Re: The Fifth Dimension

From: Leonard Pardin (leoppard_at_MailAndNews.com)
Date: 06/28/04 

Date: 28 Jun 2004 05:31:32 -0700

D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au (David McAnally) wrote in message news:<cbmqv7$21g$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
> leoppard@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) writes:
>
>
> For myself, I note that you also ignored where I pointed out all the
> PHYSICAL reasons why your hypothesis, i.e. that resonance was responsible
> for the photoelectric effect, was wrong. You argued (again) by analogy,
> and you came to a conclusion (through a very invalid argument), and you
> carried on believing that your presumption, i.e. that resonance was
> responsible for the photoelectric effect, was true. You didn't even
> bother to find out the physical evidence - you presumably didn't see the
> need to check the physical evidence. And then when the physical evidence
> falsifies your presumption, you ignore the fact.

    The simple fact is that the key to the photoelectric effect is
frequency. Frequency is a wave phenomenon. Einstein's followers offer
the nonsensical explanation that particles have frequencies. But no
one can explain how a particle can have a frequency. You insist on a
solution to one problem by simply creating another. You might as well
insist that photons have wings and the frequency is the number of wing
flaps.

> Wave-particle duality is a part of Quantum Mechanics. And "wave" does not
> mean "particle", and "particle" does not mean "wave". The words still
> mean the same things that they do in classical physics. Wave-particle
> duality is the statement that quantum objects exhibit the properties of
> both waves and particles. This may be contrary to what you think, but it
> is the height of arrogance for you to assert the the microscopic world
> behaves in exactly the same way as the macroscopic world, and then to
> assume that such an assertion is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH just because you
> happen to believe it.

     "Absolute truth" is the claim of the Einsteinians. You are beside
yourself simply because I question Einstein's explanations. To
question Einstein is a sin to you people. Well, I think the old boy
had it all wrong, and I question just about everything Einstein did.

>
> The laws of logic that Einstein used in the Theory of Relativity are
> EXACTLY THE SAME laws of logic that were used in classical mechanics, and
> exactly the same that are used in all of science. But you are too
> ignorant to understand that.
>
> And tell me whether or not you believe the following two syllogisms are
> valid (just testing to see whether or not you can distinguish between a
> valid syllogism and an invalid syllogism):
>
> 1. All cats are dogs.
> All dogs are horses.
> Therefore all cats are horses.

     Well, let's see: cats sometimes display the properties of dogs,
and dogs sometimes display the properties of cats--sort of like
particles and waves. So it seems that under Einsteinian logic, any
statement that all of something is something-or-other is no longer
valid. As for horses, well if Einstein can transform radiation energy
into kinetic energy (two completely different animals) with the waive
of a constant, we should have no trouble transforming cats and dogs
into horses if their frequencies are known.

>
> 2. All cats are mammals.
> All carnivores are mammals.
> Therefore all cats are carnivores.
>
> Is Syllogism 1 valid or invalid? Is Syllogism 2 valid or invalid?
 

     That second one is easy. Watch how Einstein did it:
             All light radiation is energy.
             All body motion (kinetic) is energy.
             Therefore all light radiation energy is kinetic energy.

     See? Before Einstein, I would have thought that syllogism was
invalid, but now I know better.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nameless critics on the Internet and critical analysis of Einsteins E=mc2
    ... E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. ... In his 1905 paper Einstein did not ... Yes, it is completely recognized, as published in peer review journals. ... There may be back door critics but none of the scientists have dared to ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Einsteins Unfortunate Legacy #1
    ... Dr. Einstein is credited with being a modern Newton who provided a sea change shift in our understanding of physical reality... ... In 1905 an anonymous patent clerk in Bern rewrote the laws of physics ... molecules by studying their motion in a solution. ... on special relativity and the photoelectric effect, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Position Without Space
    ... a single new fundamental breakthrough in physics for over a century. ... Louis, the poor guy, reminds me of being a mullah in Jerusalem ... like "particles" in his theory did not go over too well. ... Let's face it, Newton, Einstein and Savain, all are describing, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 100 Years of E=mc2
    ... E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. ... In his 1905 paper Einstein did not ... Yes, it is completely recognized, as published in peer review journals. ... There may be back door critics but none of the scientists have dared to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... Einstein, but without a critical eye, nor the objectivity to realize ... fundamental yet unresolved problems [in physics]. ... detect Earth's motion through the aether. ... Maxwell's electrodynamics could not, for example, explain ...
    (sci.physics)