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: Henri Wilson on 8 Nov 2005 22:48 On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:36:12 GMT, "hanson" <hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: >"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...... > Thank you Hanson. Geese has become very argumentative - even paranoid - since he failed first semester physics. 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 22:50 On 8 Nov 2005 17:50:13 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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 Are you refereing to what Einstein did to Newton? (and nearly got away with his crime) > >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".
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Nov 2005 22:58 On 8 Nov 2005 17:38:45 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> 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? > >Don't you have the slightest grasp of how to do a simple integral? Of course Jerry. M isn't 2M is it. Incidentally, jokes aside, the relationship E=mc^2 has been shown to apply to bonding energy and maybe to gamma decay into e+/e- pairs. I don't think anyone has proved that it is possible to completely transform one mass unit of a substance into c^2 worth of energy. >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".
From: bz on 8 Nov 2005 23:28 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:2l62n1l33o967babc5vralbrk0lrfgllmd(a)4ax.com: > 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. IF aeroplanes were designed by programs as firmly based upon theory and data as your are, the pilots would sit in the tail of the plane and steer by shouting orders to the helmsmen riding on each wing. The rubber band that turns the propellors would be wound up by teams of horses before the planes were launched by giant catapults. By the way, modern fighter planes are designed to be UNSTABLE in the air. The pilot can NOT possibly fly them without the computer to continually compensate for the instabilities. Modern aeroplanes are FIRMLY based on theory and data. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Eric Gisse on 9 Nov 2005 00:52
Henri Wilson wrote: > 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? It is not my problem if you can't even work an integral. It is not my job to invent explanations for *your* failures. > > > > >> > >> 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". |