Re: Curing Einstein's Disease (is Copyrighted)

On Jan 9, 12:46 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 8, 11:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 8, 10:26 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 8, 9:08 am, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:

NoEinstein wrote:
On Jan 7, 1:55 pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:
Dear Ghost:  Thanks for discussing points of science that can be
looked at objectively and replied to!  To save time (that's not TIME,
as in space-time) I have put numbers following your statements.  My
concise comments follow the numbers.
(1.)  Most scientists never propose theories about anything.  That
isn't why they exist!  Being a scientist is about aptitude and
attitude.  It's about always being ready to recognize better avenues
to our understanding of nature.  And it's about having an open mind to
the possibility that those better avenues are out there, somewhere.
     Being a scientist can never be about closing one's mind to just
the status quo position.  Nor is it the "job" of scientists to argue
about anything.  The truths of nature are never decided by who is the
strongest arguer; nor by now many "votes" may favor one idea over
another.  However, truths can be indicated by well-collected, and
confirmed data.  So, DATA COLLECTION is a scientist's main value--not
their ability to argue the interpretation of such data.
(2.)  My reason for posting on sci.physics is to inform others about
my research findings; i.e., to give the results of my mathematical,
experimental, and rational disproofs of Einstein's SR and GR
theories.  I have no interest, whatsoever, in arguing about anything
with anyone!
     It is most disconcerting to realize that arguing, for argument's
sake, is how the majority of the group members view the site.  Seldom
has anyone commented, point-by-point, on my disproofs.  Rather, they
read to some place--early or late in my posts--then comment subjectively
about their "vote" on the truthfulness of that one statement.
     The simple CRUX of my disproof--that took only about an hour for
me to postulate back in 2001--was: The 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment
lacked a CONTROL!  But in about nine months of mostly wasted bantering
on this group, not a single person has said: "You know... M-M doesn't
seem to have a control.  Wow!  If THAT is true, then NoEinstein has
indeed disproved Einstein's theories!"
     Both my aptitude, and my experience, qualify me to explain how
light moves in interferometers.  Why won't you readers either accept
my explanations, or ask questions so that you can grasp the
significance of what I have found?
You have mentioned an experiment but have posted nothing.  We are not,
nor is the world required to believe without question everything you
say.  You are required to prove it.  I will ask the question "What did
you do?"  Post experimental details with error analysis.

(3.)  Ghost:  I have disproved SR, up, down, and sideways!  There is
nothing useful to be gained by discussing that subject!
You have not shown any proofs, just assertions.  If you had indeed
proved  anything, you would be happy to discuss it.

(4.)  All "back and forth" measurements of light velocity have one
segment that speeds up ('c' plus v); and one segment that slows down
('c' minus v).  Since the "v" in both cases is the same, it is
understandable that the AVERAGE velocity over back and forth courses
never changes.
If this is the basis of your proof, there are major problems since
this statement is not true.  Go a mile at 30mph and a mile at 90mph.
The average is not 60mph, it is 40mph.  Average speed is total distance
divided by total time. Your mistake is a standard freshman mistake.

Since your basic assumption is wrong, we can delete everything below
without having having any effect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear None: You are a new visitor--more bluster than substance.  

So asking you for details of your experiment is bluster?
Pointing out you math error is bluster?

In the

case of M-M, the entire apparatus moves to new positions while the
light is in transit to the mirrors or target.  Your "example" assumes
no change in the distances.

The mirrors are bolted to a rigid table.  Calculate the average speed.
It is clear you have not done the math and it looks like you have never
done any experiment since you only want to put forward what you
consider conclusions and have no desire to defend what you claimed
to have done.

  The problem is like throwing a baseball

at a moving boat.  The only way to know the distance the ball must
travel, so as to land in the boat, is to know the speed of the ball
and the speed of the boat; then, to write an algebraic equation.  Do
that for M-M and the TIMES for light to reach the target never
change.  Thus, there are no interference fringe changes!

At Mt. Wilson, where Michelson measured 'c', the approximate 22 mile
distances the light traveled in one direction could be increased
(because the Earth is moving); or decreased for the same reason.  In
the former case, light velocity increased beyond 'c'.  In the latter
case, light velocity decreases, below 'c'.  But since Earth's velocity
in the additive and the subtractive directions is the same for the
fraction of a second it takes the light to go round trip, the speed of
light can be calculated by dividing the static distance by the time.
The effect of that "change of velocity" that I have proved isn't
obvious except by mathematical analysis, as I have done for M-M. --

You claim the average velocity is the average of the velocities. This
is wrong.  Do the math.  Your c+v and c-v do not cancel. You have
presented a conclusion but have not done the math.  Since your basic
premise demonstrably wrong, your conclusion is wrong.

NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear None: All measurements of 'c' are "out and back" measurements.  A
speed up of, say, a 1000 mph going out, is negated by a slow down of
1000 mph coming back.  So the velocity of the Earth drops out of
equation.

Really? Let's say light travels a distance L at a speed of c+1000mph.
Then it returns back the same distance at a speed of c-1000mph. What
is the average speed of that light for the whole trip?


PD:  The average speed over back and forth courses will always be:
'c', regardless of the length of the course and the speed of the Earth
at that time and date. -- NoEinstein ---

Well done, Brian. At least you tried. Got it wrong, but you tried.

Let's try a simpler example. Let's suppose that a car goes 20 miles
from Nyack to Mahwah at 40 mph, and then it returns from Mahwah to
Nyack for the same 20 miles at 60 mph. Now, according to you, the
average speed for the trip should be 50 mph. That's because that's
what makes sense to you and because you don't know how to work out
what it really is.

Here, I'll help. On the outbound trip to Mahwah, since I'm going 40
mph, I would cover 40 miles in 60 minutes, but since I only go 20
miles, it only takes me 30 minutes.
On the inbound trip to Nyack, since I'm going 60 mph, I could cover 60
miles in 60 minutes, but since I only go 20 miles, it only takes me 20
minutes.
So for me to figure out the average time for the whole trip, all I
need to know is the total distance traveled and the total time taken.
Well, the total distance is 20 miles out and 20 miles back or 40 miles
total. The total time taken is 30 minutes plus 20 minutes or 50
minutes, or 5/6 of an hour. Then my average speed is 40 miles per 5/6
hour, and if you can do fractions on a napkin or have to resort to a
calculator, you find that it is 48 mph.

Sacre bleu! 48 mph is definitely not 50 mph!

Likewise, if light goes a distance L at c+1000mph and returns the same
distance at a speed of c-1000mph, the average speed for the trip is
NOT c, any more than 48 is 50.

This is an example of what I told you elsewhere. The reason people
aren't looking at your heretical ideas isn't because the ideas are
heretical. It's because you can't seem to put together six sentences
describing your heretical ideas without making five really obvious,
stupid mistakes. If you could put together a string of sentences
devoid of errors enough to develop a heretical idea, it would at least
get looked at seriously. But you haven't done that. You've got no
business claiming that you've done anything of value until you can do
that.

PD
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... segment that speeds up; and one segment that slows down ... light can be calculated by dividing the static distance by the time. ... 1000 mph coming back. ... Nyack for the same 20 miles at 60 mph. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... segment that speeds up; and one segment that slows down ... light can be calculated by dividing the static distance by the time. ... 1000 mph coming back. ... Nyack for the same 20 miles at 60 mph. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... segment that speeds up; and one segment that slows down ... 1000 mph coming back. ... Nyack for the same 20 miles at 60 mph. ... you to make bonehead mistakes than it is to *not* make bonehead ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Speed record
    ... Miles per hour speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats ... adding a large tail fairing to the 337 MPH record holding Vesco ... I claim that at high speeds there is a forward net ... enough to propel th bicycle. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • 2006 Region 8 Contest - Day 5
    ... This was to give the pilots a little more chance to find lift ... pilots had a pretty tough time within 15 miles of Ephrata but once out ... handicapped speed of 52 mph and a distance of 164.16 miles ...
    (rec.aviation.soaring)