Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 09:39 On Jul 22, 9:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 22, 4:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: The words being emphasized are for the brain dead, like > you. Apparently, you never learned what the '=' sign means. The > energy IN must = the energy OUT. NoEinstein > > Energy in, yes. Not force, not velocity, not momentum. Energy. I know that to you, they're all the same, because you never understood the difference. But then again, you're an idiot.
From: NoEinstein on 23 Jul 2010 14:32 On Jul 23, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: "A rose by any other name would be just as sweet." Einstein, himself, wrote the God Damned SR equation. In such, the only variable is 'v'. So 'v' HAS to represent energy, otherwise Einstein would only be saying that "energy and velocity are the same thing". Actually, velocity is a manifestation of the FORCE applied to cause the velocity increase. All energy can be converted to a force. So, his SR equation has FORCES on both sides. If you have faults with my logical thinking, you should complain about the SR equation. Einstein wrote it; and such violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy! NE > > On Jul 22, 9:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 4:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: The words being emphasized are for the brain dead, like > > you. Apparently, you never learned what the '=' sign means. The > > energy IN must = the energy OUT. NoEinstein > > Energy in, yes. Not force, not velocity, not momentum. Energy. > > I know that to you, they're all the same, because you never understood > the difference. > But then again, you're an idiot.
From: PD on 23 Jul 2010 15:04 On Jul 23, 1:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 23, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: "A rose by any other name would be just as sweet." Einstein, > himself, wrote the God Damned SR equation. In such, the only variable > is 'v'. So 'v' HAS to represent energy, otherwise Einstein would only > be saying that "energy and velocity are the same thing". Oh, my, you get goofier by the minute. In d=1/2at^2, t is the only variable. And since the quantity on the left is distance, then t HAS to represent distance. > Actually, > velocity is a manifestation of the FORCE applied to cause the velocity > increase. Well, there is certainly a *relationship* between the change in velocity and a force that's present. That's called Newton's second law. But I think you'll find that F=ma (or, if you like F=mdv/dt) does not mean quite the same thing as "velocity is a manifestation of the force applied". One normally tries to avoid confusing the effect and the cause of the effect. Your gray hair may be due to bad habits and your genes, but your gray hair is not the same thing as your bad habits, nor the same thing as your genes. > All energy can be converted to a force. So, his SR > equation has FORCES on both sides. If you have faults with my logical > thinking, you should complain about the SR equation. Einstein wrote > it; and such violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy! NE > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 9:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 22, 4:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: The words being emphasized are for the brain dead, like > > > you. Apparently, you never learned what the '=' sign means. The > > > energy IN must = the energy OUT. NoEinstein > > > Energy in, yes. Not force, not velocity, not momentum. Energy. > > > I know that to you, they're all the same, because you never understood > > the difference. > > But then again, you're an idiot.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jul 2010 16:57 On Jul 23, 3:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 1:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD: "A rose by any other name would be just as sweet." Einstein, > > himself, wrote the God Damned SR equation. In such, the only variable > > is 'v'. So 'v' HAS to represent energy, otherwise Einstein would only > > be saying that "energy and velocity are the same thing". > > Oh, my, you get goofier by the minute. > In d=1/2at^2, t is the only variable. And since the quantity on the > left is distance, then t HAS to represent distance. > Dear Dunce: Equations can say that one quantity is PROPORTIONAL to another quantity. The latter is the norm; and I didn't create it! Equations do NOT have to say that a distance (say, in feet) is a time (say, in seconds). What the equation you quote says is that the distance of fall is PROPORTIONAL to the time of fall. Your equation example (and MOST equations) don't say that time and distance are the same thing. The latter is just your dumbed-out extrapolation, which you would like to "blame" on me. Actually, the only bastardization is that some worthless speck at the bottom of MY Science Hill, is allowed to be heard, in any wise, anywhere. NE > > > Actually, > > velocity is a manifestation of the FORCE applied to cause the velocity > > increase. > > Well, there is certainly a *relationship* between the change in > velocity and a force that's present. That's called Newton's second > law. But I think you'll find that F=ma (or, if you like F=mdv/dt) does > not mean quite the same thing as "velocity is a manifestation of the > force applied". > One normally tries to avoid confusing the effect and the cause of the > effect. > Your gray hair may be due to bad habits and your genes, but your gray > hair is not the same thing as your bad habits, nor the same thing as > your genes. > > > > > All energy can be converted to a force. So, his SR > > equation has FORCES on both sides. If you have faults with my logical > > thinking, you should complain about the SR equation. Einstein wrote > > it; and such violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy! NE > > > > On Jul 22, 9:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 22, 4:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD: The words being emphasized are for the brain dead, like > > > > you. Apparently, you never learned what the '=' sign means. The > > > > energy IN must = the energy OUT. NoEinstein > > > > Energy in, yes. Not force, not velocity, not momentum. Energy. > > > > I know that to you, they're all the same, because you never understood > > > the difference. > > > But then again, you're an idiot.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 25 Jul 2010 17:25
On Jul 25, 3:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 23, 3:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 23, 1:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 23, 9:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD: "A rose by any other name would be just as sweet." Einstein, > > > himself, wrote the God Damned SR equation. In such, the only variable > > > is 'v'. So 'v' HAS to represent energy, otherwise Einstein would only > > > be saying that "energy and velocity are the same thing". > > > Oh, my, you get goofier by the minute. > > In d=1/2at^2, t is the only variable. And since the quantity on the > > left is distance, then t HAS to represent distance. > > Dear Dunce: Equations can say that one quantity is PROPORTIONAL to > another quantity. They can also indicate when one quantity is NOT proportional to another. For example, in the equation y = 1/(1-x^2), there is only one variable x, and y is not at all proportional to x. > The latter is the norm; and I didn't create it! No, it's not the norm at all. It's actually no more usual than a whole slew of other relationships. Did you flunk algebra, John? > Equations do NOT have to say that a distance (say, in feet) is a time > (say, in seconds). What the equation you quote says is that the > distance of fall is PROPORTIONAL to the time of fall. No, it certainly does not. > Your equation > example (and MOST equations) don't say that time and distance are the > same thing. The latter is just your dumbed-out extrapolation, which > you would like to "blame" on me. Actually, the only bastardization is > that some worthless speck at the bottom of MY Science Hill, is allowed > to be heard, in any wise, anywhere. NE > > > > > > > > Actually, > > > velocity is a manifestation of the FORCE applied to cause the velocity > > > increase. > > > Well, there is certainly a *relationship* between the change in > > velocity and a force that's present. That's called Newton's second > > law. But I think you'll find that F=ma (or, if you like F=mdv/dt) does > > not mean quite the same thing as "velocity is a manifestation of the > > force applied". > > One normally tries to avoid confusing the effect and the cause of the > > effect. > > Your gray hair may be due to bad habits and your genes, but your gray > > hair is not the same thing as your bad habits, nor the same thing as > > your genes. > > > > All energy can be converted to a force. So, his SR > > > equation has FORCES on both sides. If you have faults with my logical > > > thinking, you should complain about the SR equation. Einstein wrote > > > it; and such violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy! NE > > > > > On Jul 22, 9:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 22, 4:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD: The words being emphasized are for the brain dead, like > > > > > you. Apparently, you never learned what the '=' sign means. The > > > > > energy IN must = the energy OUT. NoEinstein > > > > > Energy in, yes. Not force, not velocity, not momentum. Energy. > > > > > I know that to you, they're all the same, because you never understood > > > > the difference. > > > > But then again, you're an idiot.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - |