Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Come on creative minds solve this fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico if ?you can
Next: Dark Energy: The problem with Einstein's Cosmological Constant is that there's no physics behind it
From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 10:34 On Jun 23, 9:43 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On May 31, 6:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > <...> > > > Timo, Ive observed over the past month that you have, occasionally, > > been adversarial regarding aspects of my New Science. To the extent > > that you bring up valid points which I can explain to the many > > readers, I welcome your comments. But I dont seek to have a time > > consuming one-on-one conversation with you just for your edification. > > Though this reply is long, dont take that to be an invitation that > > you have been selected as the spokes-person for the status quo. > > Because of my obvious huge contributions to science, you should ask > > questions, not sit in judgment. You are welcomed to make your own > > +new post(s) to pontificate your science if you differ with me. > > Lastly, please TOP post, and limit yourself to about two paragraphs. > > I really dont need to hear what you think about every little thing > > that Ive ever said. No more PDs are wanted, here. Thanks! > > NoEinstein > > That is about the most arrogant piece of folderal I have ever read. There's a fine line between arrogant and psychotic. This has crossed the line by several yards. PD
From: NoEinstein on 24 Jun 2010 11:50 On Jun 23, 10:43 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > Dear Edward: If you had made contributions to understanding 100% of nature, as I have, you would be entitled to be arrogant, too. If you want to converse with people who don't know science, don't reply to me. If you would like to understand science, then read some of my many posts. 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& PD has questions about science. Can any of you help? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en& Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9 A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing Shedding New Light on Comet Tails http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?... > > On May 31, 6:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > <...> > > > Timo, Ive observed over the past month that you have, occasionally, > > been adversarial regarding aspects of my New Science. To the extent > > that you bring up valid points which I can explain to the many > > readers, I welcome your comments. But I dont seek to have a time > > consuming one-on-one conversation with you just for your edification. > > Though this reply is long, dont take that to be an invitation that > > you have been selected as the spokes-person for the status quo. > > Because of my obvious huge contributions to science, you should ask > > questions, not sit in judgment. You are welcomed to make your own > > +new post(s) to pontificate your science if you differ with me. > > Lastly, please TOP post, and limit yourself to about two paragraphs. > > I really dont need to hear what you think about every little thing > > that Ive ever said. No more PDs are wanted, here. Thanks! > > NoEinstein > > That is about the most arrogant piece of folderal I have ever read.
From: NoEinstein on 24 Jun 2010 11:53 On Jun 24, 9:52 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On May 31, 8:57 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > <...> > > > The most blatant farce is in terms of conservation of energy. The > > claim is that the light hitting a reflective surface will provide > > twice the momentum; one kick when the light hits it and one kick again > > from the light when it leaves. This concept offends the conservation > > of energy. 1300 watts in with 1300 watts out leaves no acceleration > > whatsoever for the perfect reflector. > > It leaves room for a force. If the reflector starts to move away, then > the spectrum will be conveniently downshifted by Doppler. I presume > energy conservation will be mollified. > > > Consider taking a full length > > mirror out into the sun and being boled over by three horsepower of > > push. > > Evidently there is some problem with equating force with power. The > damn solar power can't do much direct work, apparently. Edward: There is ZERO thrust from radiant energy. Radiant energy creates the PULL of gravity. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 24 Jun 2010 11:55 On Jun 24, 10:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 9:43 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 6:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > <...> > > > > Timo, Ive observed over the past month that you have, occasionally, > > > been adversarial regarding aspects of my New Science. To the extent > > > that you bring up valid points which I can explain to the many > > > readers, I welcome your comments. But I dont seek to have a time > > > consuming one-on-one conversation with you just for your edification. > > > Though this reply is long, dont take that to be an invitation that > > > you have been selected as the spokes-person for the status quo. > > > Because of my obvious huge contributions to science, you should ask > > > questions, not sit in judgment. You are welcomed to make your own > > > +new post(s) to pontificate your science if you differ with me. > > > Lastly, please TOP post, and limit yourself to about two paragraphs. > > > I really dont need to hear what you think about every little thing > > > that Ive ever said. No more PDs are wanted, here. Thanks! > > > NoEinstein > > > That is about the most arrogant piece of folderal I have ever read. > > There's a fine line between arrogant and psychotic. This has crossed > the line by several yards. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - As spoken by the speck (PD) at the bottom of the science Hill that I am King of! NE
From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 13:04
On Jun 24, 10:55 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 24, 10:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:43 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 6:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > <...> > > > > > Timo, Ive observed over the past month that you have, occasionally, > > > > been adversarial regarding aspects of my New Science. To the extent > > > > that you bring up valid points which I can explain to the many > > > > readers, I welcome your comments. But I dont seek to have a time > > > > consuming one-on-one conversation with you just for your edification. > > > > Though this reply is long, dont take that to be an invitation that > > > > you have been selected as the spokes-person for the status quo. > > > > Because of my obvious huge contributions to science, you should ask > > > > questions, not sit in judgment. You are welcomed to make your own > > > > +new post(s) to pontificate your science if you differ with me. > > > > Lastly, please TOP post, and limit yourself to about two paragraphs.. > > > > I really dont need to hear what you think about every little thing > > > > that Ive ever said. No more PDs are wanted, here. Thanks! > > > > NoEinstein > > > > That is about the most arrogant piece of folderal I have ever read. > > > There's a fine line between arrogant and psychotic. This has crossed > > the line by several yards. > > > PD > > As spoken by the speck (PD) at the bottom of the science Hill that I > am King of! NE Case in point. Thanks, NoEinstein, for providing direct experimental confirmation. PD |