Re: NC Governor Should Resign Over Science
- From: NoEinstein <noeinstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:46:40 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 9, 5:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The following emails to Georgia Tech also had attached, thereto, all
of my technical files, illustrations, graphs, and apt correspondence.
Because GT is primarily an engineering school, I expected to get a
practical, common-sense evaluation of my Einstein disproofs. Dr.
Harrell, a mathematician, heads the science department at GT. But he
shows himself to be a timid, tacit defender of the status quo. He is
wholly unqualified to head any department of trust at any university.
__________
4/05/07
Dear Dr. Harrell:
Math can be the proof or it can be the solution. Math can also be the
problem if it is unsolved, or if it is solved wrong. A US spaceship
to Mars missed its target because someone entered data in miles rather
than in kilometers--the way the computer programs necessitated.
Mathematicians are only human, are they not?
Good advice to any math student: "Check your work before handing in
your papers." Those publishing math or science textbooks surely check
what they publish. But different editions get printed every few
years. You, as a conscientious professor, have probably sent in
suggested corrections to publishers. As a rule the more recent the
subject matter, the more willing a publisher is to correct mistakes.
The reason I am writing concerns mistakes of very long standing that
have been published in thousands of texts, reference books, and
technical papers. They are the stuff of footnotes and bibliographies,
but they are still wrong.
I like to watch TV channels like Discovery, National Geographic, and
Public. Shows like NOVA and MythBusters often catch my eye. The
science side of me became appalled realizing the sad state of
Cosmology. It isn't "logical" that all of the matter in the Universe
was once compressed to the size of a muon. And, as an architect who
thinks quite well in 3D, I don't like explanations that space didn't
exist before the Big Bang. Nor did time exist, apparently, so that
the Big Bang could progress through a super expansive stage without
having to conform to present laws of physics.
Where did we go wrong? Try Einstein... Where did Einstein go wrong?
Mainly he erred by blindly accepting the negative results of the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment. The three Problems for Math and Science,
below, are capsule descriptions of my findings. Your time is
valuable, but so is the truthfulness of what is being taught in our
colleges and universities. I hope you will read the attached
articles, too.
A. A. Michelson knew precision optics better than anyone of his day.
He gave us diffraction gratings for controlling the wavelengths of
light passing through an instrument. He explained the rainbow of
colors observed in an oily film on water. He measured the meter to a
wavelength of light accuracy. And he measured the velocity of light
in air to an accuracy unrivaled to this day. However, Michelson was
never able to figure out why the M-M experiment couldn't detect a
changing velocity of light...
Einstein was just a kid when M-M was performed, but a mentor of
Einstein, Lorentz, wished to explain the negative (failed) result of M-
M. Experiments with electrons and charged particles seemed to show
that those "hit a wall" as their velocities are pushed closer and
closer to velocity c. It seemed that the force needed to accelerate a
particle becomes infinite at velocity c. But such force is hardly
noticeable at the velocities normally encountered on Earth. Lorentz
said that the force increase is inversely proportional to (1-v^2/
c^2)^1/2. That divisor has values ranging from unity, "normal", to
zero at velocity c. Of course, when the divisor goes to zero, the
force increase goes to infinity... or hits-the-wall.
A big problem happened when Lorentz saw a parallel between the
increasing forces on charged particles and the M-M experiment.
Lorentz reasoned: Forces are required to accelerate anything, and the
inertial forces on the objects being accelerated can compress them.
So, he figured that the M-M apparatus, itself, would be compressed by
varying amounts because of the changing velocity vector as the
apparatus is rotated through 360 degrees. If such compression occurs,
the velocity of light might well be decreased, but because the
apparatus contracts, proportionately, there would be no change in the
time required for it to traverse that leg of the light course. And so
there would be no change in the interference fringe pattern. Wow!
That explains it! (sic)
Problem 1 for Math and Science: The contraction explained above has
value zero when an apparatus arm is normal to the velocity vector of
the Earth. Rotate that same arm 90 degrees so that the axis of the
arm is on axis with Earth's velocity vector, and a contraction would
occur that, according to Lorentz, would have an identical value
regardless of the modulous of elasticity of the material from which
the apparatus was constructed (sic!). Generations of scientists have
wrongly assumed that light being emitted, or being reflected by a
mirror in the apparatus, is always in the subtractive direction, i.e.,
were you subtract the Earth's velocity component from the velocity of
light, c, or where the direction of the light beam is always opposite
to the direction of movement of the Earth. Lorentz's explanation
"works" only during the 180 degrees of apparatus rotation, wherein,
the velocity component is subtractive. But it can never work for the
remaining 180 degrees of rotation, wherein, the Earth's velocity
component adds to velocity c. In the additive cases, the apparatus
would have to LENGTHEN (not just go back to zero) to cause the arrival
times of the faster moving light to traverse that leg of the light
course in the same amount of time. Note: A light can shine in both
the subtractive and the additive directions and still be parallel to
the "contracted" axis that is on the velocity vector! But Lorentz's
equation "explains" contraction only--where objects would be flattened
to zero at velocity c. It doesn't "explain" elongation--where the
length would be stretched to infinity at velocity c. Therefore,
Lorentz-FitzGerald's equation isn't the correct explanation for the
negative results of M-M...! Since Einstein based his SRT, GRT, and all
of the his space-time conundrums on such equation, everything that
Einstein ever taught is disproved, indubitably!
Problem 2 for Math and Science: The Michelson-Morley experiment was
incredibility sensitive to the most minute changes in the locations,
or relocations, of any of its component parts. Because of that,
generations of scientists have wrongly assumed that M-M, also, should
be a wonderful measure of changes in the velocity of light. Before M-
M it was assumed that light velocity should be variable, either
because of "ether drag" or because of the effect of having the light
being emitted or reflected in an additive or a subtractive
orientation. But when M-M didn't verify those beliefs, not a single
person before yours truly, NoEinstein, was willing to use 9th grade
algebra to find the design flaw in M-M! The attached file Shedding a
Little Light shows the math. What I learned is that 45 degree mirrors
automatically compensate for light velocity changes! Except for two
cases in which the light is emitted or reflected on the axis of the
velocity vector, light in the moving apparatus will always hit the 45
degree beamsplitter off of the designed centerline. And such is the
only manifestation of the Earth's velocity component in M-M. If light
hits off center, say, closer to the nearer edge of the 45 degree
beamsplitter, then, the next leg (the distance that needs to be
traveled) will be increased a like amount, and vice versa. Having a
45 degree beamsplitter in both light courses means that the experiment
has no control or fiducial zero, as Michelson liked to call it. To
measure things by interference, one of the two light courses must not
vary because of velocity. The only way to assure that one light
course is invariable is to have it be located on the z-z axis (only)
and to rotate the interferometer about the z-z axis. My NoEinstein
interferometer is so designed, and it DETECTS the Earth's changing
velocity vector!
Problem 3 for Math and Science: Einstein said: "There isn't enough
energy in the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to
travel to velocity c." The reason? He teaches that mass and energy
are equivalent, and that any form of energy--even KE--will increase mass
(sic). Einstein's idea about kinetic energy comes from the 1830
equation by Coriolis, KE = 1/2mv^2. But that formula was derived from
empirical observations that won't pass the scientific method
standards. Lead shots were dropped into soft clay. Because a shot
dropped with twice the velocity penetrated four times as far into the
clay, it was wrongly assumed that KE accrues parabolically with
respect to velocity. Neither Coriolis, nor anyone before yours truly,
NoEinstein, realized that measures of KE must consider the mechanics
and strengths of the materials being hit, not try to ascribe all of
the strains, deflections, penetrations, or general destruction to the
velocity alone! Penetrations into clay (which I know something about,
since I took soil mechanics in college) are influenced by the internal
friction of the clay particles. Everyone knows that the coefficient
of sliding friction is less than the coefficient of friction at rest.
To use clay as the basis of measurement, it must be shown that the
distance of dynamic penetration is directly proportional to KE. But
no such tests were ever made. They just assumed parity, and no one
before me has called them to task for it. "The problem" is: If a
dropped object's KE increases semi-parabolically (Einstein says it
increases parabolically!), then, there must be an input of KE each
successive second that is greater than the previous second. Where
does a dropped object get its KE? From the uniform (for each mass)
force of gravity! If gravity must impart more force each and every
second, then, gravity must have some mechanism for sensing the speed
of all falling objects--because it must, somehow, always apply the most
energy to the fastest falling objects! Since there is no mechanism
for gravity to sense falling objects' speeds, then, both Coriolis and
Einstein violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy, and Einstein's
theories are disproved for the third reason, too!
Dr. Harrell, if you, and others in the College of Sciences, concur
with my assessment that math and science have some big problems to
correct, then, I haven't wasted my time. For the record, I have been
on a five-plus year odyssey to get my findings published. Because
Einstein is (was) at the top of the intellectual elite, few have
believed that "an architect" could nullify his theories. That is why
I need to get authoritative "confirmation" of my results, such as by
getting a consensus in your College of Sciences. I don't need to
explain to you the paradigm shift in science that is in the offing...
that is, if I can get my findings published.
I hope you will email me that you are discussing my findings with your
associates and colleagues. My interferometer type 1--that does what
Michelson-Morley should have done--is available. It is a historic
experiment to witness!
Very truly yours,
-- NoEinstein -- (actual name was used)
__________
4/20/07
Dear Evans:
I recently read that Georgia Tech is a top four engineering school.
Many "science types" tend to have their heads in the clouds, while
engineers tend to be more down-to-Earth. That is why I am optimistic
that some practical thinkers at Tech will, like me, be able to see
through the shallow and spurious teachings and "predictions" of
Einstein.
If you read TIME, you saw the recent article about that man's ideas
concerning religion. But very telling was the first 1/2 page that
dealt with the fact that Einstein was a dumb child (and adult) who
didn't learn to talk till he was over two years of age. When he did
talk, he would mouth the words of everything he said, before saying it
out loud. I am an expert graphologist. If you read the "Mishmash"
article I sent to you, I hope you will also read my attached
Graphoanalysis of Einstein's Writing. His IQ is 85 or 90, no more...
Please read my "The Musical Note that Disproves Einstein". This
started out, yesterday, as a "short" article for you alone. I wished
to focus on the contraction (and expansion) aspects of materials so
crucial to Einstein's theories. As I wrote, I said, "As long as I
discuss this, I might as well discuss this AND that!" What you get is
like a doctorial thesis! I have no doubt to the perfection of its
teachings, though I will bet that there are still a few typographical
errors. I will make a printout and look for those, tomorrow. The
fact that I could write so much in just two days, should tout that I
have a full knowledge of my subject matter!
In your entire career--past, present and future--you will never have any
subject that crosses your desk that can have a more profound effect on
science, and on the world, than what I have emailed to you, then and
now. I have my interferometer and am willing to drive to GT to let
you and your colleagues witness it. Show me that Tech rates number
four or better in objectivity and openness to new things!
Have a great weekend!
Regards, NoEinstein (actual name was used)
__________
5/11/07
Dear Evans,
The end of the school year is a time of rush for you, I know. Today,
I have written another of those articles "appreciated by engineers",
but not appreciated by most status quo scientists. It is called
Matter From Thin Air. Einstein requires stupidity in his believers.
So, I hope you aren't pro... him. Math should be neutral discipline
in science. You should not be so biased not to do simple algebra to
verify that I have invalidated the M-M experiment. Also, I have my
interferometer that I can put in the car and be demonstrating for you
and others at Georgia Tech within a few hours. Won't you let me prove
what I say?
The article hints of my frustration that people are just scared that
Einstein is too complex to be disproved by anything simple. Aren't
the simple math solutions some of the most elegant? If things slow
down for you, I would appreciate hearing your 'take' on what I have
presented. If you would like for me to email anyone else at Georgia
Tech, I would appreciate getting their name and address. Hope you
have a great Summer!
Sincerely, NoEinstein (actual name was used)
__________
6/11/07
Dear Evans,
Whether you have verified any of my Einstein disproofs or not, you
probably realize that others--perhaps friends of yours at Tech--could be
denigrated because of their known acceptance of, or their teaching of
Einstein's theories. Doing the latter, even if part of a required
curriculum, tends to elevate the teacher closer to... brilliance, too.
Universities are protected, cloistered communities where those who
teach say, "I'm OK, you're OK." I know that because I commuted to
college with a professor who had to play-his-cards-close-to-his-chest
lest one of the higher-ups deny him tenure. An uncle of mine was a
college department official. Yet every day he worked in fear that his
boss would find out about his political ideas, regarding his
university, as well as the state and federal governments.
Universities are very political places; one slip-up and someone else
could have your job. But that doesn't happen as much as it is feared,
because it becomes understood that if one doesn't make waves over
anything someone else does, they won't make waves about what you do.
Is being nice what is best for Tech and education in general?
Perhaps you have spoken to some 'Einstein expert' who shrugged off
what I have done. Who are you to argue with anyone who can so readily
shrug me off? But what if you had said, "Wait. I have verified the
math, and it is conclusive: the Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't
pass muster! And until you can show otherwise, my mathematical proofs
of my findings will take precedence over any bury-your-head-in-the-
ground pseudo science!"
Or, perhaps you yourself think I am wrong... But because you are a
nice guy, you just file my emails and think I will be grateful to you
for not hurting my feelings. Well, you are wrong! I have provided
you with enough materials to shoot-me-down. If you can do that,
please let me know! But you can't. Take that as a challenge, if
that's what it takes to get you to take a stand.
I have written one more article, Matter From Thin Air, that points out--
yet again--the lame thinking of those supporting Einstein. I hope you
will enjoy it. Remember my offer to demonstrate my experiments a
Tech. Your objectivity, as the head of the College of Science, can be
easily proved, IF you will stop being nice, and start being a good
educator.
Very truly yours,
-- NoEinstein -- (actual name used here and above)
[END OF EMAILS]
The *heads-in-the-sand bad attitudes of NC universities toward seeking
TRUTHS in education, is just the tip of the iceberg, nationally.
[*Also see my similarly titled, earlier post:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ca773...
]
In my nearly seven year odyssey to get my disproofs of Einstein
recognized, the following universities, and one college, have come up
lacking:
1. MIT -- Places more emphasis on 'the form', and the *precedence,
then it does on the simplicity and the elegance of the arguments.
[*i.e.: It requires one to show that what is presented is an evolution
from the status quo, and thus supports the status quo as "the
foundation" of what is allowed to follow.]
2. University of Colorado -- Ditto the above response.
3. Furman University (SC) -- Ditto the above response.
4. University of Chicago -- Beginning in 2007, no response of any kind
to exhaustive appeals to the science head, Robert Fefferman (a
mathematician) and to top administration.
5. Davidson College (NC): No response to several appeals to the
college president, including my offer to demonstrate my X-Y-Z
interferometer.
6. University of NC -- No response of any kind to exhaustive appeals
to the physics department at the main Chapel Hill campus; and to a
computer simulation specialist in modeling scientific events. Later,
there was a token reply from UNC President Erskin Boles, an
acquaintance, who promised to give my materials to an appropriate
person(s). But Boles didn't reply to my follow-ups, nor accept my
offers to demonstrate my X-Y-Z interferometer.
7. Georgia Tech -- No response of any kind to my exhaustive appeals to
the head of the science department (a mathematician), and my
especially strong offers to present my X-Y-Z interferometer at their
convenience.
8. University of Georgia -- No response of any kind to my exhaustive
appeals to the head of the physics department, an Englishman, and my
especially strong offers to present my X-Y-Z interferometer at their
convenience.
9. NC State University -- No response of any kind to my exhaustive
appeals to the head of the physics department, and to a computer
simulation professor; and my especially strong offers to present my X-
Y-Z interferometer at their convenience.
10. University of Virginia -- No response of any kind to my exhaustive
appeals to the head of the physics department, an astronomer; to the
provost, a physicist; and to the university president. And no reply
to my offers to present my X-Y-Z interferometer, at their university,
at their convenience.
11. University of Florida -- No response of any kind to my exhaustive
appeals to the university president, a dentist, and my offers to
present my X-Y-Z interferometer at their convenience.
12. University of Maryland -- A blatant turn down by the university
president of my all or nothing appeal, including my offer to present
my X-Y-Z interferometer at their convenience.
13. Virginia Tech -- No response of any kind to my exhaustive appeals
to the university president. And no reply to my offers to present my
X-Y-Z interferometer, at their university, at their convenience.
14. Cornell University -- No response of any kind to my exhaustive
appeals to a German professor who specializes in audio and other non
destructive testing of materials.
15. Penn State University -- A teacher in the "Gravity Department",
Martin Bojowald, wrote a research paper on: "The Big Bounce". Such
paper relies on Einstein's... "Space doesn't exist near super massive
objects." idea. I informed Bojowald of my Einstein disproofs, and
sent him all of my materials. I requested that he put a caveat
paragraph at the beginning of his, then, not yet published paper
stating that Einstein has been disproved, thereby invalidating the
purpose of his paper... which was financed, in part, by the NSF...
Getting no reply from Bojowald, I wrote to the Dean of the
Graduate School, Eva J. Pell, informing her that obtaining funding for
research projects that are based on false premises is a felony.
Additionally, I informed the university president the same thing. I
then got a reply from the PSU counsel, a Mr. Courtney, Esquire,
informing me that my "rights' had not been violated by anything that
Penn State had done.
Realizing that I had discovered a willingness of PSU to obtain
research funding money, and state money, to knowing teach things that
are untrue, I informed Penn. Governor Edward G. Rendell. I told him
that he is legally obligated to protect the best interests of the
Penn. taxpayers. And I told him that if he did not do so, then he
would be guilty of aiding and abetting felonies. I never heard from
him...
The above scenario with Penn State, and the State of Penn. not
caring that the taxpayers are being cheated, is the same bury-its-head-
in-the-sand negative response that I have gotten from NC Governor Mike
Easley. Easley is apparently willing to CHEAT the NC taxpayers,
because the non-existent news media in NC won't hold him accountable.
They're more interested in the advertising money in their pockets from
new industries being lured to NC--because of the (non existent)
'quality' education, available, there--than they are in the money being
WASTED by the naive citizens of NC on... supposed 'quality' education...
16. Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland, OH) -- I informed
physicist Lawrence Krauss that the M-M experiment, that is in one of
their basements, lacks a CONTROL, and is thus invalid. This
university, periodically, gives a "Michelson-Morley Prize" for
'outstanding' work in science. Stephen Hawking received such award in
2003. I informed Krauss that CWRU would benefit by announcing to the
world my discoveries. I also informed their new lady president, an
attorney, that CWRU would be committing felonies to let students pay
tuitions to "learn" things that are knowing false. And I told the
lady, she would be similarly guilty for not correcting this bad
situation. She did nothing...
17. Wake Forest University (NC) -- After checking that such university
doesn't seem to be "corrupted" by science research grant money from
the NSF, I urged the physics department to confirm my findings. They
did nothing.
18. Appalachian State University (NC) -- Realizing that universities
are willing to be criminal and "teach" falsehoods, I wrote a pointed
letter to the ASU president, and the head of the sciences school. I
informed those men that they had a fiduciary responsibility to teach
only truths, and if they did not, it would be criminal. I sent a copy
of this long, emailed letter to NC Governor Mike Easley, and attached
pivotal articles and files to the governor. Neither ASU nor Gov.
Easley has responded appropriately. Nor have any of the 90% of NC
newspapers that I have twice apprised of those crimes. Like I have
said, Governor Mike Easley should resign, and the heads of all of the
Universities I have mentioned should be fired.
-- NoEinstein --
.
- References:
- NC Governor Should Resign Over Science
- From: NoEinstein
- NC Governor Should Resign Over Science
- Prev by Date: The Tata Nano is a “ 623 cc two-cylinder ” engine.
- Next by Date: Re: NC Governor Should Resign Over Science
- Previous by thread: Re: NC Governor Should Resign Over Science
- Next by thread: Re: NC Governor Should Resign Over Science
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
