From: NoEinstein on 13 Apr 2010 09:09 On Apr 12, 6:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:8801f2d3-b89a-4055-8ab0-cd87888b9cf4(a)c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 5:26 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12 abr, 16:28, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >> > On Apr 12, 3:56 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > =============== > > >> > > And you clearly proof your troll behavior quite clearly, when you > >> > > answer to the clear wording of Peter Webb "It has been explained to > >> > > you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is independent of the > >> > > speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of SR, is > >> > > predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved > >> > > experimentally." > > >> > What has been "massively proved" is the light used > >> > for Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" does > >> > not exist. > > >> Yeah right. that is the reason your hero, Dr. Fitzpatrick writes: > >> "...Consider, now, a wave-like disturbance which is self-regenerating > >> and does not require a medium through which to propagate. The most > >> well known example of such a disturbance is a light wave. Another > >> example is a gravity wave. According to electromagnetic theory the > >> speed of propagation of a light wave through a vacuum is c=1/ > >> sqrt(epsilon_0*mu_0)=2.99729*10^8 m/sec > > > That implies no inertial motion of light as in > > Einstien's RoS. > > It implies light travels at c.. all that is required for SR > > > Indeed, I urge people to study Fitzpatrick's > > lectures and I also urge them to replace the > > carbide lamps on their autos with the > > new electric models because the acetylene > > gas can be very dangerous. > > I urge you to learn physics instead of just quoting it- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Sue: You've got Inertial "pegged"! But getting him to learn physics would be like teaching a pig to knit! NE
From: NoEinstein on 13 Apr 2010 09:34 On Apr 12, 6:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: ... to anyone with more than a one neuron brain, like you. Sue is on the high end of IQ. She just hasn't been exposed to much beyond the status quo in academia. As far as I know, her malady isn't... terminal, like yours. NoEinstein > > On Apr 12, 5:37 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 11, 10:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 8:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > > >news:1d716e5d-6fb0-4a04-9aea-fe249242e945(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Apr 10, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >>news:66fad22e-0a13-4979-b17f-2f405eb13607(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups..com... > > > > > >> > On 10 Apr, 08:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >> >>news:8431a5cd-222a-4118-9d15-7bcdf6450410(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >> >> >> > The point is simply to talk in qualitative > > > > >> >> >> > terms about what happens to "simultaneity" between the points at > > > > >> >> >> > the > > > > >> >> >> > start and at the end at which we agree that the clocks are > > > > >> >> >> > synchronised. > > > > > >> >> >> It changes > > > > > >> >> > Will you quantify this change? > > > > > >> >> I thought you just wanted to talk in qualitative terms. > > > > > >> > I did, but not at such a ridiculously broad level. > > > > > >> >> You also say you > > > > >> >> don't want to see math, so I'm not sure what you are expecting here > > > > > >> > Just for you to say, for example, "when the local clock accelerates, > > > > >> > the distant clock falls out of simultaneity and leaps ahead... etc." > > > > >> > or something of that kind. > > > > > >> I already said all that > > > > > >> >> >> A frame moving relative to a clock will measure the clock as > > > > >> >> >> ticking > > > > >> >> >> slower. > > > > >> >> >> Less elapsed time will show between an pair of events for the > > > > >> >> >> relatively > > > > >> >> >> moving clock than an at-rest clock. That is independent of the > > > > >> >> >> direction > > > > >> >> >> of > > > > >> >> >> the relative motion. > > > > > >> >> >> I had though we agreed to ignore illusions due to propagation > > > > >> >> >> delays. > > > > > >> >> > Indeed, but when you started talking of the clocks "speeding up", > > > > >> >> > that > > > > >> >> > caused me confusion. > > > > > >> >> Why? Just do not worry about optical illusions and concentrate on > > > > >> >> what > > > > >> >> is > > > > >> >> actually going on. > > > > > >> > But you said the speeding up bit *is* a result of an optical illusion. > > > > > >> No .. I didn't. If you are talking about what is actually seen, then > > > > >> optical illusion makes a difference. But there is NO optical illusion in > > > > >> the SR effects on measured clock rates and lengths etc > > > > > >> > You see how hard it is to get a straight but comprehensive answer > > > > >> > here? > > > > > >> You get them .. you just don't accept or understand them > > > > > >> >> > would leave a small remainder of slowing, > > > > > >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are talking about > > > > >> >> additonal > > > > >> >> optical illusions. > > > > > >> > No, > > > > > >> Yes .. you were. > > > > ================= > > > > > >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, which is not > > > > >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both already agreed are > > > > >> > "illusions". > > > > > >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not illusion. The same > > > > >> that i > > > > >> already described in detail before > > > > > > In view of Noether's work with GR and the > > > > > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time > > > > > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane > > > > > might fly relative to another aeroplane on > > > > > some course that would weaken an air marshal's > > > > > bullet. That would violate PoR. > > > > > Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? > > > > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path > > > that is changing length under the term "illusion" > > > but you say there is some other effect that > > > causes a clock to slow. Just to be clear to > > > what you are referring we need to be more > > > specific about the *process* that marks time. > > > > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both > > > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors > > > connected with long wires to that dynamo. > > > > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a > > > revolution of both clocks motors. > > > > What part of the voyage and by what *process* > > > do the clocks get out of sync? > > > > > > The statement also also seems inconsistent with > > > > > Einstein's formal statement. > > > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > > > What statement? > > > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > > an imaginary magnitude > > > > sqrt(-1) > > > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > > > the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > > > > I know the practice is frowned on in many schools > > > > > but may I suggest you study material before > > > > > teaching it. :-) > > > > > I have > > > > Fine for the links you snipped. Now you will > > > need this one and a bit of history too. > > > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > > > > Sue...- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Dear Sue: Haven't you heard? I have long since disproved SR and GR. > > To whom? > > > > > Where have you been? NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 13 Apr 2010 09:42 On Apr 13, 8:34 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 12, 6:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: ... to anyone with more than a one > neuron brain, like you. Name two. > Sue is on the high end of IQ. Perhaps. But you should know that Sue is not a "she". > She just > hasn't been exposed to much beyond the status quo in academia. As far > as I know, her malady isn't... terminal, like yours. NoEinstein > > > > > On Apr 12, 5:37 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 10:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 11, 8:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > > > >news:1d716e5d-6fb0-4a04-9aea-fe249242e945(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups..com... > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >>news:66fad22e-0a13-4979-b17f-2f405eb13607(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >> > On 10 Apr, 08:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >> >>news:8431a5cd-222a-4118-9d15-7bcdf6450410(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >> >> >> > The point is simply to talk in qualitative > > > > > >> >> >> > terms about what happens to "simultaneity" between the points at > > > > > >> >> >> > the > > > > > >> >> >> > start and at the end at which we agree that the clocks are > > > > > >> >> >> > synchronised. > > > > > > >> >> >> It changes > > > > > > >> >> > Will you quantify this change? > > > > > > >> >> I thought you just wanted to talk in qualitative terms. > > > > > > >> > I did, but not at such a ridiculously broad level. > > > > > > >> >> You also say you > > > > > >> >> don't want to see math, so I'm not sure what you are expecting here > > > > > > >> > Just for you to say, for example, "when the local clock accelerates, > > > > > >> > the distant clock falls out of simultaneity and leaps ahead.... etc." > > > > > >> > or something of that kind. > > > > > > >> I already said all that > > > > > > >> >> >> A frame moving relative to a clock will measure the clock as > > > > > >> >> >> ticking > > > > > >> >> >> slower. > > > > > >> >> >> Less elapsed time will show between an pair of events for the > > > > > >> >> >> relatively > > > > > >> >> >> moving clock than an at-rest clock. That is independent of the > > > > > >> >> >> direction > > > > > >> >> >> of > > > > > >> >> >> the relative motion. > > > > > > >> >> >> I had though we agreed to ignore illusions due to propagation > > > > > >> >> >> delays. > > > > > > >> >> > Indeed, but when you started talking of the clocks "speeding up", > > > > > >> >> > that > > > > > >> >> > caused me confusion. > > > > > > >> >> Why? Just do not worry about optical illusions and concentrate on > > > > > >> >> what > > > > > >> >> is > > > > > >> >> actually going on. > > > > > > >> > But you said the speeding up bit *is* a result of an optical illusion. > > > > > > >> No .. I didn't. If you are talking about what is actually seen, then > > > > > >> optical illusion makes a difference. But there is NO optical illusion in > > > > > >> the SR effects on measured clock rates and lengths etc > > > > > > >> > You see how hard it is to get a straight but comprehensive answer > > > > > >> > here? > > > > > > >> You get them .. you just don't accept or understand them > > > > > > >> >> > would leave a small remainder of slowing, > > > > > > >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are talking about > > > > > >> >> additonal > > > > > >> >> optical illusions. > > > > > > >> > No, > > > > > > >> Yes .. you were. > > > > > ================= > > > > > > >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, which is not > > > > > >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both already agreed are > > > > > >> > "illusions". > > > > > > >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not illusion. The same > > > > > >> that i > > > > > >> already described in detail before > > > > > > > In view of Noether's work with GR and the > > > > > > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time > > > > > > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane > > > > > > might fly relative to another aeroplane on > > > > > > some course that would weaken an air marshal's > > > > > > bullet. That would violate PoR. > > > > > > Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? > > > > > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path > > > > that is changing length under the term "illusion" > > > > but you say there is some other effect that > > > > causes a clock to slow. Just to be clear to > > > > what you are referring we need to be more > > > > specific about the *process* that marks time. > > > > > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both > > > > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors > > > > connected with long wires to that dynamo. > > > > > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a > > > > revolution of both clocks motors. > > > > > What part of the voyage and by what *process* > > > > do the clocks get out of sync? > > > > > > > The statement also also seems inconsistent with > > > > > > Einstein's formal statement. > > > > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > > > > What statement? > > > > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > > > > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > > > > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > > > > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > > > > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > > > > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > > > > an imaginary magnitude > > > > > sqrt(-1) > > > > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > > > > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > > > > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > > > > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > > > > the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > > > > > I know the practice is frowned on in many schools > > > > > > but may I suggest you study material before > > > > > > teaching it. :-) > > > > > > I have > > > > > Fine for the links you snipped. Now you will > > > > need this one and a bit of history too. > > > > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html > > > > > Sue...- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Dear Sue: Haven't you heard? I have long since disproved SR and GR. > > > To whom? > > > > Where have you been? NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: NoEinstein on 13 Apr 2010 09:48 On Apr 12, 6:59 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Miguel: Most laughable (!) science journals are affiliated with one or more universities. "Teaching" Einstein is a cash cow at Universities. That's because of the numbers of gullible students who attend, so that they can become... smart, too; and because of the billions of dollars per year in NSF grant money, wasted, so that Universities can... "research" anything and everything to do with SR and GRwhich I have summarily disproved! The high and the mighty in Universities, and their puppets at those science journals, all have egg-on-their-faces for my having proved so much of what they have so expounded upon to be wrong. If you would like to read technical essays about my New Science, try any of the attached. Oh... how many '+new posts' have YOU made? I thought, so... NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... An Einstein Disproof for Dummies http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... Another look at Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... Three Problems for Math and Science http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en Matter from Thin Air http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90 Curing Einsteins Disease http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en# Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0 The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q= Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002 A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en# SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817 Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849 NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7 There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en& > > On 12 abr, 18:35, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 11, 3:16 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Miguel: If those in universities actually do experiments and... > > question the present state-of-the-art, how is it that no one before > > yours truly realized that the M-M experiment didn't have a control? > > And none of them realized that Coriolis's 1830 kinetic energy > > equation, KE = 1/2 mc^2, and Einstein's E = mc^2 / beta, BOTH violate > > the law of the conservation of energy?? The reason is: Those majoring > > in physics have never understood what the hell they were being taught, > > nor had their professors, and their professors before them. The > > solution? FIRE at least 75% of those who teach physics, and fire > > about 50% of those coasting through life as supposed professors > > knowledgeable enough to... teach anyone anything at ANY university. > > You, and they, are laughable screw-ups! NoEinstein AKA John A. > > Armistead > > So in which journals have your results been published? > Which are your qualifications that allow you to so easily disqualify > those professors? Are you, by any chance, a member of any universitary > accreditation institution??? > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: paparios on 13 Apr 2010 10:03
On 13 abr, 09:48, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 12, 6:59 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Miguel: Most laughable (!) science journals are affiliated with > one or more universities. "Teaching" Einstein is a cash cow at > Universities. That's because of the numbers of gullible students who > attend, so that they can become... smart, too; and because of the > billions of dollars per year in NSF grant money, wasted, so that > Universities can... "research" anything and everything to do with SR > and GRwhich I have summarily disproved! The high and the mighty in > Universities, and their puppets at those science journals, all have > egg-on-their-faces for my having proved so much of what they have so > expounded upon to be wrong. If you would like to read technical > essays about my New Science, try any of the attached. Oh... how many > '+new posts' have YOU made? I thought, so... NoEinstein > So it is crystal clear. All of your "superior intelligence" has not been enough to get your findings to be read by anyone, and less published not even in your own web page. Regarding my personal research, its results are published on indexed journals and conferences and, for sure this is not the place to discuss them, even less when the readership of this forum involves so many "intelligent" people, like yourself and other funny characters like Sue, Androcles, ste, etc. Just continue with your rantings. They are funny!!! Miguel Rios |