Re: 1905 Einstein's Relativity&Potential Energy

From: Androcles (Androcles_at_)
Date: 02/19/05 

Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:45:08 GMT

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108790826.689407.49590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1108733636.627459.243690@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Androcles wrote:
>> >> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1108686541.333870.216630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Androcles wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> > Did you have a stroke or is this opposite day?
>> >> >
>> >> > This paper is discrediting Ritz's emission theory, not special
>> >> > relativity, you fucking ignoramus! Do you even read what you
>> >> > referenced
>> >> > to me?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The paper title was carefully chosen, and the conclusion
>> >> of the evidence against emission theories is that there isn't any.
>> >
>> > You didn't read the paper. It was explicitly said by Fox, several
>> > times, that Ritz's theory disagreed with experiment. Look at the
>> > direct
>> > quotations Gregory Hansen was nice enough to type for you.
>> >
>> > Reading is fundamental.
>> Understanding must be acquired.
>
> Ritz's theory disagrees with experiment. Read page 12, specifically
> about Hay's centrifuge using the Mossbauer effect. By the way, Hay's
> experiment is in accord with special relativity.
>
> The article is written in English. I presume you can read it, perhaps
> even for comprehension.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> There is a derivation of E = mc^2 given, fuckwit.
>> >
>> > No there was not. Section 11 simply postulated that there is an
>> > equivlance but admitted there was not enough data to do it at this
>> > time. There was no explicit derivation.
>> >
>> > Reading is fundamental.
>>
>>
>> You didn't read section 7. Read it.
>
> Again?
>
> Section 7 does not contain a derivation of E = mc^2, which is what I
> asked for originally. Whether it does or does not contain any
> auxillary
> information is of no concern, I ask of E = mc^2 - nothing else.
>
>> Reading is fundamental.
>
> It is, isn't it?
>
> Read page 2, where Ritz's theory is described. Referencing Ritz's
> particles: "These particles were assumed to leave the charge with a
> relative velocity c. After emission they traveled at constant velocity
> (presumably with respect to any inertial system) whatever the
> subsequent motion of the charges".
>
> Oops, that sounds like SR to me. Constant velocity whatever the
> subsequent motion of the charges? I thought you didn't like SR!
>
> Why don't you make it easier for me. Please explain which sections of
> the paper you "agree" with so I can stop finding things within the
> paper that you react violently to.
>
>>
>> Now fuck off, fuckwit.
>
> Stupidity is forever, isn't it?

Yours is, that is empirically proven
Now fuck off, fuckwit.
Androcles.

Quantcast