EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 1 Aug 2008 14:23 On Jul 31, 6:40 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 31, 4:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 8:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > >> Dear Henri: Yes, we've got PD pegged. I just wish it was with a > >> 'wooden stake' through his blood sucker's heart. NoEinstein > > >:>) > >Good to know you're irritated. > >And apparently not just by me. > >I wonder if you have a compulsion to be mocked. You certainly can't > >seem to step away from the circumstances where that happens. Ever > >wonder what your role in that is? > > Diaper, just accept the facts. YOU have been hopelessly indoctrinated by a > typical religion. > > >PD > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. Dear Henri: Or... "To teach isn't to be superior, if what is being taught is wrong." PD is the quintessential "Dr. No". NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 1 Aug 2008 14:58 On Jul 31, 6:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 5:40 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Jul 31, 4:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >> On Jul 29, 8:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > >> Dear Henri: Yes, we've got PD pegged. I just wish it was with a > > >> 'wooden stake' through his blood sucker's heart. NoEinstein > > > >:>) > > >Good to know you're irritated. > > >And apparently not just by me. > > >I wonder if you have a compulsion to be mocked. You certainly can't > > >seem to step away from the circumstances where that happens. Ever > > >wonder what your role in that is? > > > Diaper, just accept the facts. YOU have been hopelessly indoctrinated by a > > typical religion. > > Well, that's one of your cut-and-paste statements that you toss out > when you lack the imagination to think of something new to say. > > I'll reiterate that some have the privilege (and I'm one) of running > experiments that are designed to discern whether relativity is the way > that nature works. So it becomes a matter of whether I should believe > my own eyes. If I understand you right: > 1. If one reads a theoretical article or book about relativity and > verifies that it is logically consistent and mathematically correct, > then one is indoctrinated. > 2. If one reads an experimental paper or book about relativity and > sees that reproducible data with documented integrity checks are > consistent with relativity, then one is indoctrinated. > 3. If one runs an experiment for oneself and verifies for oneself that > data collected and carefully analyzed are in agreement with > relativity, then one is indoctrinated. > 4. Only if one steadfastly refuses to believe any logically consistent > and mathematically correct theory that supports relativity, refuses to > believe any reproducible data with checked integrity that supports > relativity, and in fact refuses to believe one's own eyes if they do > an experiment to test relativity's claims -- only then does one escape > indoctrination. > > In other words, deny any verifiable reality if it supports relativity, > for the overriding purpose of avoiding indoctrination. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: To "follow" the train-of-thought of those "explaining" technical things (as in books about Einstein) requires that one be very gullible. Einstein liked to suppose: "If so-and-so is correct; and if all-in-all is also correct; then such-and-such is absolutely correct." But Einstein, and most pseudo scientists like him, fail to realize that the latter "such-and-such" requires that two very iffy and unverified propositions are true. Einstein used that sort of non- logic so much that anyone who doesn't 86 the book halfway through the 1st chapter is hooked. You are a foolbecause you take having read one or more books that are wrong as a badge of intellect. You are unable to realize even the most simple truth. You prefer to "endorse" the complex, because you are less likely to be out argued. But fellow: "Simple truths trump complicated falsehoods!" My discovering that M-M lacks a CONTROL, kills the 'non logic' of the Lorentz transformation (rubber rulers). That simple truth disproves SR and GR. Additionally, my discovering that the energy progression of accelerating is LINEAR, rather than exponential, disproves Einstein's erroneous idea: "There isn't enough energy in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to get to velocity 'c'." The latter error of Einstein is what gave us: E = mc^2 (sic). And... I have correctly written Newton's equation for the acceleration due to gravity: ['g' = 32.174 feet per second squared] (sic), and corrected it to read: ['g' = 32.174 feet per second EACH second]. The "square" wrongly implied that the energy causing acceleration is increasing exponentially. Lastly, I have REMOVED the feet, inches, meters, and centimeters from all expressions of "energy". ENERGY IS JUST A FORCE DELIVERY POTENTIAL, NOT A FORCE-DISTANCE DELIVERY. In mechanics, only 'work' correctly has a distance in the quantities. So, when you are too caught up in the status quo to understand and accept the above simple truths, you are too much of a fool to pretend that you know one wit about real physics. NoEinstein
From: PD on 1 Aug 2008 15:14 On Aug 1, 1:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 31, 8:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 4:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 29, 8:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > Dear Henri: Yes, we've got PD pegged. I just wish it was with a > > > 'wooden stake' through his blood sucker's heart. NoEinstein > > > :>) > > Good to know you're irritated. > > And apparently not just by me. > > I wonder if you have a compulsion to be mocked. You certainly can't > > seem to step away from the circumstances where that happens. Ever > > wonder what your role in that is? > > > PD > > Dear PD: And your 'science' point is? NoEinstein And when you said, "Dear Henri: Yes, we've got PD pegged. I just wish it was with a 'wooden stake' through his blood sucker's heart. NoEinstein ," your 'science point was?
From: PD on 1 Aug 2008 15:27 On Aug 1, 1:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 31, 6:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 31, 5:40 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >On Jul 31, 4:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 29, 8:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > >> Dear Henri: Yes, we've got PD pegged. I just wish it was with a > > > >> 'wooden stake' through his blood sucker's heart. NoEinstein > > > > >:>) > > > >Good to know you're irritated. > > > >And apparently not just by me. > > > >I wonder if you have a compulsion to be mocked. You certainly can't > > > >seem to step away from the circumstances where that happens. Ever > > > >wonder what your role in that is? > > > > Diaper, just accept the facts. YOU have been hopelessly indoctrinated by a > > > typical religion. > > > Well, that's one of your cut-and-paste statements that you toss out > > when you lack the imagination to think of something new to say. > > > I'll reiterate that some have the privilege (and I'm one) of running > > experiments that are designed to discern whether relativity is the way > > that nature works. So it becomes a matter of whether I should believe > > my own eyes. If I understand you right: > > 1. If one reads a theoretical article or book about relativity and > > verifies that it is logically consistent and mathematically correct, > > then one is indoctrinated. > > 2. If one reads an experimental paper or book about relativity and > > sees that reproducible data with documented integrity checks are > > consistent with relativity, then one is indoctrinated. > > 3. If one runs an experiment for oneself and verifies for oneself that > > data collected and carefully analyzed are in agreement with > > relativity, then one is indoctrinated. > > 4. Only if one steadfastly refuses to believe any logically consistent > > and mathematically correct theory that supports relativity, refuses to > > believe any reproducible data with checked integrity that supports > > relativity, and in fact refuses to believe one's own eyes if they do > > an experiment to test relativity's claims -- only then does one escape > > indoctrination. > > > In other words, deny any verifiable reality if it supports relativity, > > for the overriding purpose of avoiding indoctrination. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear PD: To "follow" the train-of-thought of those "explaining" > technical things (as in books about Einstein) requires that one be > very gullible. Einstein liked to suppose: "If so-and-so is correct; > and if all-in-all is also correct; then such-and-such is absolutely > correct." But Einstein, and most pseudo scientists like him, fail to > realize that the latter "such-and-such" requires that two very iffy > and unverified propositions are true. Einstein used that sort of non- > logic so much that anyone who doesn't 86 the book halfway through the > 1st chapter is hooked. Um, no. You must have missed a part. Einstein liked to suppose, "If so-and-so is correct; and if all-in-all is also correct; then such-and-such would also be correct; and the last is directly testable in experiment." And the last WAS directly tested in experiment, and this is also document. The validity of Einstein's suppositions was not at all established until that experimental verification. But likewise, if you (for instance) STOP at the "then such-and-such would also be correct" and simply say, "But I don't believe the so-and- so in the first place," and NEVER BOTHER to check whether experiment confirms that such-and-such turns out to be absolutely correct, then you have done a half-assed job of doing science. Science does NOT require that the so-and-so's that start the chain of thought have to be universally accepted. The methodology of science is to *suspend your judgement* on the so-and-so, until it is developed to the point where the such-and-such can be tested against measurement in the real world. If the such-and-such is confirmed, then it makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL whether the so-and-so made your eyebrows go up. The so-and-so has just received experimental support, because the SUPPOSITION of so-and-so resulted in an experimental prediction that turned out to be accurate. It is the *obligation* of the scientist to entertain the notion that so-and-so is valid, raised eyebrows or not, because nature acted exactly as so-and-so ultimately predicted it would. > You are a foolbecause you take having read one or more books > that are wrong as a badge of intellect. You are unable to realize > even the most simple truth. You prefer to "endorse" the complex, > because you are less likely to be out argued. But fellow: "Simple > truths trump complicated falsehoods!" > My discovering that M-M lacks a CONTROL, kills the 'non logic' of > the Lorentz transformation (rubber rulers). That simple truth > disproves SR and GR. Additionally, my discovering that the energy > progression of accelerating is LINEAR, rather than exponential, > disproves Einstein's erroneous idea: "There isn't enough energy in the > entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to get to velocity > 'c'." The latter error of Einstein is what gave us: E = mc^2 (sic). > And... I have correctly written Newton's equation for the acceleration > due to gravity: ['g' = 32.174 feet per second squared] (sic), and > corrected it to read: ['g' = 32.174 feet per second EACH second]. The > "square" wrongly implied that the energy causing acceleration is > increasing exponentially. Lastly, I have REMOVED the feet, inches, > meters, and centimeters from all expressions of "energy". ENERGY IS > JUST A FORCE DELIVERY POTENTIAL, NOT A FORCE-DISTANCE DELIVERY. In > mechanics, only 'work' correctly has a distance in the quantities. > So, when you are too caught up in the status quo to understand > and accept the above simple truths, you are too much of a fool to > pretend that you know one wit about real physics. NoEinstein
From: PD on 1 Aug 2008 15:31
On Aug 1, 2:14 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 1:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 31, 8:31 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 4:59 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 29, 8:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > > Dear Henri: Yes, we've got PD pegged. I just wish it was with a > > > > 'wooden stake' through his blood sucker's heart. NoEinstein > > > > :>) > > > Good to know you're irritated. > > > And apparently not just by me. > > > I wonder if you have a compulsion to be mocked. You certainly can't > > > seem to step away from the circumstances where that happens. Ever > > > wonder what your role in that is? > > > > PD > > > Dear PD: And your 'science' point is? NoEinstein > > And when you said, "Dear Henri: Yes, we've got PD pegged. I just > wish it was with a 'wooden stake' through his blood sucker's heart. NoEinstein ," > your 'science point was? I'm waiting with bated breath to hear you say, "When I did it, it was justified, because you provoked it." Weenie. PD |