Re: The Fifth Dimension

From: David McAnally (D.McAnally_at_i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: 29 Jun 2004 05:09:53 GMT

The immaturely offensive and insulting behaviour in which you indulge
below can be attributed to your attitude of "Deeper understanding through
complete ignorance of the topic", an attitude which no sane, rational, or
reasonable person could possibly hold. In other words, your offensive
behaviour is built on an insane belief to which you are holding like glue.

leoppard@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) writes:

>D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au (David McAnally) wrote in message news:
>> leoppard@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) writes:

>> >Einstein's followers offer
>> >the nonsensical explanation that particles have frequencies.

>> That is in Quantum Mechanics, for which, as I have already pointed out to
>> you, Einstein was not a principal investigator.

> McaAnally, I am beginning to think you have never read Einstein.

Of course I have read Einstein.

>You yourself said particles are necessary to explain the photoelectric
>effect, and that was supposed to be Einstein's prize-winning paper.
>Here's what Einstein said about it in that paper:

> "In accordance with the assumption to be considered here, the
>energy of a light ray spreading out from a point source is not
>continuously distributed over an increasing space, but consists of a
>finite number of energy quanta which are localized at points in space,
>which move without dividing, and which can only be produced and
>absorbed as complete units."

Idiot Pardin, I am perfectly well aware of the fact. But what was written
above was not a formulation of quantum mechanics, and if you had bothered
to educate yourself on the matter, then you would have known what the
history of quantum mechanics was actually like. What you have quoted
above came from ONE SINGLE PAPER in 1905, at the EARLY STAGES of the
development of a theory which did not get a proper formulation until MORE
THAN TWENTY YEARS after Einstein wrote that paper. Do you think that
nothing was happening during those twenty years? Yes, Einstein did write
that paper, and he did some other work in quantum mechanics as well, but
that does not make him a *principal* investigator in quantum mechanics, in
spite of what you might think. Principal investigators include Bohr,
Pauli, Fermi, Schroedinger and Heisenberg. Other investigators include
Born, Dirac, Wigner and de Broglie. Schroedinger and Heisenberg
independently formulated the rigorous version of quantum mechanics, and
then Dirac proved that the two formulations are equivalent.

After quantum mechanics had received its proper formulation and the
consequences of quantum mechanics started to be investigated, Einstein
found some of those consequences to be unpalatable, and so he started his
campaign against the acceptance of quantum mechanics as a complete theory
of the physical world. Einstein saw quantum mechanics not as the proper
and correct theory of the quantum world, but as an approximation and a
simplification to the correct theory, which was yet to be determined.
Einstein set about to attempt to determine this new theory.

In view of Einstein's antipathy to the consequences of quantum mechanics,
it is laughable that you consider Einstein to be more important in the
history of quantum mechanics than anybody else. Yes, Einstein did make
contributions, but other people made far greater and far more important
contributions than Einstein did, and it was other people who finally got
quantum mechanics on its feet.

> So there is your dopey deity talking about "localized points in
>space which move with out dividing."

This is not the same as Einstein being a principal investigator in quantum
mechanics. The paper was a minor step in the early development of the
theory. I didn't say that Einstein was not an investigator in quantum
mechanics. He was an investigator, but not a principal investigator.
Try to learn the difference between an "investigator" and a "principal
investigator".

>If Einstein is not talking about
>particles, then you lied about particles being necessary to explain
>the photoelectric effect.

I said that particles were necessary to explain the photoelectric effect
while the description of the photoelectric material remains classical. I
also said that once you take the quantum description of the photoelectric
material, it is conceivable that the wave nature of the EM field may be
sufficient (I do not know for sure - others might have a better idea).
Yes, Einstein was, to all intents and purposes, talking about particles,
just as Planck did. He did not express it as such, and I have to presume
that that was because he thought that the possibility existed that the
description could be made consistent with something other than particles,
i.e. Einstein presumably was not committing himself to particles only.

I note that you have still not retracted your hypothesis that resonance
was responsible for the photoelectric effect, in spite of the fact that
I demonstrated that your hypothesis contradicted the physical behaviour
of the photoelectric effect (and I demonstrated in three different ways
that your hypothesis contradicted the physical behaviour).

>If he is talking about particles, then you
>keep lying by insisting that Einstein is not the one who claimed
>particles have "frequencies."

I never said that Einstein was not the one who claimed that. You have
made something up, and then attributed it to me, and then accused me of
lying for making a statement which I never made, but which you falsely
attributed to me. Thus demonstrating once again that you are nothing
but a liar.

What Einstein *did* do, was to reiterate Planck's assumption that light of
a particular frequency was decomposable into a finite number of energy
quanta, with the energy of the quantum being proportional to the frequency
of the light.

> Now, stop all your childish tantrums, go play with your
>mathematics, and let the grownups discuss the the problems with modern
>physics.

Says one of the most immature of the bunch. You are the one who throws
childish tantrums. Your immaturity has been manifest right from the
start. You are nothing but a childish troll who thinks that it is great
to insult those people who actually do know they are writing about. My
responses to you have always been borne of exasperation as a direct result
of your continued refusal to act in a reasonable and mature manner, and
your continual refusal to even try to learn anything, along with your
superiority complex and enormous ego. You feel superior to others with
nothing to feel superior about.

You have the attitude that your ignorance of physical theories gives you a
deeper understanding of the physical world than those who have spent years
studying those theories. Don't you realize how immature that particular
attitude is? How could anybody seriously believe in "Deeper understanding
through greater ignorance"? And yet, you have made that belief a
fundamental plank in your approach to physics.

You are ignorant of mathematics and Newtonian mechanics, and you have been
informed by other people on this newsgroup, as well as by myself, that you
require these in order to be able to even understand Einstein's papers, or
the Theory of Relativity. View for example, your ignorance of the
relation between Newton's Third Law of Motion and kinetic energy when you
first started your "fascination with E = mc^2" thread. That was a good
demonstration of your ignorance regarding even the most basic fundamentals
of Newtonian mechanics. View your continuing ignorance of the Law of
Conservation of Energy, a very important principle in Newtonian mechanics.
You assumed that an isolated object in a vacuum does not lose heat, thus
demonstrating your ignorance of the transfer of heat through radiation.
The electromagnetic field is a thermodynamic system in its own right.
Electromagnetic theory and thermodynamics, treating the radiation purely
as waves, leads not only to a profile which contradicts the experimentally
observed profile, but to a profile which could never have been
experimentally observed (a profile which contradicted physics). When
Planck first introduced his energy quanta of light (note that it was
*Planck* and not Einstein who introduced the quanta), he was able to
obtain a profile which was not only possible, but which also matched the
experimentally observed profile.

Often, people (myself included) have taken great pains to explain things
in great detail to you, often several times over, when you don't
understand things, and when you make false statements. You then ignore
all that you have been told, and continue to make the false claims. When
you wrote your mistaken statements for the first time, they could be
attributed to your ignorance. Your further repeated false assertions
(made in the face of all denials and explanations why you were wrong, and
with your ignoring all such denials and explanations) can only be
attributed to malice on your part. How can the fact that you ignore all
these denials be considered to be maturity on your part? How can the fact
that you ignore all the carefully written explanations be considered to be
maturity on your part? How can your continuing to spout out the
falsehoods in spite of denials and explanations be considered to be
maturity on your part?

You are continually, falsely and unjustly, attributing statements to
various people, and then attacking the same people on the basis of the
statements that you have falsely attributed to them. You did it to
Einstein recently, and you have done it to me above. That is certainly
dishonest, and it is certainly immature behaviour on your part.

And where are your one word answers to the question about whether the
following two syllogisms are valid or invalid in classical logic? It
is a simple test of your understanding of the laws of classical logic, the
logic without which you cannot competently discuss anything in science.

    Syllogism 1:

        All cats are dogs.
        All dogs are horses.

        Therefore all cats are horses.

    Syllogism 2:

        All cats are mammals.
        All carnivores are mammal.

        Therefore all cats are carnivores.

Is Syllogism 1 valid or invalid (a one word answer: "Valid" or "Invalid"
will suffice for the present)?

Is Syllogism 2 valid or invalid (a one word answer: "Valid" or "Invalid"
will suffice for the present)?

It would appear that you don't have the brains, or ability, to work out
the validity or otherwise of the Syllogisms. As I said, it is a question
of your understanding of logic.

And you have not answered my questions regarding your educational
background. Evidently you failed mathematics and physics at high school,
and you did not do any mathematics and physics at college or university,
or do any other science for that matter. At yet you have the hide to be
contemptuous, with no justification whatsoever, of those people who have
a much better grounding than you do (i.e. those people who have actually
done the hard work at university and have earned their higher education
degrees in the subjects). You are like the toddler who wants to break
world records in athletics before you can even walk properly. You really
are beneath contempt.

David

        And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds,
        to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before -
        and thus was the Empire forged.

-----

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Fifth Dimension
    ... Of course I have read Einstein. ... above was not a formulation of quantum mechanics, ... You have the attitude that your ignorance of physical theories gives you a ... You are continually, falsely and unjustly, attributing statements to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Value of Einsteins Mistakes
    ... The Value of Einstein's Mistakes ... Einstein wrote that he thought his revolutionary ... Einstein could have developed the first true quantum mechanics, ... But in the course of developing general relativity, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Lock picking to survive
    ... > Is that the same dropout student of physics Stuart Grey ... Einstein could not accept this lack of certainty; ... "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. ... for its mathematics did not describe individual events. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Lock picking to survive
    ... What makes this one special is that zat attacks me for being CORRECT, and is too dimwitted and ignorant to realize that he is attacking me for being correct. ... Dropped out, got an Engineering Degree and has gone back to finish that physics degree, thanks. ... His "God does not play dice with the universe" rebuttal to quantum mechanics is legendary. ... Einstein could not accept this lack of certainty; ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Boneheadtord "mixem up his frades"
    ... CONTRADICTIONS. ... RELATIVITY HAS ONLY 4-D OBJECTS. ... 100 years have passed since the paper by Einstein and tremendous amout ... Almost every time he posts, he reveals his ignorance about physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)