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 7 May 2010 16:13 On May 7, 9:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Lorentz's rubber rulers gave Einstein the mistaken notion that objects contract, or flatten, with increased velocity. Since "that" was so illogical, he compensated by claiming that time and space... contracted, too (sic). Without that G. D. M-M experiment, Lorentz wouldn't have come up with his drunken notion that velocity can contract, and hold contracted, all materials in the Universe regardless of their composition or their geometries (SIC!). I see right through you, PD! You wish to change the subject to... "relativity" so that you will have YOUR notions about motion calculation (train, embankment, elevator, etc.) needing to be countered. Those who argue relativity are two things: Not very good at visualizing stuff; and not able to see the forest for the trees! NoEinstein > > On May 6, 8:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 11:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: When Maxwell urged Michelson to conduct the M-M experiment, > > they were expecting a uniform, velocity-proportional, drag on light. > > And this was 20 years before relativity was ever introduced. > My post to you was about what *relativity* says, not what was thought > 20 years before relativity was discovered. > > > > > The major variant was the orientation of the instrument relative to > > Earth's velocity vector. Since velocity alone has NO effect on the > > length of any material (or ruler), then it's moot, indeed, to argue > > whether the plot of the... contraction (sic) is a waterfall curve, or > > linear. Neither contraction occurs! NoEinstein > > > > On May 5, 2:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 3, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Lorentz's proposal was subject to experimental test, NoEinstein. > > > > > Dear PD: Show me any "test" proving that all materials shrink (or > > > > expand) an identical percentage in response to velocity changes, and > > > > the same amount regardless of the size and shape of the material. > > > > First of all, it would help if you understood what relativity actually > > > says. > > > * It does not say that materials shrink "an identical percentage in > > > response to velocity changes". The functional relationship between > > > length and velocity is certainly not a proportional one. It involves > > > the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is nothing like a proportionality > > > to v. > > > * You seem to think that this shrinkage would be obvious to the naked > > > eye if it were in effect. It would be worth it for you to sit with a > > > calculator and actually figure out how much shorter something is if > > > it's moving at 10 mph, 100 mph, 1000 mph. Take a paper clip, measure > > > it, and then use the factor above to calculate how much shorter it > > > would be at those speeds. Then tell me whether this is in fact > > > something you should expect to notice with the naked eye. Numbers are > > > important, John. > > > * The shrinkage predicted by relativity only applies to reference > > > frames in which the object is observed to be *moving*. The paper clip > > > sitting on your desk is not moving in your reference frame, is it? (If > > > you claim it is, then you claim you are as well, and in that case, I > > > would ask you what you think your velocity is right this second. You > > > don't even have to give me a number. Just tell me how you *would* > > > calculate it. What is the reference point that you would mark your > > > velocity with respect to?) > > > > > If > > > > such a contraction occurred, loose paperclips on your desk would > > > > rotate like compass needles to be aligned perpendicular to the > > > > compressive force (sic) of velocity. Additionally, all of the matter > > > > in the Earth would be alternately squeezed and relaxed (due to the > > > > ever-changing velocity component of the Earth), until either the Earth > > > > became a molten BLOB, or until the Earth stopped rotating on its axis > > > > and orbiting the Sun. > > > > Again, you have a confusion about what relativity actually says. > > > Relativistic length changes are NOT due to a physical compression like > > > squeezing something in a vise or driving something through a wind. > > > > > Of course, all of those would mean that none of > > > > us are alive... So very sad... that you are so BRAINLESS! Ha, ha, > > > > HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > That's how science works. > > > > > And what on earth makes you think that this stuff is "anti- > > > > > engineering"? > > > > > Perhaps you don't know that engineers make use of relativity in their > > > > > designs whenever it is needed? If it's anti-engineering, why are > > > > > engineers happy to use it as needed? > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Those energy equations have also been thoroughly tested in experiment, > > > > > John, exactly as I was stating. You on the other hand are trying to > > > > > rule them out with your bandy-legged logic, rather than considering > > > > > independently verified experimental tests. > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > What do you think I should have to show for it, John? > > > > You haven't answered this question, John. > > > > > > PD- 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 7 May 2010 16:16 On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD, you are a LIAR! Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Until you do (and you CAN'T) everyone will know that you are just an air- head FRAUD! NoEinstein > > On May 6, 8:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static > > weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in > > the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! > > NoEinstein > > I have explained this to you dozens of times. I gather that you do not > remember any of those posts, and you do not know how to use your > newsreader or Google to go back and find any of those dozens of times > when it has been explained to you. > > I surmise that you are slipping into dementia, where each day begins > anew, with any lessons learned the previous day forgotten. > > I don't think it's a good use of my time to explain the same thing to > you each day, only to have you retire at night and forget it by > morning, do you? > > PD
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 16:21 On May 7, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession, architecture. If I had a choice between designing great concert halls or etc., or figuring out how the Universe works and improving all of humanity, I would choose the latter every time! Concert halls are for the recreation of the lazy, like you. What great edifices have YOU built, in science or otherwise? NoEinstein > > On May 6, 8:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Tell me, PD: If I'm so "poorly suited" for scientific work, how is it > > that I've made a greater contribution to physics than all of the > > previous physicists put together? NoEinstein > > And if you're so poorly suited for architecture, how is it that you > have designed the grandest performance halls and the tallest buildings > in the world? > > What's the weather like today in NoEinsteinLand? > > > > > > > > On May 5, 2:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD: You are Mr. Negativity. You can only feel superior (sic) by > > > > putting others down. I wish I had had you for my teacher. I'd have > > > > made you the laughing-stock of the school! NE > > > > Oh dear. So you DO think reality checks are just negative put-downs. > > > Such a fragile ego you have, John. > > > You are very poorly suited for scientific work. This is not the place > > > for the thin-skinned. > > > > > > > On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think this is talking down to the student, John, as I made > > > > > clear. Would you think of this as an emotional smack-down if it > > > > > happened to you, or would you consider it a fair reality-check? Or do > > > > > you not like reality checks? Do you find reality checks to be nothing > > > > > but negativism?- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 16:24 why should Leibniz's rule on KE, violate conservation of energy -- isn't the onus upon you, to show that? why do you believe that waves of light have mass or momentum -- because of an equation? > Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 isn't > in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. thus: so, why do *you* believe that oil companies do not "like" the Kyoto Protocol and other capNtrade schemes ... even though several openly support them and GW ("Beyond Petroleum (TM)" e.g.) ?? thus: find Hipparchus' "lunes" proof of the pythagorean theorem -- if it was not the original proof -- and you'll see that circles are better fro areal mensuration; generalize to prove the spatial pythagorean theorems -- there are two of them -- and you'll see that, not only does second-powering have nothing in particular to with the tetragon, but also not with a two-dimensional object. thus: like I said, dimensional analysis is fine, and woe to he who ignores it, but it cannot be used ex post facto to remake a wave-form into a particle. surely, the wave can impart, at least, internal "momentum" to the atomic system that is tuned to absorb it. that is, whatever energy propogates through the *medium* of space, not a vacuum, is in its effect upon that medium just as waves in H2O. so, do not apply "momentum" to the wave, only as a formalism for the seemingly-aimed "photon" that was speared by the cone of your eye. so, you can use other, valid formlisms, like E=hf, or what ever. otherwise, you get absurdities like the EPR paradox, and simplistic statements about the photoelectrical effect. not to say that a total formalism of rocks o'light is not possible, and a gravity that is "pushed" by such-like, but it is probably at present "intractible," even as Huyghens wavelets are intractible, except for getting a concept of light, propogating. (photons are massless & cannot propogate at any speed, because they don't exist, is my feeling, even though they are the only "zero-D particle" that can "go at c.") as for wlym.com, folks who pretend to "do the math," should know what *mathematica* ("maths") is; if you "go" to wlym.com, and hit the Fermat button, and find the Geometrical Fragments pdf, you''ll find his reconstruction of Euclid's porisms, whis are quite elementary (and planar). lastly, here is a thought experiment: what are those little black & white paddle-wheels, tht rotate in the sunlight in clear globe?... since there is no actual vacuum in the globe, provide an *aerodynamical/thermal* explanation of the force, after waves of light have been absorbed by the black pigment in the vanes. thought of that, yesterday, after more of this chat. > Get rid of that [M] dimension in the photon equation thus: Moon could have supported life, a long time ago (i.e., smaller bodies have shorter lives), as is evidences by the remnants of plate tectonics (maria & highlands). > >http://www.meteorite.com/meteorite-gallery/meteorites-alpha_frame.htm thus: you call that, an explanation, "photons wedged apart by light rays?" an interesting relationship between two things that only exist as mathematics, both representing "rocks o'light!" thus: you are pretending to define "complex 4-vectors," but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time, while it is quite obvious that the "time part" is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates, either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway, bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions. and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that a phase-space tells you what time really is; it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though, as in electronics (although, NB, electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space, instead of quaternions, as it could be, for some reason .-) maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do, is work the math of quaternions ... that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean, what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis with a "different sign" and a different letter, whether or not negatives are even needed?) --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 16:27
On May 7, 9:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Musical talent and mathematical ability are the most demanding of the brain traits to develop, and are indicative of higher intellect. I can hold-my-own in any brass band. And you? NoEinstein > > On May 6, 8:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD: I learned to play the Cornet, by ear, to professional quality. > > There were no lessons required, nor books to be read. NoEinstein > > And your assessment of professional quality is made by professionals? > Or is all the assessment of your own accomplishments done by yourself? > > > > On May 4, 7:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 11:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD: In large measure, BOOKS bias the readers. But my logical > > > > thinking is without bias! NE > > > > Just like "Professor" Harold Hill in Music Man, who teaches music via > > > "the Think Method". > > > > > > On May 3, 9:49 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Other readers don't seem to have the same phobias about opening books > > > > > that you do, John. > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |