There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: NoEinstein on 3 May 2010 22:17 On May 3, 4:36 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: I majored in structural engineering within my architecture major at Clemson. I've done far more math than most physicists. If a beam or column looks like it won't support the required load, it isn't necessary to confirm that by doing any math. Experience, combined with intuition, can eliminate the need to try things known not to work. Buildings that have... 'failed' often did so because the designers trusted the math while not allowing their intuition to have full play. One example: The "bracing members" of a large truss system spanning a football stadium had no "calculable" load. So the computer selected something like a 1 1/2" x 1 1/2" x 1/4" angle for the braces each more than 10 feet long. The contractors were able to construct the thing. And the "engineers" looking at it continued to trust the computer design. After the first light snowfall, some of the tack welds snapped and the rest of the angles buckled due to eccentricities in loading that the computer program didn't consider... and the entire roof collapsed. Luckily, the stadium was empty at the time. I'll do math any time such is necessary. When it isn't, I'll leave the mathaholics to you and the accountants! NoEinstein > > On May 3, 2:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: You ask the right sort of questions to be a 'specialist' > > or a 'technician'. I'm a generalist. Those can tell the two former > > types what needs being done. In short, I get the "whole picture". I > > wouldn't seek NSF funding for any projects, because I know that such > > organization, and the NSB are corrupt. > > It was just a simple correction of your numerical error, and whether > or not you want a slice of the funding pie is irrelevant. Look up the > numbers youself if you want, or don't, but either way you can avoid > repeating the error. But it doesn't need an essay in response. > > > While you, apparently, were > > caught up in statistics, numbers, and funding trivia, I was actually > > figuring out how the various pieces of the universe work in unison. > > So, don't fault me for my processes. If you were a pragmatist, you > > wouldn't dare. NoEinstein > > Sometimes, it's useful to get the numbers right. Ask a quantity > surveyor or an accountant.
From: NoEinstein on 3 May 2010 22:32 On May 3, 5:10 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: You haven't replied often enough for me to generalize about your 'psychosis'. Likely, your problem is that you are a niche specialist of some kind, who never got the acclaim that you figured you deserved. To compensate, you became a pedantmouthing-off whenever you figure you can look "superior". You're in good company; Albert Einstein was a pedant, toothough most of his display was the memorized or plagiarized statements of others. Instead of trying, vainly, to run me down for not jumping at your suggestion that I do costly experiments, realize that there are only 24 hours in a day. You, and any others, are at liberty to perform Henry Cavendish or other type experiments in support of my New Science! NoEinstein > > On May 3, 2:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: There is a black-hole-like power in "playing" stupid. I > > explain things, expertly. But the stupid (perhaps including... you) > > can keep playing dumb and yanking my chain. They let their limited > > knowledge and reasoning ability be a measuring stick for my lifetime > > of thought and discoveries. Since it always takes two to communicate, > > if you don't... "get it", then maybe that's your problem. > > Or, since it takes two to communicate, maybe it's your problem. It's > your theory, and judging by the time and wordage you devote to it, you > perhaps care at least an iota about communicating it. > > > My New > > Science explains the Universe. I won't even try to develop the math > > of any one part of that just to satisfy your (likely) sense of > > inferior "superiority". > > Why would you developing the maths of any one part (or the specific > part mentioned), which you can, given your great intellect and talent, > do with such clarity, ease, and swiftness that it should properly > inspire humility in lesser mortals satisfy anybody's "(likely) sense > of inferior "superiority"."? You don't think anybody here might > actually be _interested_ in your theory and its consequences? > > I'm interested in seeing if your prediction agrees with what has been > measured for the effect of temperature on gravity (Count Rumford for > starters, Poyting and Phillips, and others). If so, it might well be > worthwhile firing up (perhaps literally) our Cavendish. While I fully > anticipate that your theory will give most excellent agreement with > experiment, it is scientifically useful to actually check, rather than > assuming it is so. Alas, in the absence of any quantitative version of > your theory, it's hard for me to check. > > But if you don't care enough about the agreement of your theory with > experment to provide such, despite your overpoweringly superior > intellect, why should anybody else care? Why should others bet their > time, effort, and equipment on testing something you don't care enough > about to spend a few hours on (at the very most, surely, given your > manifest ability)? > > > Tell us, Timo; What have YOU ever done for > > science? NoEinstein > > You can find some of my papers on arxiv, mostly applied physics. Here > is some non-physics:http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/cho02101.htm > > But what _I've_ done is not at all relevant to discussion of _your_ > theory, or what you've done (or haven't done).
From: NoEinstein on 3 May 2010 22:43 On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 8:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 1, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You just said that "physics isn't > > determined by logic". Of course, you would think that! That's > > because you don't know HOW to reason! > > Well, it's because physics is a science, which means that it invokes > the scientific method, and it determines truth by experimental test, > not by logic. > Dear PD: WHERE was the "scientific method" when Lorentz proposed his ANTI-ENGINEERING, "rubber ruler" explanation for the nil results of M- M? And where was the scientific method when both Coriolis and Einstein wrote energy equations that were exponential, and thus in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy? When the truth be known, PD, is this low I. Q. flunky who compensates by constantly faulting his superiors. He has never stated a single contribution that he has made to science. For one who devotes so much time to... 'science' shouldn't PD have... "something" to show for it? NoEinstein > >That is taught to 4th graders. Were you absent that day, > or did you determine in the 4th grade that your science teachers > didn't know what they were talking about and you realized then that > all of scientific truths could be determined by logic? > > > Einstein got physicists > > believing that ILLOGIC is where the most... I.Q. is. Since you > > understood nothing taught to you in physics (the right stuff nor the > > WRONG), you figured your strength was to fight anything and everything > > that wasnt COOKBOOKED from some out-of-date, McGraw-Hill, Jewish > > publication. > > > Tell me, PD, WHO on this EARTH is a qualification to confirm YOUR > > ideas about science? Anyone who understands math, and knows what the > > Law of the Conservation of Energy requires, will immediately confirm > > that Coriolis and Einstein had no earthly idea that KE and 'E' must > > not be exponential equations, but LINEAR equations (or additive). > > I'm sorry, John, but just about everyone except for you knows that the > Law of Conservation of Energy is completely consistent with the > expressions for kinetic energy and total energy. It seems to be only > you with the problem. Shouldn't that be a flag to you? > > If everyone in the world points to the same animal and calls it a > zebra, and you call it a penguin, does that make you a world-class > genius or a world-class fool? > > > > > > > Since you don't think COASTING increases an object's distance of > > travel, it is YOU, not me, needing others to confirm your stupidity! > > Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > On Apr 30, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "We" (you and I) aren't having a > > > > discussion about science. You simply take the anti-thesis of any > > > > science truth, knowing that there are some naive readers who won't > > > > know the difference. It may sound 'high-and-mighty' for you to keep > > > > referring to... the experimental evidence, and the 'textbook' > > > > definitions, but you NEVER paraphrase a possible counterargument. You > > > > only claim that there is 'something', somewhere that disagrees with > > > > me. And you expect me to go look that up. > > > > Yes, indeed, because physics is not something that is settled by > > > puffed-up posturing and debate. > > > It is not something that is determined by force of logic. > > > You may be confusing physics with philosophy. > > > > Ultimately, the truth in physics is determined by careful and > > > independently confirmed experimental measurement. > > > That body of experimental evidence is documented and available to you.. > > > It is referred to in textbooks, and references to it have been made > > > here to you. > > > > So yes, you are expected to look it up. > > > > ANYBODY doing physics is expected to look it up. > > > > > Folks, PD is the deep thinker (sic) who said that atomic decay is a > > > > "chemical reaction". And just today, he said that a car which is > > > > COASTING isn't increasing its "displacement". He has just proposed > > > > that... "displacement" is only apt to calculating, or measuring, an > > > > object's unit velocity. And since the unit velocity of the car > > > > doesn't change, he claims that coasting isn't increasing the distance > > > > of travel of the car. Can't most of you see how little PD cares about > > > > truth and logic? Does he think everyone but him is a fool? > > > > > *** Tell us this, PD: How many science experiments, of any kind, have > > > > YOU designed, built, and successfully tested? > > > > Are you sure you want to ask this question? My professional history is > > > as an experimental physicist, and my record is public. > > > Please don't puff yourself up as a songwriter when talking to a > > > professional musician. > > > It's not smart to put on airs as an expert on law when talking to a > > > judge. > > > > > I've made two most > > > > definitive tests which support the LOGIC that Coriolis's KE equation > > > > is not only WRONG, its so obviously in violation of the Law of the > > > > Conservation of Energy, that no experiments are needed, at all, to > > > > disprove: KE = 1/2mv^2; nor to similarly disprove E = mc^2 / beta. > > > > For you, a proof is only valid if it involves experiments which you > > > > have never cited, nor paraphrased, and definitions that you claim are > > > > in textbooks, but which you never quote. > > > > Two comments: > > > 1. Your experimental results will be worth something when confirmed by > > > an independent investigator. That is how it is done in science. Until > > > then, you are a self-feeding loop. > > > 2. Yes, I expect you to look up textbooks, as they are easy to find > > > even in your local library. I'm assuming that you are not under house > > > arrest, you aren't bedridden, that you have bus fare to get you > > > downtown, and that you are capable of reading when you get there. I'm > > > also assuming that you are not so pathologically lazy that you refuse > > > to budge your butt from your chair. > > > > > I recently told you that I had suspected that the readers agreed with > > > > my correctness our yours by two to one. But in light of your recent > > > > statements of utter stupidity, that number is probably closer to ten > > > > to one! > > > > This is just like you, to suspect something is true without a single > > > shred of tangible evidence. It's your style. > > > > > *** No scientist on Earth has more credibility than yours > > > > truly. *** If any think that they do, I would love for them to go > > > > head-to-head with me, so that I can kick their asses into solar > > > > orbit. Like those purported scientists, you, PD, dont have a leg, > > > > nor a stump to stand on. NoEinstein > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD: Some readers, who don't know either of us from Adam, may > > > > > > think that your sidestepping of science is credible. An attack on... > > > > > > the messenger (me) is a quick put-down that you had to have learned > > > > > > (tongue-in-cheekha!) very early won't work on me. If the regular > > > > > > readers of my posts and replies got to vote, they'd probably say that > > > > > > I'm beating you in the "one-up-manship" by a two to one margin. But > > > > > > you're still around because you won't stay on any discussion long > > > > > > enough to get the life squished out of your... 'science'. I enjoy > > > > > > knowing that you haven't won; can't; and won't win, PD. That > > > > > > qualifies you as a looser; doesn't it? NoEinstein > > > > > > I'm fascinated by this idea you have of winning or losing. > > > > > > We're having a discussion about physics. I'm explaining to you what we > > > > > know matches experiment, and what the definitions of the words are > > > > > that are used in physics, what the equations mean, and how that is > > > > > exemplified in measurements, and the fact that none of what we're > > > > > talking about is beyond 7th grade science level. > > > > > > You on the other hand seem to be more worried about winning some kind > > > > > of battle or contest, and to you winning means: > > > > > - that you talk longer than anyone else, ensuring that you always have > > > > > the last word > > > > > - that no one can *force* you to believe what 7th graders have no > > > > > difficulty understanding > > > > > - that no one can *force* to you stop talking > > > > > - that you stick by your guns, no matter what, regardless of how > > > > > stupid it starts to sound even to you > > > > > - disparaging your respondents by calling them negativists and other > > > > > assorted names > > > > > - that you have offered a retort to every single response to your > > > > > posts. > > > > > > By that metric, someone who firmly believes that 17+4=32, and who > > > > > insists on this long after the last person has walked away, and who > > > > > insists that 2nd grade math teachers are obviously wrong, and who is > > > > > proud that no one has been able to get him to stop saying 17+4=32, and > > > > > who calls people who believe otherwise to be ninnies and brainwashed > > > > > -- well, by golly, in your eyes that person has won something. > > > > > > Of course, 17+4 is not 32, but the IMPORTANT thing, you see, is > > > > > winning, not being right. Isn't that so? > > > > > > As for attacking you, you'll pardon me if I'd decline to hire you to > > > > > be the architect for a doghouse. I'm sure you understand my reasons > > > > > why.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 3 May 2010 22:49 On May 3, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 8:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 1, 11:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Nice "try" PD: Like I've told you a hundred times, PARAPHRASE, or > > copy, what you want me to read. You, an imbecile, don't qualify to > > tell me (who's off the top of the I. Q. chart) what I should do. You > > can only dream that I would care to follow your instructions, in any > > regard. NoEinstein > > OK, so I take it that you refuse to do one of these steps > 1) Vacate your chair > 2) Take your butt to the library > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > 4) Read > either because you're incapable of it or you are too lazy. > > Sorry, but I am not a nursemaid, and I don't cut other people's meat > for them, and I don't serve their meat on a rubber coated spoon, even > if they whine that they won't eat it any other way. Starve, if you > like. > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I'm not "starving" for any information that you are unwilling to provide. And I'm pretty certain that the readers aren't starving for what you have to say, either. The few times that you've opened your mouth and said anything at all about science, youve put your foot in you mouth. You must be surviving on... toenails, PD. Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > On Apr 30, 10:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I, sir, am King of the Hill in science. > > > > If you would like for the readers to see some "textbook definition" > > > > which you claim is more valid than my F. & W. Standard College > > > > Dictionary, then copy and paste your definition for the world to see. > > > > *** Put up or shut up, PD! *** You've done nothing to even hint that > > > > you have objectivity in scienceonly empty bluster. NoEinstein > > > > Good grief. OK, I'll come part way. You do some work too. > > > Go to the library and ask for Giancoli, Physics, any edition more > > > recent than than the 4th. > > > See sections 2-2 and 2-3. In my copy, that's pages 21-23. > > > There, I have made the search bonehead simple for you. All you have to > > > do is > > > 1) Vacate your chair > > > 2) Take your butt to the library > > > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > > > 4) Read- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 3 May 2010 22:56
On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 2, 11:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 2, 4:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: You ask the right sort of questions to be a 'specialist' > > or a 'technician'. I'm a generalist. Those can tell the two former > > types what needs being done. In short, I get the "whole picture". I > > wouldn't seek NSF funding for any projects, because I know that such > > organization, and the NSB are corrupt. While you, apparently, were > > caught up in statistics, numbers, and funding trivia, I was actually > > figuring out how the various pieces of the universe work in unison. > > So, don't fault me for my processes. If you were a pragmatist, you > > wouldn't dare. NoEinstein > > Since you can't seem to find any of my original posts, I'll reproduce > one here for you: > ========================================================================= > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department > to discuss his ideas because she thought he was brilliant. The > department chair, in his infinite wisdom, sent the young man to me. > > For a half hour, the lad drew pictures on my chalkboard of a new > unified field theory. No math, mind you, just a lot of enthusiastic > description and squiggly figures and semiplausible notions. > > Still chewing on my sandwich, I stopped him at one point and asked him > to calculate something ... anything ... with his model -- or at least > set it up so that I knew in principle the calculation could be done. > > He looked at me in all earnestness and said, "Oh, I view myself as > sort > of the Einstein type. I come up with the Big Idea, and then I let > everyone else work out the details." > > I stopped chewing, swallowed carefully, and composed my thoughts. > > For the next half hour, we discussed what it really meant to be a > physicist, how Einstein had to study the state of the art for years > before even being ready to work on a Big Idea, and what would be > required of this young man on his journey to becoming a theoretical > physicist, which is what he wanted more than anything else in the > world. Unquestionably, he was shaken. He had no idea that it took more > than just intelligence and a blinding stroke of insight. > > I have no qualms about having directed him this way. Any profession in > the world requires an extraordinary amount of work to become tops in > the field, and much of it is grinding toil. Physics is no different. > Anyone who enters into such a field should not be shielded from this > information, lest the moment of disillusionment come after years of > wasted, dreamy ignorance. The good ones will embrace the challenge. > > The other aspect of this, though, was my alarm at his perception of > how > Einstein worked, how he did what he did. Few of the everday Einstein > fans recall, for example, that the same year he was publishing his > seminal papers, he was struggling to get his PhD thesis approved, and > he was working at a side job because no one at the university could > find money to support him. In this 100th anniversary of some of his > singular accomplishments, I think it's worthwhile reminding people > about how much hard work, how much formal training, and how much time > spent simply learning, went into those accomplishments. > > PD > ============================================ > NoEinstein, you are a deluded, egomaniacal basketcase. Dear PD: That's a nice story for your... biography. Unfortunately, you haven't contributed anything noteworthy to the world of science. "Talking down" to a high school student doesn't require... 'smarts'; it only requires a lack of tact! NE |