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 13 May 2010 11:14 On May 12, 10:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 10, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: In arguments over FORCES, the engineers and architects, who > deal in real world problems, trump the HEP Physics majors who only > know about the small and the insignificant. If a 250 pound linebacker > hits you with a stated velocity, you will experience the action of a > weight and velocity proportional FORCE. And all forces are in POUNDS, > only! NE > > Gotta love that.
From: spudnik on 13 May 2010 15:21 on the wayside, directly proportional means, not inversely proportional, as in the "inverse second-power law" that Hooke derived from Kepler's orbital constraints (and, it has nothing in particular to do with "skwares" .-) thus: the M-set's property of "universality" or self- similarity -- the mini-bugs like the big cardioid -- is strictly an artifact of the floating-point spec (and its many implimentations); however, monsieur M. could only beg the question, over ten years ago, because he never bothered to speak with the engineers at his IBM fellowship. (he had not gotten any further, when he came to campus & spoke, again, couple o'years ago .-) > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0112/0112317v1.pdf > Fractals are usually build with complex numbers, like the Mandelbrodt thus: yeah, but what is the integer, Avagadro's number?... do you know the surfer's value of pi? thus: well, that is where the problem with assigning a particle to a wave, a la de Broglie et al, comes. the assumption, that causes folks to say "particle," is that because a quantum (wave) of light is absorbed by one atom of siver dioxide (say, in the photographic emulsion; or, other detector) --some how-- that it must be that a rock of light hit the electronic orbital (although this is never specified, as to how it could be, and the whole problem of EM is also hard to describe, and is confounded with the absurd notion of the "plane wave"). this is really all of a confusion from Newton's "geometrical optics," that is, the "ray" of light, which is just one "normal" to the wave (or Huyghens wavelet). > You assume the particle exits both slits because you assume the > particle creates the interference pattern in and of itself. thus: about your five "cloture" events, the real problem is that "the Fed" was never properly ratified (and is unconstitutional for that reason, if not directly; it is modeled upon the Federal Reserve System of England). of coursel the 527 cmtes. have essentially taken over the TV advertizing on all national issues & candidates, through an Act that was passed unaanimously in both houses. > "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60 thus: I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can be made, and gasoline fuel cells, what is the problem with Fossilized Fuels (TM), which ain't fossilized? ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article, which is not quite what I was refering to! > Thorium has other interesting features. For example, in > oxide form as would probably be used, Thorium has a > higher thermal conductivity than Uranium oxide. That > means the fuel will be cooler for any given power output. > It's got interesting mechanical properties also. > There are a number of new reactor designs being touted. > http://thorium.50webs.com/ thus: Copenhagen's "reifiying" of the mere probabilities of detection, is the biggest problem, whence comes both "perfect vacuum" and "quantum foam" etc. ad vomitorium, as well as the brain-dead "photon" of massless and momentumless and pointy rocks o'light, perfectly aimed at the recieving cone in your eye, like a small pizza pie. thus: all vacuums are good, if they suck hard enough, but there is no absolute vacuum, either on theoretical or Copenhagenskooler fuzzy math grounds. thus: magnetohydrodynamics is probably the way to go, yes; not "perfect vacuum or bearings" -- and, where did the link about YORP, include any thing about the air-pressure?... seems to me, it's assuming Pascal's old, perfected Plenum. twist your mind away from the "illustrated in _Conceptual Physics/for Dummies_" nothingness of the massless & momentumless & pointy "photon" of the Nobel-winning "effect" in an electronic device -- yeah, CCDs -- the Committee's lame attempt to "save the dysappearance" of Newton's corpuscle. also, please don't brag about free God-am energy, til you can demonstrate it in a perpetuum mobile! > It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids thus: so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes on a spindle in a relative vacuum? you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically by atoms in them; then, perhaps, the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one. thus: even if neutrinos don't exist, Michelson and Morely didn't get no results! > Could neutrino availability affect decay rates? thus: every technique has problems. like, you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic, without a good lightbulb. the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication, the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub, the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium). > Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 03:02 On May 13, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: You are an absolute paradox: On the one hand you shun "what I am sellingmy New Science"; and on the other you survive only to, hopefully, elevate your lame intellectual status by protecting the status quo of physics from being disproved. Your only means of raising your status is now FAILING, PD, by about 19 to one. That's because no more than 5% of your fellow dunces support what you are doing. [*** An actual poll of the readers would be welcomed.] Your "right" to be here, if it were just a matter of free speech, would be clear. But since your motive is to ANCHOR having there be any progress, by anyone, in SCIENCE, then, you are a person to be disdained by the Human Race. "Without CHANGE there can be no progress." Without the PDs of this world, there SHALL be progress! NoEinstein P. S.: I don't need PD as "a client", nor would I accept such a failed pedant as him for a client. > > On May 12, 9:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I chose Architecture, PD, because the subject is BIG, like my > > capabilities. You chose High Energy Particle Physics, because those > > objects are TINY, like your BRAIN! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > Then stick to architecture, John. Not that I'll be a customer. > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 03:54 On May 7, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: ... and what does THAT have to do with the price-of-eggs in China? NE > > On May 6, 9:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Consider this, PD: The validity of any science theory is inversely > > proportional to the time spend debating it. Einstein's 'relativity' > > has been debated for over a century, and such is patently WRONG! > > NoEinstein > > There is ongoing debate about whether the Earth is flat, John.http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm > Since this debate has been going on for 500 years, by your argument, > the claim that the earth is round is 5x as wrong as relativity is. > > > > > > > > On May 5, 2:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD: And the point of your 'addition' extrapolation is? Your science > > > > notions are shallow enough without implying that I have disavowed > > > > common math. If Einstein had known how to do simple mathnowhere in > > > > evidence in his (mindless) equation physicsperhaps the dark ages of > > > > Einstein wouldn't have lasted so long. NoEinstein > > > > You made a general statement that if something is generally accepted, > > > then that is a sign that it is nearly certainly WRONG. > > > > Now you don't seem so sure. > > > > You don't want to disavow common math, but you are certainly willing > > > to disavow common, grade school mechanics like Newton's 2nd law. And I > > > want to point out again that this has nothing to do with the "dark > > > ages of Einstein", since Newton's 2nd law has been around for 323 > > > years! You've decided that all of physics since Galileo and Newton are > > > the dark ages! Einstein has nothing to do with your complaint. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 04:05
On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: Tell us, PD: How have you "cast doubt" on my ability to practice architecture? If you think you have any insights at all regarding my qualifications, list them one-by-one. If I was so a- mind, I could sue you for every penny in your worthless bank account! NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |