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: PD on 7 May 2010 17:21 On May 7, 3:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 9:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: Everyone can form their own opinions. You, with certainty, are a > jealous imbecile. You never talk science, only processeswhich never > caused you to accomplish anything worthy. NE > The question below is about science. There is only one correct answer. Opinion doesn't enter into it. What does your common sense tell you the one correct answer is, John? Suddenly you seem very timid... > > > > On May 6, 9:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 5, 12:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Common sense sure... "cheated" you, PD, because you don't have any! > > > That's why YOU are a liarto compensate! NoEinstein > > > If you will answer the multiple-choice question below on the basis of > > your common-sense, then this will be an excellent test of whether > > common-sense is a liar and a cheat. > > > Are you afraid to confront the truth about your common sense, John? > > Are you not strong enough to inspect common sense in the face to learn > > whether it should be trusted? Are you a man, John, or a spineless > > weakling? > > > > > On May 5, 2:42 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 4, 11:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Dunce: Those who... escape into books are the ones with the > > > > > phobiasmainly being found-out not to have much common sense. > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > Common sense is a liar and a cheat, NoEinstein. > > > > Here is an example, in a multiple-choice question. Which answer is > > > > correct? > > > > You toss a watermelon horizontally off the roof of a 10-story > > > > building. Which statement is correct about the motion of the > > > > watermelon, according to your common sense? > > > > a) The horizontal motion slows down until gravity can overcome the > > > > horizontal motion and drive vertical motion. > > > > b) Gravity turns horizontal motion into vertical motion. > > > > c) The horizontal motion stays completely unchanged, and vertical > > > > motion is added by gravity. > > > > d) The watermelon proceeds in a diagonal line to the ground, with > > > > constant components of horizontal and vertical motion.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 17:22 On May 7, 3:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. I'm not disparaging your profession at all. I'm casting doubt on your qualifications to practice that profession. > 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! Then why did you choose architecture instead? > 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: Timo Nieminen on 7 May 2010 17:29 On May 8, 5:57 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 2:21 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Dear Timo: On the one hand you compliment me; on the other you chide > me for not having all of the numbers at my fingertips. No, I tell you that all of these numbers are available on www, so you don't even need to go and look in a book. When you sit at your keyboard, the relevant numbers _are_ at your fingertips. It's an obvious test. Since you claim your theory explains reality, I expected that you would have compared the two - your theory and reality - and checked if they agree. My mistake - you don't seem to have done this. You give a clear and easily checked statement: > Since gravity is > directly proportional to photon emission (not gravitons, which dont > exist), then it is the luminosity and the temperature of the light > that determine the gravity of stars. But before it's worth checking this, you should clarify: (1) By "directly proportional", you mean: gravity = (constant) times (photon emission)? That's is, linear proportionality. Or do you mean something else? (2) What do you mean by "photon emission"? What you mean by "photon" might not be what conventional science means by "photon". How is "photon emission" related to radiated power? Since the bolometric luminosity is the total radiated power, is there any _further_ dependence on temperature beyond its effect on the bolometric luminosity. (If talking about visual luminosity, then, yes, the bolometric luminosity depends on the visual luminosity and the temperature.) > At room temperatures gravity is mass proportional, and matches > Newtons law. There has to be an object-size threshold that DENIES > mass in favor of surface area and temperature. This is new. You didn't say anything about this that I saw before. > I suspect that a > heated Cavendish ball will have gravity somewhere between the room > temperature, and the white hot. "Suspect" isn't good enough for the experiment to be worthwhile. It's directly connected to the following point which you didn't address in your reply. Do note that this is absolutely essential for the experiment to be worthwhile (as you will no doubt already know, since this is a simple matter of logic and analytical ability). To repeat the question: if a Cavendish experiment _doesn't_ detect a greater gravitational force, what does that mean for your theory? > > > Consider this: If you can heat one ball white hot, > > > and you DO detect a greater gravity, youve confirmed my theory. > > > It would _support_ your theory, not confirm it in any absolute sense. > > If one tries this and _doesn't_ detect a greater gravitational force, > > would that mean your theory is wrong and it's time to forget it and move > > on?
From: PD on 7 May 2010 18:07 On May 7, 3:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 Oh, but I have. If you really need to have it explained again, I ask you this time to print it out. The law of conservation of energy says that any change in the energy of a system must be due solely to the work done on the system. The work is the force acting on the object times the displacement of the object. So any change in energy of the object must be due solely to this work. In the case of a falling body released from rest, we'll look at the increase in the kinetic energy, which must be due to the work done by the only force acting on the body -- gravity. If the increase of kinetic energy the body has at any time is accounted for by the work that was done on the body during that time, then we know that the law of conservation of energy has been respected. In the first second, the body will fall 16 ft. In the next second, it will fall an additional 48 feet. In the third second, it will fall an additional 80 feet. During these first three seconds, the force has remained constant, so that it is the same in the first second, the second second, the third second. The speed increases linearly, so that it is falling at 32 ft/s after the first second, 64 ft/s after the second second, and 96 ft/s after the third second. Now, let's take a look at the work. The work done since the drop, after the first second, is the force of gravity times the displacement. This is mass x g x (16 ft). So this is how much kinetic energy the object has after one second. Now, in the second second, we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (48 ft), since that's the displacement for the next second. This increases the kinetic energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (16 ft + 48 ft) = mass x g x (64 ft), and that number is four times bigger than it was after the first second. Now, in the third second, we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (80 ft), since that's the displacement for the next sentence. Since energy is conserved, this added energy must add to the kinetic energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (64 ft + 80 ft) = mass x g x (144 ft), and that number is nine times bigger than it was after the first second. Now, it should be plain that the kinetic energy is conserved, since the only thing that has been contributing to it is the work done in subsequent seconds. We lost nothing, and we added only that which gravity added. The energy is conserved. It should also be apparent that the kinetic energy is increasing in the ratios 1:4:9. Meanwhile, the velocities are increasing linearly, in the ratios 1:2:3. Now, any fourth grader can see that we've completely conserved energy, losing track of nothing, and yet the kinetic energy is increasing as the square of the velocity. 1:4:9 are the squares of 1:2:3. There is no violation of conservation of kinetic energy, and yet KE is proportional to v^2. Now, don't you feel silly that a 4th grader can understand all of this, but you've never understood it? > > > > > 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: PD on 7 May 2010 18:13
On May 7, 3:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: No. Since you are a fraud, I would be > happy if you could find, and paraphrase, even one bit of evidence > supporting, Lorentz. He and Einstein (ha!) were meant for each other! > NE Oh, this is easy. There is a circular track that circulates muons at a lab called g-2. Here is a picture of it, in case you doubt it's real: http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/pictures/g2magnet2.jpg The ring is about 30 feet across and about 90 feet around. Muons at rest live for 2.2 microseconds, which is easily observed with a Navy surplus oscilloscope. If the muons lived that long in the ring, they would go around the ring about 24 times before decaying. Instead, they go around 37 times. That is, they live longer when they are traveling fast around the ring. But the extra time they have before decaying is exactly what Lorentz time dilation says they will have. Perfect example of just one bit of evidence that time dilation is real. There is of course scads and scads of further evidence. There. Short and sweet, and indisputable. > > > > > On May 6, 8:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 5, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you have "other" supporting evidence > > > for Lorentz (ha!), paraphrase it! You are all bluster and no > > > substance! NoEinstein > > > John, as I said, there are SCORES of independent experiments that have > > all provided experimental evidence. You might as well be asking for a > > paraphrased summary of the support for Newton's laws of motion. > > > If you want to understand the depth of the experimental support, then > > you're going to have to immerse yourself in the OVERWHELMINGLY MASSIVE > > documentation of that support. That's the only way to truly convince > > yourself. > > > > > On May 4, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Whatever the truth is, PD contorts it. "Rubber Rulers" has no > > > > > supporting experiment! Lorentz, the imbecile, used RR to 'explain' > > > > > the nil results of M-M. Then, supposed scientists say that M-M > > > > > SUPPORTS Lorentz! Where are the brains, and WHERE is the scientific > > > > > method! NE > > > > > Of course there are supporting experiments, John. You seem to be under > > > > the impression that the MMX was the only experiment ever done to test > > > > relativity and that the whole of relativity rests on this one > > > > experiment, so that if you somehow fault the MMX, then all of > > > > relativity falls. > > > > > Nothing could be further from the truth, John. Relativity has been > > > > tested in scores of experiments, all independent of each other. > > > > > > > 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.. > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |