There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "The Einstein Hoax"
Next: ALL DIZEAZZEZ ARE DEZERVED ! ESPECIALLY THE CANCER GOODY, BACKBONE OF THE JUICY DIZEAZZEZ INDUSTRY
From: PD on 4 May 2010 11:40 On May 3, 9:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 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?
From: PD on 4 May 2010 11:44 On May 3, 10:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 3, 12:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 1, 9:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Several times before you have referenced > > > Newton's ERRANT F = ma. > > > Ah, excellent, just so it's clear. You're problem then isn't with > > Einstein and the physics of the 20th century. It's with all of physics > > since the 1600's. Basically, it's just ALL plain wrong, everything > > that is taught to schoolchildren from the 3rd grade on. And you, in > > your infinite genius, have discovered this by the power of reason. > > > > Most equations that contain a "mass" can be > > > changed to be a UNIT mass of one pound (or whatever). The "textbook" > > > definition of MOMENTUM is F = mv. > > > I'm sorry, but that equation appears in no textbook anywhere. > > If you disagree, cite the textbook and the page number. > > > > The latter mass can also be changed > > > to be a unit mass of one pound (or whatever). SO... Since both > > > equations are forces, > > > First of all, you just said it was an equation for momentum (though > > you got it wrong), not a force. > > > Good heavens, John, you've gotten confused two equations for two > > different quantities, you can't even get one written down right and > > you call the other one wrong. > > > You're a mental case, John. > > > > set the right half of the two equations to be > > > EQUAL, or: ma = mv. Since the masses are both one pound unit masses, > > > then, the resulting equation says: ACCELERATION = VELOCITY! Even an > > > imbecile like you, PD, should realize that velocity, (or say) feet/ > > > sec, isn't the same as feet/second EACH second! > > > > Ironically, I was studying for college physics when I realized the > > > conflict between those two equations. That same week, I concluded > > > that the entire chapter on mechanics was screwed up. Newton' "Law", > > > in words, says: For every uniform force, there is one and only one > > > associated acceleration. The correct equation for that should have > > > been F = a, provided, of course, that the relationships between those > > > two variables are stipulated, or are included in a less generalized > > > equation. > > > > The equation for MOMENTUM, F = mv, is correct! For objects in free > > > fall, or objects that are accelerating, the correct kinetic energy > > > formula is my own: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). The latter replaces > > > both KE = 1/2mv^2 and E = mc^2 / beta. What contributions have > > > YOU made to science, PD? Ha. ha, HA! NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear PD: A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the > bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E > Bennett, states on page 19: "G. Momentum and Impulse. (1.) Momentum > is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." The > letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. > NoEinstein Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to secure it to look at it. From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and should be burned as worthless. If this is what you learned physics from in your architectural studies, then I have absolutely no doubt that you and your firm are on thin legal ground. PD
From: John Park on 4 May 2010 14:07 PD (thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com) writes: > On May 3, 10:07=A0pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> Dear PD: =A0A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the >> bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E >> Bennett, states on page 19: "G. =A0Momentum and Impulse. =A0(1.) =A0Momen= > tum >> is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." =A0The >> letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. =A0= > =97 >> NoEinstein =97 > > Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to > secure it to look at it. > From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you > can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and > should be burned as worthless. > To quote the Spartans on a quite different occasion: If. I can't help noticing that the actual quoted passage is reasonable and the inference about forces is purely in NE's words. --John Park
From: PD on 4 May 2010 14:53 On May 4, 1:07 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: > > On May 3, 10:07=A0pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >> Dear PD: =A0A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the > >> bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E > >> Bennett, states on page 19: "G. =A0Momentum and Impulse. =A0(1.) =A0Momen= > > tum > >> is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." =A0The > >> letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. =A0= > > =97 > >> NoEinstein =97 > > > Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to > > secure it to look at it. > > From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you > > can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and > > should be burned as worthless. > > To quote the Spartans on a quite different occasion: If. > > I can't help noticing that the actual quoted passage is reasonable and > the inference about forces is purely in NE's words. Exactly. For what it's worth, momentum's *definition* is not mv, either. Electromagnetic fields have momentum, but this expression certainly does not work for them. The formula works for a certain class of matter-based objects traveling at low speed, and that's it. PD
From: mpc755 on 4 May 2010 15:08
On May 4, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 4, 1:07 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > > > > > PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: > > > On May 3, 10:07=A0pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >> Dear PD: =A0A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the > > >> bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E > > >> Bennett, states on page 19: "G. =A0Momentum and Impulse. =A0(1.) =A0Momen= > > > tum > > >> is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." =A0The > > >> letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. =A0= > > > =97 > > >> NoEinstein =97 > > > > Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to > > > secure it to look at it. > > > From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you > > > can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and > > > should be burned as worthless. > > > To quote the Spartans on a quite different occasion: If. > > > I can't help noticing that the actual quoted passage is reasonable and > > the inference about forces is purely in NE's words. > > Exactly. > > For what it's worth, momentum's *definition* is not mv, either. > Electromagnetic fields have momentum, but this expression certainly > does not work for them. The formula works for a certain class of > matter-based objects traveling at low speed, and that's it. > > PD What occurs physically in nature to cause and electromagnetic field to have momentum? Looks like we have another item to add to the list of things you can not explain. Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature. If you can't explain it then its dogma: - The future determines the past - Virtual particles exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is different than Maxwell's displacement current - Mass is not conserved. - An electromagnetic field to have momentum. The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter. - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is the analogous to Maxwell's displacement current. - Matter and aether are different states of the same material. In E=mc^2, Energy is matter transitioning to aether. Mass is conserved. - An electromagnetic field has momentum due to the connections between the matter and the aether. An electromagnetic field is caused by a change in the aether's state of displacement. This is what Maxwell referred to as a displacement current. While a C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. While a C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Explain how this is possible. In Aether Displacement, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave and the C-60 molecule ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. It is the displacement wave in the aether which enters and exits multiples slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether wave (i.e. turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference. |