Re: Poem for Potter: Do not go gentle into real understanding of GTR

On May 13, 8:12 am, Tom Potter <tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 13, 2:06 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 12, 11:04 pm,Tom Potter<tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 12, 7:25 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 12, 12:02 pm,Tom Potter<tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 12, 5:14 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 11, 10:36 pm,Tom Potter<tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 10, 10:38 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 9, 11:01 pm,Tom Potter<tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip boilerplate idiocy]

What have _YOU_ produced?

C'mon Tom - let's see the fruits of your labor. In all your life, have
you produced one tangible product? Have you done even one useful thing
that you can point to and be proud of?

Regarding Gisse's question:
"C'mon Tom - let's see the fruits of your labor. In all your life,
have
you produced one tangible product? Have you done even one useful thing
that you can point to and be proud of?"

Other than teaching at the seminar,
college, high school, military school, and tech rep levels,

I feel sorry for your students. What is your highest level of
education?

and introducing digital computers to electronic instrumentation,

No, ENGINEERS did that.

and educating industry and government to use computers in control
and data collections systems,

not "educating", SELLING

and being one of the first computer store owners,

You mean one of the first to sell Atari?

and one of the first writers of software for microcomputers,

"writers"? You have so much expertise in the industry that you say
that software is "written"?

and starting on of the first companies to collect and process
data via the telephone,
and being the first to copyright
what is now known as "Data mining", etc.

Please give a reference for this. I don't believe you.

I suppose the thing that I am most proud of,

is your 3 inch wiener?

is that I have exposed General Relativity as a Tower of Babel
that wastes time, money and minds on such
pursuits as time travel, worm holes, gravity waves,
warping through space, rubber rulers and clocks, etc.

For example:

"After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.

After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.

WRONG. No there weren't. Please cite a SINGLE example of Maxwell's
equations leading to an advance in chemistry within 50 years.

After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances

WRONG. No there weren't. The DNA model that Watson and Crick pretty
much stole from Rosalind Franklin was 1953. When was the first real
advance in genetic based on this model? It wasn't until at least the
1980's, and more like the 1990's.
Also, DNA is BIOLOGY, not PHYSICS.

in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,

I hear that you are the husband of a pig, but that could just be a
rumor.

the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.

Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity
and it continues to generate more hype and heat
than light and advances.

Computers were a similar "waste". The first ideas for digital
computing device Babbage proposed the "Analytical Engine" in 1822!
What a waste of time, and money and minds, on this RIDICULOUS idea of
a general purpose computing machine. Why will ANYONE every need such a
machine?

The first (extremely expensive) electronic digital computer - 1946.
The firt widespread PC - 1981. The Internet, invented by Al Gore (lol)
comes into very general use ~ 1995.

And of course, I am proud that
I have called attention to the fact

that you are a lame salesman who doesn't know *** about science?

that a small gang has a long history of
instigating conflict and war for power and riches.

Are you ranting about the Jews again? Go re-read your copy of the
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion". There is a cool section in there
about how the "Jews" are going to take over physics by fooling
everyone with rubber rulers and clocks.

For example, the gang instigated and profited
from the Class Wars of the 1900's,
and they are instigating and profiting from the
Religious Wars of the 2000's.

They also caused the Black Death and killed our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ. That is why you believe the greatest physicist of all time is
Adolf Hitler. Yeh, we get the idea.

And considering that my Pappy used to say:
"A man should be judged by the enemies he makes.",

And your Mommy used to say:
"Give it me Tommy, oh, yeh - give it to me Tommy.. Oh, it's so BIG!"

I am sure that my Pappy would be proud of

a loser salesman

me on this score., as the enemies I have made,
are members of, or fellow travelers with,
the War-for-Profit Gang,
and are General Relativity Charlatans and Cultists.

Why don't you say "Jews", since that is what you keep implying?

Considering the Gisse is a member of the General Relativity Cult,
I pose the same question to him:

Although General relativity has been hyped as
the greatest thing since sliced bread
for almost one hundred years,

Unleashing all the nuances of GR for practrical benefit depends upon
advances in electronics, just like computers. You would think a
BRILLIANT computer SALESMAN would know that!

what has it produced that General relativity Charlatans and Cultists
"can point to and be proud of?"

GR explains SR. Special relativity is a FUNDAMENTAL part of QM,
especially as applied to chemistry. We have excellent, widely used
computer software that predicts chemical properties of novel materials
for biology, nanoscience, neurtoscience, pharamcy, based upon SR.

Relativistic effects become important for "heavy" atoms. In your care,
you have a "catalytic converter". The catalytic agent is a layer of
platinum. To understand how platinum catalyses the reactions that it
does, one NEEDS SR.

Similarly for use of Pt in cisplatin, a very important anti-cancer
drug. Anywhere in technology we ever use gold, platinum, paladium,
uranium, radium, radon, xenon, iodine, (to name but a few), SR is
important.

Therefore, GR is technologically of EXTREME importance.

No doubt, as Gisse does not comprehend
how closed systems, broadband systems and correlators, work,
he will parrot the false claim that cultists have been brainwashed
to,
that it was essential to the GPS system.

The fact that you are far too IGNORANT to know thw contributions of
relativity to CHEMISTRY is YOUR problem. But it shows that your "what
has GR done for me?" line is irrelevant, just like YOU.

*** off and die.

--
Tom Potter

I suggest that the raving of The_Man <me_so_hornee...@xxxxxxxxx>
pretty much proves his points that:

1) Your highest level of education isn't terribly impressive.
2) Your claims of superior achievement are considerably suspect.
3) You really do think that the "small gang [that] has a long history
of
instigating conflict and war for power and riches." is the Jewish
people
4) Your claim that Maxwell's equations led to immediate benefits in
chemistry is WRONG.
5) Your claim that the Watson/Crick/Franklin DNA model led to
"immediate" benefits is WRONG.
6) Computers are a "waste" since it took 180 years before they had
widespread use.
7) Your objection to GR might be based more on anti-Semitism than any
actual physics
8) Your claim that GR has no practical benefits is WRONG, since I
outlined how SR, a special case of GR, is widely used in chemistry.

So you are not going to dispute ANY of these points?

=============

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: The_Man <me_so_hornee...@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 7 May 2007 04:18:43 -0700
Local: Mon, May 7 2007 2:18 pm
Subject: Re: Poem for Potter: Do not go gentle into real understanding
of GTR

"I'm a chemist, not a physicist. Chemistry pays very well, and we
never
need GR at all. SR comes up every once in a while, but not that
often."
================

As can be seen from his comments:

"Your claim that GR has no practical benefits is WRONG, since
I outlined how SR, a special case of GR, is widely used in chemistry."

"I'm a chemist, not a physicist. Chemistry pays very well, and we
never
need GR at all. SR comes up every once in a while, but not that
often."

You misunderstand "litotes" = understatement for effect. Chemistry is
built on SR, and has been for 80 years.

The_Man <me_so_hornee...@xxxxxxxxx>
speaks with a forked (And filthy) ongue.

I have a rather nice "ongue".

==================

As I pointed out in older posts,
the fine structure constant which is "widely" used in chemistry,
and was used by Sommerfield

Do you mean "Sommerfeld"?

to fine tune Bohr's model the hydrogen
atom,
is basically a measure of velocity / C

But Bohr's hydrogen atom has not been used for 80 years, since it gave ....

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I wrote in my post on April 23, 2007

"Special Relativity indicates that
delta energy = delta mass * C^2

where delta mass = mass(0) * gamma

where gamma = 1 / ( 1-beta^2)^.5

where beta = velocity / C

As the
ionization energy = electron charge * ionization voltage

why is it that one gets a better statistical fit using

energy = electron mass * (beta * C)^2 / 2
Where beta = fine structure constant and
beta * C is the effective electron velocity.
(Newton's old mass times velocity squared energy)

than one gets by using
energy = gamma * electron mass * C^2
Where gamma = 1 / (1-fine structure constant^2)^.5
(Special Relativity energy)

Probably because the ionization energy depends also on the Coulomb
potential between the electron and the nucleus, which isn't included
in either of your two formulae. You don't realize that the electron
certainly doesn't have a constant velocity (more accurately, speed) in
the atom, except in Bohr's very antiquated version.

You forget that Bohr was one of the great pioneers of QM, which
totally superseded this mess.

(Note that gamma = 1/cosine(A) - 1
where cosine(A) is the cosine of the angle whose sine is velocity(A)/
C )

In other words:
does
ionization energy = electron charge * ionization voltage = electron
mass * (Beta* C)^2 / 2
or
ionization energy = electron charge * ionization voltage = gamma *
electron mass * C^2
or
what

Neither. You seem confused about the unit of "electron volts", which
is a unit of ENERGY, not voltage. One can derive its magnitude
quickly, knowing that the energy 1 eV is the mass of an electron 9.109
x 10^31 kg, and the charge 1.6 x 10^-19 C, to get the conversion to
joules, obviously a unit of energy.

I think (although it's hard to be sure, you write so haphazardly),
that you are finding the relativistic energy equivalent for an
electron moving at a certain velocity. Sadly, you don't even know
enough chemistry to understand something as simple as IP. :-(


??????????

I have listed the ionization potentials for hydrogen-like atoms
below,
so you can verify this for yourself.

The potentials can be closely predicted (for hydrogen-like atoms) by a
simple formula, the Rhydberg formula.


I listed the average number of neutrons in the atoms,
as I found that I can get a quasi-perfect ionization voltage fit
if I take the proton and neutron masses into account,
and use beta^2 rather than gamma.

Note that the effective electron velocity for a given hydrogen atom
= FSC * C * HARMONIC

HARMONIC is the term I use for the ratio between
protons and electrons in a hydrogen-like atom.
Note that a single proton effectively interacts with
HARMONIC amounts of electrons.

Please cite one peer-reviewed article in chemistry or physics which
makes this claim.


HARMONIC NEUTRONS VOLTS Q*V Me*vel^2/2
0.167 0.0000 0.380 6.0883E-20
6.0553E-20
0.200 0.0000 0.540 8.6518E-20
8.7196E-20
0.250 0.0000 0.850 1.3619E-19
1.3624E-19
0.333 0.0000 1.510 2.4193E-19
2.4221E-19
0.500 0.0000 3.398 5.4442E-19
5.4498E-19
1.000 0.0080 13.595 2.1782E-18
2.1799E-18
2.000 2.0026 54.400 8.7159E-18
8.7196E-18
3.000 3.9390 122.420 1.9614E-17
1.9619E-17
4.000 5.0122 217.657 3.4873E-17
3.4879E-17
5.000 5.8110 340.127 5.4495E-17
5.4498E-17
6.000 6.0110 489.840 7.8482E-17
7.8477E-17
7.000 7.0067 666.830 1.0684E-16
1.0682E-16
8.000 7.9994 871.120 1.3957E-16
1.3951E-16

Here are the values I used for the constants.
Q = 1.602189000E-19
Emass = 9.109534000E-31
Pmass = 1.672649000E-27
Nmass = 1.674954000E-27
FSC = 7.297351000E-03

Maybe one of the General Relativity Gang can use GTR
and a couple of Classical hacks to compute the ionization potentials."

The IP's for hyhdrogen-like atoms are trivial to compute, and to
compute to better accuracy than you have here.
First of all, there are two DIFFERENT ionization potentials, adiabatic
and vertical. There is no confusion for atoms, so these are vertical
IP.

The electronic energy is quickly computed by the Schroedinger
equation, with a relativistic correction for the MASS of the electron.
The electronic energy of the remaining ion is, of course, 0.

The IP is equal to the electronic energy (again, ONLY for hydrogenic
atoms)

To calculate IP's for heavier atoms is much more tricky.

--
Tom Potter

*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***http://home.earthlink.net/~tdphttp://tdp1001.googlepages.com/homehttp://no-turtles.comhttp://www.frappr..com/tompotterhttp://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potterhttp://tom-potter.blogspot.com


.

Quantcast