Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 28 Sep 2009 11:32 On Sep 28, 4:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 28, 2:41 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 24, 9:11 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You see, this is what separates you from science, Porat. > > > > > You have it in your head that some basic notions that come into your > > > > head MUST be true, and you simply do not have any way to verify > > > > whether they ARE true. Scientists don't do that. They check > > > > everything, every assumption to see if it really is true. > > > > > Let's take the example of your notion that no daughter can be larger > > > > than its mother. You insist that this MUST be true. A scientist would > > > > test whether that really is true by creating an explicit test of that > > > > assumption. The accelerator is a good example of that kind of test. > > > > The accelerator is specifically designed to do (among other things) > > > > collisions of light particles and to identify all the particles that > > > > come out of those collisions, and it is very carefully designed to > > > > rule out background events. > > > > > So when a scientist sees in this test that heavy daughters can come > > > > from light parents, the scientist will say, "Well, there's no arguing > > > > with experiment. It appears that the statement that no daughter can be > > > > bigger than its mother was just wrong." You, on the other hand, stick > > > > with the rule you had in your head and insist that there must be > > > > something wrong with the experiment or something else was going on > > > > that masked the truth. > > > > Not to defend Porat, who is saying things I do not understand, but the > > > behavior you describe is very common in physics, isn't it? > > > > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of mass+energy > > > and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found an example where > > > these were not conserved, they invented an undetectable particle, the > > > neutrino, that was carrying away the stuff that was missing, or > > > occasionally bringing in extra when there was a lack. > > > > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that > > > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did happen. > > > This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos". > > > > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff even > > > when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't find it, or > > > extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just, they're doing what > > > you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody thinks they're wrong to do > > > so. When experiments give results that disagree with their theories they > > > usually decide that something else is going on that masks the truth. > > > --------------------- > > and you ddint mension the fantastic fact that > > that thory is talking about > > creation of one antiproton for each Porton > > In that collision, yes. Because of the selection rules for that > collision. > --------------------- what are those selectin rules and who invented them sort of an ad hock invention to fitthe theory to the experiment or supply ad hock excuses for nonsense ??!! i can invent just now a selction dule that no force messenger can ber gigger than its mother doe si tnot make sense if you consider he conseravtion rules ?? ------------- > > could you beleive that > > is it an enourmous stupidity unless i am missing something!! > > You must be missing something because this is seen every day. but Mr PD you forgot that there is and ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU SEE IN AN ACCELERATOR WITH HUGE ENERGIES THAT DO NOT EXIST IN MY AND YOUR BODY!!! not in your chair not in your table while your weak force is in your chair and table each fracton of a second am i wrong about that weak force existing at any piece of matter around us ???!! and for each proton and each Neutron it seems that one of us is out of his mind !!! ------------------------- > > > please thing of it > > it is alleged to present a process that exists in any of our Atoms > > while in those Atoms each fraction of a second > > are proton neutron as well as Anti proton and anti neutrons > > are created ?? > > Yes. Of course the antiprotons and antineutrons don't live long > because they come in contact with protons and neutrons. so who told you how close one to other are those Protons and antiprotons that you created in your in mmgiantion (justbecause of a stupid paper calculation ) together with themonster that is hundreds of times bigegr than a proton ??? and all that in mime and your body ??? !!! the same as in that monstr accelerator ??? yes and iforgoe to mension another cruciaal argument ?? THE PROBVABILTY TOGETTHOSE W AND Z IS ONE TO .............. A FEW BILLIONS !! got it or not did you forgot that ?? now IS THE PROBABILITY OF MAKING THE WEAK FORCE IN MY AND YOUR BODY IS AS WELL ONE TO AFEW BILLIONS ??? could you live a fraction of a second with such PROBABILITY FOR WAEK FORCE to act IN YOUR BODY ???!! and h eprotons and antiprotons wil go excatly tothe pplaces that you dreamt about or evennever thought were are those Antiprotons find their 'Proper location tofit to your theory?? why should i beleive you that you have a concrete rule to tell us where are those antiprotons goto ?? and how far from the protons ?? and besides even if those antiprotons donot meat another proton WHAT AND HOW AND WHY DO THEY DISAPPEAR WHY SHOULD NOT THE CREATED PROTON NOT DISAPPEAR AS WELL ?? what is becoming of theose antiproton that disappear if they disappear where is the energy created ?? while according to you it is jsut the proton that doe snot disapear while the anti proton disappear ?? ami drunk or may be you play a most complicated enigmatic chess game with yourself ?? dont you start to feel that one uf us got out of his mind ??? or more mildly one of us is jsut a parrot -- a sucker ?? TIA Y.Porat ------------------------
From: PD on 28 Sep 2009 11:58 On Sep 28, 10:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 28, 4:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 28, 2:41 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 24, 9:11 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You see, this is what separates you from science, Porat. > > > > > > You have it in your head that some basic notions that come into your > > > > > head MUST be true, and you simply do not have any way to verify > > > > > whether they ARE true. Scientists don't do that. They check > > > > > everything, every assumption to see if it really is true. > > > > > > Let's take the example of your notion that no daughter can be larger > > > > > than its mother. You insist that this MUST be true. A scientist would > > > > > test whether that really is true by creating an explicit test of that > > > > > assumption. The accelerator is a good example of that kind of test. > > > > > The accelerator is specifically designed to do (among other things) > > > > > collisions of light particles and to identify all the particles that > > > > > come out of those collisions, and it is very carefully designed to > > > > > rule out background events. > > > > > > So when a scientist sees in this test that heavy daughters can come > > > > > from light parents, the scientist will say, "Well, there's no arguing > > > > > with experiment. It appears that the statement that no daughter can be > > > > > bigger than its mother was just wrong." You, on the other hand, stick > > > > > with the rule you had in your head and insist that there must be > > > > > something wrong with the experiment or something else was going on > > > > > that masked the truth. > > > > > Not to defend Porat, who is saying things I do not understand, but the > > > > behavior you describe is very common in physics, isn't it? > > > > > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of mass+energy > > > > and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found an example where > > > > these were not conserved, they invented an undetectable particle, the > > > > neutrino, that was carrying away the stuff that was missing, or > > > > occasionally bringing in extra when there was a lack. > > > > > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that > > > > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did happen. > > > > This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos". > > > > > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff even > > > > when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't find it, or > > > > extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just, they're doing what > > > > you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody thinks they're wrong to do > > > > so. When experiments give results that disagree with their theories they > > > > usually decide that something else is going on that masks the truth.. > > > > --------------------- > > > and you ddint mension the fantastic fact that > > > that thory is talking about > > > creation of one antiproton for each Porton > > > In that collision, yes. Because of the selection rules for that > > collision. > > --------------------- > > what are those selectin rules and who invented them > sort of > an ad hock invention to fitthe theory to the experiment > or supply ad hock excuses for nonsense ??!! > i can invent just now a selction dule that > no force messenger can ber gigger than its mother > doe si tnot make sense if you consider he conseravtion rules ?? > ------------- > > > > could you beleive that > > > is it an enourmous stupidity unless i am missing something!! > > > You must be missing something because this is seen every day. > > but Mr PD you forgot that there is and > ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU SEE IN AN ACCELERATOR WITH > HUGE ENERGIES THAT DO NOT EXIST IN MY AND YOUR BODY!!! So? The weak interaction is something that is understood across a wide range of energies, just like Newton's laws of motion are understood across a wide range of forces. It makes no sense to say that just because the energy scales are different, the laws of physics in one are completely different than in the other. This is how a physical law becomes useful, when you can study it in a controlled environment and then apply it successfully in other environments. In fact, that is the ESSENCE of experimental science. It's what lets biologists do things in test tubes and that allows them to apply the results in living organisms. It's what allows chemists to do things with a few molecules, and that allows them to apply the results in bulk material. > not in your chair not in your table > while your weak force is in your chair and table > each fracton of a second > am i wrong about that weak force existing at any piece of matter > around us ???!! The weak force is CERTAINLY present and acting in any piece of ordinary matter. This has been known for half a century at least. > and for each proton and each Neutron > > it seems that one of us is > out of his mind !!! > ------------------------- > > > > > > please thing of it > > > it is alleged to present a process that exists in any of our Atoms > > > while in those Atoms each fraction of a second > > > are proton neutron as well as Anti proton and anti neutrons > > > are created ?? > > > Yes. Of course the antiprotons and antineutrons don't live long > > because they come in contact with protons and neutrons. > > so who told you how close one to other are > those Protons and antiprotons that you created in your in > mmgiantion > (justbecause of a stupid paper calculation ) Not paper. Experiment. Please get it into your head that physicists use EXPERIMENTS with REAL things, not just paper and pencil. > together with themonster that is hundreds of times bigegr than a > proton ??? > and all that in mime and your body ??? !!! > the same as in that monstr accelerator ??? > yes and iforgoe to mension another cruciaal argument ?? > > THE PROBVABILTY TOGETTHOSE W AND Z IS ONE TO .............. A FEW > BILLIONS !! The weak interaction is a billion times weaker than the strong interaction. So? > got it or not did you forgot that ?? > now > > IS THE PROBABILITY OF MAKING THE WEAK FORCE IN MY AND YOUR BODY IS > AS WELL > ONE TO AFEW BILLIONS ??? Compared to the strong, force, yes. Fortunately, it is easy to pick them out. Likewise, albinos are rare. But it's easy to pick them out. > > could you live a fraction of a second > with such PROBABILITY FOR WAEK FORCE > to act > IN YOUR BODY ???!! > and h eprotons and antiprotons wil go excatly tothe pplaces that you > dreamt about > or evennever thought were are those > Antiprotons find their 'Proper location > tofit to your theory?? No, they just do it because they do, as observed in experiment. The theory is successful because it matches what is seen in experiment. > why should i beleive you that you have a concrete rule to tell us > where are those antiprotons goto ?? You don't have to believe me if you don't want to. It's not my job to convince you. The data are in libraries, and the detailed accounting of the theory is in books in the libraries. If you don't want to go to the library to learn about it, then you won't learn anything. If you don't want to believe it, then you won't ever believe it, even if it is true. > and how far from the protons ?? > and besides > even if those antiprotons donot meat another proton > WHAT AND HOW AND WHY DO THEY DISAPPEAR > WHY SHOULD NOT THE CREATED PROTON NOT DISAPPEAR AS WELL ?? It often does. There is much for you to learn! > what is becoming of theose antiproton that disappear > if they disappear where is the energy created ?? > while according to you > it is jsut the proton that doe snot disapear while the > anti proton disappear ?? > ami drunk or may be > you play a most complicated enigmatic chess game with yourself ?? > > dont you start to feel that one uf us got out of his mind ??? > or more mildly > one of us is jsut a parrot -- a sucker ?? Nope. Experimental evidence is experimental evidence. It's hard to argue with experimental evidence. The day you begin to claim that experimental evidence must be wrong because it is in conflict with your intuition, that is the day you stop thinking scientifically. > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------
From: NoEinstein on 28 Sep 2009 12:03 On Sep 26, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If a Parasite Dunce... laughs, who cares! NE > > On Sep 26, 12:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Sep 23, 11:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: I'm unaware of anyone laughing at me. > > Of course you are unaware. You're unaware of a lot of things. > > How about if it's more obvious: > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! > > > > > As > > my number one groupie, you sure like associating with someone whom you > > keep suggesting is only wrong, and laughable. Tell us, Dougie Boy, > > why do you keep devoting hours a week trying to disparage me? It's > > because I am neither wrong nor laughable. Look in any mirror; you > > keep describing yourself. NE > > > > NoEinstein wrote: > > > > On Sep 20, 11:23 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally > > > > ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those > > > > who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of > > > > the worst kind. Calling you a leech is most apt. NE > > > > John is here for us to laugh at. He is doing a good job of that. > > > > >>NoEinstein wrote: > > > > >>>On Sep 19, 1:54 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > >>>Where is YOUR contribution to science Dougie Boy, the Leech? NE > > > > >>Unlike you, I have made contributions. Your main contribution > > > >>is to give us someone to laugh at. We can also use you as > > > >>an example of what happens when your ego gets to big > > > >>for you to be able to see anything else. > > > > >>>>Y.Porat wrote: > > > > >>>>>On Sep 19, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>PD wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>PD wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>your own words". > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>blurred distinction? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>All of them. Imagine! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>is based on physics. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>biology is based on chemistry. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>believed! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>probably wrong, too. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > > > >>>>>>>>>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > > > >>>>>>>>>>>criteria. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > > > >>>>>>>>>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > > > >>>>>>>>>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > > > >>>>>>>>>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > > > >>>>>>>>>>the license. > > > > >>>>>>>>>And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > > > > >>>>>>>>>from the architects who did read the books? > > > > >>>>>>>>Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close > > > >>>>>>>>to right! > > > > >>>>>>>------------------ > > > >>>>>>>now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! > > > >>>>>>>and all that by his fucken QM !! > > > >>>>>>>the man is a pathologic ------- > > > > >>>>>>>-----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! > > > >>>>>>>who thinks he can cheat every one > > > > >>>>>>What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I > > > >>>>>>told you. > > > >>>>>>It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. > > > > >>>>>>>forever !!! > > > >>>>>>>poor pupils of his !! > > > > >>>>>>>Y.P > > > >>>>>>>=------------------------ > > > > >>>>>you forgot to say that i sked you tocalculate the volume of the Atom > > > >>>>>based on your shell theory > > > >>>>>isit possible that you ddint understand what i am talking about > > > > >>>>>2 > > > >>>>>i asked youas well > > > >>>>>tobring a clacualtion thwat shows that > > > >>>>>based on your shell model > > > >>>>>toshow a calcualtion > > > >>>>>that will show that teh Atom > > > >>>>>of Al > > > >>>>>MUST HAVE THE SAME VOLUME AS SAY Au > > > >>>>> ie Gold > > > >>>>>(and a tom with 13 electrons around it > > > >>>>>is according to you must have the same volume > > > >>>>>as that og Gold with > > > >>>>>79 electrons and muchmore 'shells' around it!! > > > >>>>>if you say it is easy > > > >>>>>you ether dont know about what youare talking about > > > >>>>>or yiou are a crook > > > >>>>>just one of the problems fo rthat > > > >>>>>is > > > >>>>>how differnt electons > > > > >>>>Since you cannot even write a coherent sentence, > > > >>>>it is not surprising that you cannot do any > > > >>>>science. > > > > >>>>>in different shells > > > >>>>>repel each other !! > > > >>>>>**in all 3D direction > > > >>>>>even that 'simple problem > > > >>>>>is > > > >>>>>shells repalling themselves* in all 3 dimensions * > > > >>>>>those that are beside them > > > >>>>>those that are above and > > > >>>>>below them etc > > > >>>>>and all that in additionto the > > > >>>>>Attraction of the positive charge of the nuc > > > >>>>>and that i s only one of many > > > >>>>>other oroblems !!! > > > >>>>>another problem is > > > >>>>>why should there be a screening effect > > > >>>>>of closer shells on those > > > >>>>>further away!! > > > >>>>>i can promis you that even God > > > >>>>>would not take control on that > > > >>>>>turmoil > > > >>>>>it seems much better > > > >>>>>that you dont have a green ideal > > > >>>>>about waht is going on there !!! > > > >>>>>(by your fantastic model) > > > >>>>>remember that word > > > >>>>>'fantastic ' !!(lunatic ) > > > > >>>>>and if you don thave that calcualtion > > > >>>>>just show a quote > > > >>>>>you can ask the hjelp of all > > > >>>>>universites of the world > > > >>>>>but still dont forget totellthem > > > >>>>>that they must 'fiddle ' their calculation to show that > > > >>>>>Al volume is the same as Au > > > >>>>>btw > > > >>>>>if i am not wrong you said jsut lately that > > > >>>>>heavy atoms have a bigger > > > >>>>>involume than light one > > > >>>>>is it not the common paradigm !! ?? > > > >>>>>)is it not more 'reasonable ' (:-) > > > >>>>>yet we find that > > > >>>>>not only thAT * SOME* OF THEM (in our case Al and Au as a sample ) > > > >>>>> are not bigger > > > >>>>>but practically the ***same** volume !! > > > >>>>>is it the common paradigm > > > >>>>>and 'common sense """""??? (:-) > > > > >>>>Well, if you would even look at a chemistry > > > >>>>book, you would start to see how stupid you look. > > > >>>>But it seems easier for you to have tantrums. > > > > >>>>>TIA > > > >>>>>Y.Porat > > > >>>>>---------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 28 Sep 2009 12:13 On Sep 26, 2:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: The entire education system in the USA is due for a revamping. The primary motive for attending any university is to become identified with their sports teams. Education, beyond what one can self teach, is a huge waste of time and money! NE > > On Sep 26, 12:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Sep 24, 8:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: All of the 'science' needed for doing engineering is > > covered, in total, in courses taught by the engineering department > > (s). > > You will find that this is bullshit. Ask any professor in the > engineering department of your nearest university. I know they have a > couple there in South Carolina. > > You may also ask whether the engineering department grants any student > a degree in engineering without taking, passing, and exhibiting > competence in required physics classes. > > > That requirement for taking physics is simply for EMPLOYING > > useless physicists! NoEinstein > > Making stuff up again, John? > > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 9:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 20, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD: "Engineering" is taught in various colleges of engineering > > > > NOT in the useless college of physics. Can you show otherwise? > > > > NoEinstein > > > > This may not be familiar to you, NoEinstein, but all engineers are > > > required to take physics courses from the physics department, not the > > > engineering department. They use the physics that they learn in the > > > physics department later in their engineering work. > > > > > > On Sep 20, 9:09 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Architecture is primarily an art over > > > > > > engineering discipline. If the world were put under the control of > > > > > > architects and engineersforgetting about the head-in-clouds scientists > > > > > > the world would be a better place. NE > > > > > > Why do you say that? Engineers practice physics. > > > > > What's head-in-the-clouds about that? > > > > > Note that a lot of the physics that is used by architects and > > > > > engineers is the stuff you've rejected. > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > PD wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > > > > > > >>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > > > > > > >>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > > > > > > >>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > > > > > > >>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > > > > > > >>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > > > > > > >>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > > > > > > >>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > > > > > > >>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > > > > > > >>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > > > > > > > >>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > >>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > > > > > > > >>>your own words". > > > > > > > > >>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > > > > > > > >>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > > > > > > > >>>blurred distinction? > > > > > > > > > >>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > > > > > > > >>aisles! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > All of them. Imagine! > > > > > > > > > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > > > > > > > > is based on physics. > > > > > > > > > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > > > > > > > > biology is based on chemistry. > > > > > > > > > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > > > > > > > > believed! > > > > > > > > > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > > > > > > > > probably wrong, too. > > > > > > > > > This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > > > > > > > > rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > > > > > > > > criteria. > > > > > > > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > > > > > > > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > > > > > > > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > > > > > > > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > > > > > > > the license.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 28 Sep 2009 12:19
On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: The energy of any falling object, as well as any accelerating object in space, is accruing at a uniform rate with time. And the value of the energy is the sum of the unit force being applied each second. Your "almost" niche is high energy particle physics. Youve always been a total Dunce regarding any other issues of science. NE > > On Sep 26, 12:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Folks: SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Simple > > acceleration causes momentum to increase uniformly, and that means KE > > increases uniformly. There is no need for a particle for dissipating > > the excess energy, because such energy wasn't there to start with! > > Noeinstein > > Hmmm. What you've described (badly) is simple Newtonian acceleration > and has nothing to do with relativity. > And yet you've got a simply accelerated object with more energy that > what it started with, in apparent violation of conservation of energy. > Hmmmm... > Got any idea how this is really supposed to work, NoEinstein? > Feeling foolish today? > Need someone to let you know you SHOULD feel foolish by laughing at > you? > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:11 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You see, this is what separates you from science, Porat. > > > > > > You have it in your head that some basic notions that come into your > > > > > head MUST be true, and you simply do not have any way to verify > > > > > whether they ARE true. Scientists don't do that. They check > > > > > everything, every assumption to see if it really is true. > > > > > > Let's take the example of your notion that no daughter can be larger > > > > > than its mother. You insist that this MUST be true. A scientist would > > > > > test whether that really is true by creating an explicit test of that > > > > > assumption. The accelerator is a good example of that kind of test. > > > > > The accelerator is specifically designed to do (among other things) > > > > > collisions of light particles and to identify all the particles that > > > > > come out of those collisions, and it is very carefully designed to > > > > > rule out background events. > > > > > > So when a scientist sees in this test that heavy daughters can come > > > > > from light parents, the scientist will say, "Well, there's no arguing > > > > > with experiment. It appears that the statement that no daughter can be > > > > > bigger than its mother was just wrong." You, on the other hand, stick > > > > > with the rule you had in your head and insist that there must be > > > > > something wrong with the experiment or something else was going on > > > > > that masked the truth. > > > > > Not to defend Porat, who is saying things I do not understand, but the > > > > behavior you describe is very common in physics, isn't it? > > > > > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of mass+energy > > > > and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found an example where > > > > these were not conserved, they invented an undetectable particle, the > > > > neutrino, that was carrying away the stuff that was missing, or > > > > occasionally bringing in extra when there was a lack. > > > > > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that > > > > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did happen. > > > > This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos". > > > > > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff even > > > > when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't find it, or > > > > extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just, they're doing what > > > > you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody thinks they're wrong to do > > > > so. When experiments give results that disagree with their theories they > > > > usually decide that something else is going on that masks the truth.. > > > > Not quite, but I see where you're going. > > > Momentum conservation was deduced from a number of observations, and > > > then it was tested in thousands of applications after the rule was > > > proposed. > > > In an interesting case, though, momentum conservation seemed not to > > > hold. So two candidate proposals were put forward: > > > 1. Momentum is not conserved in all cases after all. > > > 2. Momentum is conserved, but there is a yet undiscovered particle > > > that is carrying away some of the momentum. > > > Now, the key to the second is that you can't just leave it that. You > > > have to find some OTHER way to verify the existence of that particle > > > OTHER THAN deducing it from missing momentum. And so there were > > > numerous experiments devised to do just that. The Nobel Prize was > > > awarded for the first work that showed that unambiguously -- that > > > neutrinos can be detected by some means other than by insisting that > > > momentum be conserved. If you look at the Nobel award lecture, you'll > > > learn what was involved. > > > > A similar thing is going on now with dark matter. There are two > > > proposals on the table: > > > 1. General relativity is wrong. > > > 2. General relativity is right, but there is matter that is > > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark > > > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold. > > > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |