2005 14:13:58 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. >> > >> > It was obvious. >> > Just integrate mv.dv from 0 to c. >> >> Are you out to prove that well over two centuries in development >> of mathematics must be thrown out the window, the same as >> virtually all of physics? Shall we call your new system of >> mathematics wcalculus? > >int(mv,dv) = mv^2/2 > >Henri has shown many times he consideres being off by a factor of 1/2 >"close enough" to the real answer. > >I'm kinda getting tired of dealing with his idiocy, actually. >Mathematical subtilties like "being correct" are completely lost upon >him. can't you see where the other 1/2 comes from? > >> >> Don't you have the slightest grasp of how to do a simple integral? >> >> Jerry 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". |