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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 7 Oct 2005 18:30 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message news:1128714861.714112.279680(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | | Androcles wrote: | > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message | > news:1128697195.580090.252290(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... | > | | > | Androcles wrote: | > | > "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: | > | > | We have learned that Androcles is so stupid | > | > | that he fails to realize that his statement: | > | > | "If the Moon were a fluid it would break | > | > | apart like droplets of mercury." | > | > | is factually wrong. | > | > | > | > Learn the contrapositive. | > | > The moon does not break up into droplets of mercury, therefore | > | > the moon is not fluid. That's a fact. | > | | > | Now, THAT'S an interesting bit of logic. :-) | > | > Nah... old hat. | > | > | | > | Let A = fluid Moon | > | and B = Moon breaks apart | > | | > | Now you claim: | > | A => B | > | | > | and you "prove" that by claiming that | > | ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = true | > | is an observed fact. | > | | > | But is it? Of course it isn't. | > | The observed fact is: | > | ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = true | > | > You can "AND" with "the moon has craters" AND "the Sun shines" AND | > "daffodils are yellow", all of which are observed facts, it makes no | > difference. | > We don't need the "AND". | > ((NOT B) => (NOT A)) = true is an observed fact, but is it, yes it is, | > and | > anyone that says "Of course it isn't" has to be a raving lunatic OR | > tusselad | > INCLUSIVE OR both. | > | > Not too logical, are you? | | But I am learning Androclean logic. | I have now learned to use the contra-positive | the Androclean way. Good for you. Contrapositive (not hyphenated) http://regentsprep.org/Regents/math/relcond/Lcontrap.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrapositive http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/Contrapostive.html Androcles, teacher of logic to the assistant professor tusselad.
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 7 Oct 2005 18:40 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message news:1128714861.714112.279680(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | Claim: | If Androcles were in Norway, he would break up into | droplets of mercury. | | Proof: | Androcles does not break up into droplets of mercury, | therefore Androcles is not in Norway. That's a fact. Correct. Well done, tusselad. I'm not sure that your proposition is true, but it is certainly valid. You are learning well from me. | So you better stay away from Norway, Androcles. I have no intention of visiting Norway, we are unable to test your hypothesis. Likewise we are unable to test mine, the moon not being fluid. However, your claim that Algol is a binary system is not compatible with your claim the K2 is an accretion disk that occults the light of the B8 and bounces off the surface of the B8. Androcles.
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 7 Oct 2005 18:51 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message news:1128714861.714112.279680(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | | Androcles wrote: || > I didn't write that, tusselad. You did. | | Indeed. | I never said you wrote it, I said you believed it. You are not in a position to know what I believe. | > Would you like to be sued for libel? | | It is well documented above that you believe | ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = (A => B) | so please sue me, Androcles. Is it? Before the suit commences, I'm prepared to allow you the opportunity to prove your claim or retract it, failing which I shall address a missive to Agder University College (HiA) Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10 00 Fax (+47) 38 14 10 01 informing your superiors and possibly students of your libellous claims, is that fair enough? I shall also include the college in the suit, it has their email address at the top of your missve here, recorded by Google. Androcles
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 8 Oct 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:11:06 GMT <3uodk1lok9abaal1u3ps1sks62a1qo60ml(a)4ax.com>: > On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:43:23 GMT >><jb6bk15um5c5gbjd8b71kvnkdr6gkk2e17(a)4ax.com>: >>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:00:26 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>> <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>>><H@> >>>> wrote >>>>on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:14:32 GMT >>>><f0d8k1tjj2b8k5paid4fha5ajm5kh80adi(a)4ax.com>: >>> >>>>>>> at the same speed 'c' is a direct consequence of combining LET with >>>>>>> christianity. >>>>>> >>>>>>Rubbish Henri, it was a consequence of Maxwell's >>>>>>Equations and the _starting_point_ for SR. >>>>> >>>>> Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot. >>>> >>>>OK, I'll bite. >>> >>> OK Ghost, you are out in remote and completely empty space. >> >>There are certain practical difficulties in such -- not the least >>of which is my presence influencing the measurement...but OK. :-) >> >>> >>> What answers do you get when your instruments measure the two constants? >>> Are they zero? What do they imply? >> >>What constants? >> >>epsilon_0? >>mu_0? >>c? >>k? >> >>> >>> Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. >>> What values do you now get for the two constants? >>> What do they imply? >> >>This experiment cannot distinguish between SR and BaT. It >>*can* distinguish between LET and SR or LET and BaT. >> >>All four constants remain the same. > > You don't know that. No such experiment has ever been performed. Probably not, but both theories predict the same thing AFAICT. In any event, the Earth is moving around in a circle at a speed of about 10^-4 c (or 30 km/s). > Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. For all four constants? > >>>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? >>>> >>>>In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic >>>>space is probably pretty desolate. >>> >>> Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where >>> strange things happen to light. >> >>OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the >>"Wilsonian threshold density"? > > Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3 Hm...well, the density of interstellar space is estimated to be 0.1-1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, which, if every atom is a neutral hydrogen atom, translates into 1.673 * 10^-21 to 1.673 * 10^-17 kg/m^3. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml This would suggest that a star the size of our sun (1.9862 * 10^30 kg) would require a spherical volume of diameter 0.64 light years, at this density, to form. (It's of course a lot smaller now, :-) but still big enough to dominate the Solar System.) For the entire Universe, a report suggests 3 * 10^-27 kg/m^3: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_density_010307.html [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Eric Gisse on 8 Oct 2005 02:15
Henri Wilson wrote: [snip] > > >>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? > >>> > >>>In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic > >>>space is probably pretty desolate. > >> > >> Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where > >> strange things happen to light. > > > >OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the > >"Wilsonian threshold density"? > > Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3 Haha what? You have a range thats spans 80 orders of magnitude. In other words, you have no idea. > > >[.sigsnip] > > > 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". |