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: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 20:24 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 > > 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 -
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 20:26 On May 4, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: That "Chair" who sent the H. S. student to you, probably figured your I. Q, was low enough to relate! NE > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 20:28 On May 4, 2:07 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. > > --John Park- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear John: Are you... with me, or against me? NoEinstein
From: spudnik on 4 May 2010 20:40 he's saying that you "drew a conclusion" that wasn't stated in your quoted reference; certainly, if "mass times acceleration" is in unuts of force, then "mass times velocity" cannot be. and what in Hell has Coriolis got to do with it, as important as his dyscovery was? > > I can't help noticing that the actual quoted passage is reasonable and > > the inference about forces is purely in NE's words. thus: what glaciers really do, while gently flowing out to sea in a dynamic stasis (well, on Antarctica and Greenland), is that the boulders stuck in the underside grind teh bedrock into dust (some times blown, later, into deposits of loess). [ref.: J.D.Hamaker, retired mechanical engr., who worked at an oil company.] thus: nor are most glaciers actually receding, although this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack of historical data on nearly all glaciers. satellite telemetry has shown almost no change of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect, considering that there is as much ice as can be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve, period." > OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, > 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. thus: it's just a "paradox" of assuming that it is a photon, when it is merely a wave; obviously, a thing with p=mv not equal to zero, can't have one of the terms being zero; so, it is not a particle or Newtonian corpuscle -- and did they *have* to give Einstein a Nobel, just to reify that foolishness of his? > There is no mass in the momentum of the photon. thus: it's probably just his grasp of English; don't you think? as for "Newton's law," its universality is actually due to Kepler; Hooke merely algebraized Kepler's orbital constraints, using some work of Huyghens (then, Knewton stole the inverse second-power thing from Hooke, and destroyed Hooke's portraits .-) thus: I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing; am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place to measure CO2, it's still just one place, with a record since the '60s (I think). now, most of the effect of humans may not be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all, oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.) thus: most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor on your so-called theory. but, why do you say that conversation of momentum supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum of light in some standard theory? and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and that F = ma is not, and some thing about Coriolis' force, merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > - The future determines the past > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: mpc755 on 4 May 2010 20:46
On May 4, 7:31 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical > interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school > of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; > they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness > of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor > on your so-called theory. but, > why do you say that conversation of momentum > supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum > of light in some standard theory? > If conventional 'wisdom' understood a downgraded photon pair maintains the original photons momentum, there would be no 'delayed choice' or 'quantum eraser' nonsense. The following is an explanation of what occurs in nature in a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. |