Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 17 Apr 2010 00:54 On Apr 16, 5:05 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: Tell me, guy: How can you or anyone measure the speed of the light coming from across the Milky Way? I made the correct assumption that light velocity is V = 'c' plus or minus v, or the velocity of the source. The mathematical check of M-M using that correct assumption proves that M-M was an instrument incapable of detecting velocity changes in light. However, those changes were taking place in both the additive and the subtractive cases, neither of which were due to ether drag. Because both of those were equal and opposite, the TIMES of travel of the light to the target never change, regardless of the orientation of the instrument or the velocity vector of the Earth. Live and learn, spudnik! NoEinstein > > you are being really silly, or dense. all of wave phenomena > demonstrate a doppler shift of frequencies, not speeds. of course, > M&M did have a reference beam, or > they wouldn't have pioneered interferometry. sheesh; > get a grip & ditch the googolplex & re-do the "9g. algebra!" > > > Dear Spudnik: All photons are EMITTED at the speed of light, 'c'. > > But the velocity of the source adds to or subtracts from that > > velocity. Sound emitted by a moving source will elevate in pitch > > approaching, and fall in pitch, going away. If a baseball is thrown > > from the bow of a speedboat, the ball and the boat speed add. It the > > same person pitches the ball from the stern of the boat, the speed of > > the boat subtracts from the speed of the ball. Using that same > > logical assumption for light, I determined that the M-M experiment > > didn't have a CONTROL light course. Using simple 9th grade algebra, I > > verified that the total circuit time of all emitted photons in M-M > > never varies regardless of the orientation of the apparatus, and the > > velocity of the Earth. > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... > > Albert Einstein - Revue "Science", 1925 > "Si les observations du Dr Miller étaient confirmées, > la théorie de la relativité serait en défaut. > L'expérience est le juge suprème".http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm > > thus: > do you assume that the Swiss Cheese Voids are the same > as Pascal's "perfect" vacuum?... I don't get it; > you are going around in circles about "the phtoton > that needs no medium according to herr doktor- > professor E., and an aether for the waves to do so ... > so much for your grand dyscoveries, if > you cannot make one "unique experiment" that shows > that they do a God-am thing. > > > > > > > Dear Spudnik: The dictionary defines corpuscle as a small 'particle', > > not a wave. No particle should ever require a medium. Because light > > can travel off of the line-of-sight at slits, that fact was wrongly > > presumed to be because there was a 'water-like or air-like' medium > > that can form ripples. But light can travel perfectly well through > > the Swiss Cheese voids between the galaxies, that have been scavenged > > of ether for building the stars and the galaxies. So, light does NOT > > require a medium! Light is small, evenly spaced (for each color) > > packets of IOTAs too small to qualify as matter, but able to transfer > > some ether away from the more massive areas. Without that transfer, > > the ether which flows DOWN as gravity would soon stop. The Black Hole > > at the center of Andromeda proves that process, because the gravity > > SHUT OFF when the massive star went blacknothing out, means nothing > > in! The shut-off of the central gravity caused the stars that were > > about to be sucked into the larger star, to fly off on their > > tangents. That left a gap in the star distribution next to the > > center, right where the stars should be most dense. These are part of > > my broad contribution to the New Science. NoEinstein > > thus: > quaternions *are* vector mechanics, > with inner & outer products in one operation > (terminology all due to Hamilton; > Gibbs seperated the two ops., > to give what is refered to as vector mechanics). > > > Fine. Quaternions are useful. I get rotations. > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.comhttp://21stcenturysciencetech.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: paparios on 17 Apr 2010 11:08 On 17 abr, 00:24, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 16, 11:46 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 15 abr, 18:17, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 14, 4:24 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Miguel: ...Once again: You've done nothing worthy of being shown > > > to your superiors, here. Your "peers" never made it out of > > > kindergarten! NoEinstein > > > Again, where are your written proofs of SR and GR being wrong > > published?. You have only provided links to group discussion threads. > > You have nothing of a sort of a proof written on those links. > > > Miguel Rios > > Dear Freak: My clearly explained New Science is in the links, below, > which I myself wrote. To date, no one has shown that any point in any > one of those is wrong. Neither can you. NoEinstein > What you mean by clearly explained new science? and why you lie saying that yourself wrote anything of value there. For instance the following link, which you say proves something about science, shows some posts of Paul Draper. Is Paul your co-author??? Signhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/56247.... > Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! You are just a bad joke. Miguel Rios
From: NoEinstein on 19 Apr 2010 17:01 On Apr 16, 6:21 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Dear Sue: I clicked your... first link about gravity. If you like reading technical-sounding garbage, 'that one' should be to your liking. How about 'this', instead: "Gravity is the mass-proportional force applied to near Earth objects by downward-flowing ether which is replenished by photon exchange or charged particle exchange, so that the ether flow can continuesimilar to the manner of the supposed 'graviton' that has never been identified. NoEinstein > > On Apr 16, 2:52 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm > > > > > > <<...pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first > > > edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always > > > the last, even though the book remains in print > > > for decades or even centuries. Even books with > > > obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every > > > age may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare > > > this to science textbooks that see a new edition > > > every few years because of the rapid accumulation > > > of new facts and insights.>> > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > > > > > Sue...- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Dear Sue: Most of the textbooks at universities keep getting thicker > > year by year. That's because no one in those places has the BALLS to > > weed-out the errant stuff. Einstein is still being taught in every > > technical university, even though I proved, about ten years ago, that > > both SR and GR are wrong. To wit: SR violates the Law of the > > Conservation of Energy; and the mechanism of gravity is downward > > flowing ether caused by photon exchangenot "warped" space-time. You > > seem to be very smart, but your theories tend toward the status quo > > "textbook" stuff, rather than the latest, rational thinking. > > You are unlikely to learn about my favourite theories > in a thread about SR, LET and pseudo-science. > > Emergent gravity > << > << 6.3 Emergent gravity > One of the more fascinating approaches to quantum gravity > is the suggestion, typically attributed to Sakharov > that gravity itself may not be fundamental physics. > It is now a relatively common opinion, maybe not > mainstream but definitely a strong minority opinion, > that gravity (and in particular the whole notion of > spacetime and spacetime geometry) might be no more > fundamental than is fluid dynamics. The word fundamental > is here used in a rather technical sense - fluid mechanics > is not fundamental because there is a known underlying > microphysics, that of molecular dynamics, of which fluid > mechanics is only the low-energy low-momentum limit. >>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.... > > Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspectivehttp://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062 > > The Origin of Gravity > Authors: C. P. Kouropouloshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v1 > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London > > ~GRavity pipeline~http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html#work > > Sue... > > > > > > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 19 Apr 2010 17:06 On Apr 16, 11:46 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > .... and you, Miguel, have never written an intelligent '+new post', nor can you paraphrase a proof that any portion of my New Science is wrong. "Seeming" learned, just won't cut it, here; Put UP or Shut UP! NoEinstein > > On 15 abr, 18:17, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 14, 4:24 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Miguel: ...Once again: You've done nothing worthy of being shown > > to your superiors, here. Your "peers" never made it out of > > kindergarten! NoEinstein > > Again, where are your written proofs of SR and GR being wrong > published?. You have only provided links to group discussion threads. > You have nothing of a sort of a proof written on those links. > > Miguel Rios
From: xxein on 20 Apr 2010 21:13
On Apr 20, 5:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 19, 4:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Dear Readers: There are a few additional contributions which I've > made to sciencenot the least of which is my figuring out that > Newton's Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation, isn't universal at all. > His huge error? He never realized that gravity is proportional to the > amount of ether that can flow 'down' per unit of the object's mass; > and the downward ether flow will be greater for very HOT bodies that > emit more light. So, bright stars will have much more gravity than, > say, cold planets. The consequences of his error: There is an > approximate 10 fold over-estimate of the mass of the universe (and > galaxies), and an approximate ten fold UNDER-ESTIMATE of the gravity > of star systems. Those two, combined, will account for ALL of the > supposed "missing mass"... that has wasted close to a trillion dollars > trying to... find. Unfortunately, the primary 'mission' of science is > to find nonsense justifications for spending research money that's > provided by the naive taxpayers and 'foundations'. If supposed > scientists only had the ability to REASON, there would be a lot fewer > absurd experiments being financed and run! NoEinstein > xxein: Sorry. Still non sequitur. |