Re: The Einstein Cult Index

On Jul 31, 10:42 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Ian: 'Stability theory' sounds like something shrinks play
with. The only theories in science that matter are the ones confirmed
by simple and objective reasoning. Do you have such capacity? —
NoEinstein —

On 31 Jul, 10:52, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 30, 2:03 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

NoEinstein wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:13 pm, jrysk...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jul 13, 5:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 11, 3:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tom Potter wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:WTqdk.246778$yE1.92648@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Tom Potter wrote:

Sammy, what you try to con folks into believing is "disparaging"
are just stating old, honest, verifiable FACTS
about things that waste enormous amounts
of time, money and minds.

 You know, Potter, it's interesting that special relativity
 has been around for more than a hundred years--it is as much
 of a "law" of physics an any other law. It has been confirmed
 by literally, thousands of experiments and observations, and
 is essential in the designs of advanced technology, such as
 particle accelerators and navigation systems.

 Why are you in denial Potter? I thought you claimed to be
 knowledgeable about technical things. You don't know ***, do
 you?

 Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
 http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 Einsteins original 1905 papers are accessible... give'm a read.
 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

Sammy! Sammy! Sammy!
Here you are desparately trying
to create a strawman.

Where did I ever criticize "special relativity".

  Then shall I make the assumption that you embrace special relativity,
  Potter?

As I have pointed out for many years,
velocity is a tangent function,
and the addition of velocities in "special relativity"
is just an expression of the addition of tangents.

  Oops, I have to conclude you DO NOT understand special relativity,
  Potter.

  Physics FAQ: How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
   http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/veloci...
   http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

And as can be seen,
I have never asserted that the addition of tangents
is wrong.

Wake up man!

  :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Sam:  After months of trying, you admitted that if the concept of
M-M: That the velocity of light can be changed by ether in the small
dimensions of that experiment, is true, that light would be totally
slowed in traveling a great enough distance.  Since the light from the
Sun 'gets here', then the concept behind M-M was wrong.  But I never
could get you to say the words: NoEinstein has disproved SR.  And
since the Lorentz part of SR is in GR, too, then I have also disproved
GR.

What you did was to stop bugging me with your "teacher physics".  I
appreciate that.  But now you are peddling your defense of Einstein
away from where I happen to be commenting.  You can't 'acknowledge'
that ether doesn't drag light, on the one hand, AND continue to
believe that SR and GR are valid.  As for Tom's “tangent additions” ,
there is no need for 'tricky' physics.  With the ether pushed aside,
spacecrafts can travel c + c + c... without anything but simple
numeric addition being needed to know the total velocity!  —
NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...

If you are interested in undermining relativity, you should look at
the logical foundations of Einstein's "practical geometry."  Einstein
regarded his 1921 lecture, "Geometry and Experience," as the most
complete expression of his ideas.  There you will find his adherence
to the fundamental principle of what today is called constructivism in
mathematics.  It is the idea that mathematics is inherently
paradoxical, and that therefore you must arbitrarily insert into your
argument the idea that mathematics is an inherent human function.

That is fine, if you buy into the idea that mathematics is inherently
paradoxical.  However, Einstein got that notion from contemporary
debates about set theory.  The supposed "paradoxes" of that era have
been "unpacked," and what we finding is that the supposed logical
compulsion we experience from them, is in fact an artifact of their
construction.  It is their rhetoric.  This is true of all paradoxes
which have been examined.

So paradox is like western civilization.  When Gandhi was asked what
he thought of western civilization, he said it sounded like a good
idea.  Paradox sounds like a good idea.  But there are none.

So the project of arbitrary insertion of this idea of mathematics,
falls apart.  But it's fine if you want to believe it.

If on the other hand you want logical content in your arguments,
relativity will not satisfy you.  This is because Einstein DID make an
arbitrary insertion of the constructivist idea in the relatvity of
simultaneity.  It is the notion of a "natural" coincidence which you
will find explicitly stated in the train experiment (once you locate
it, you will see that it is also implicit in the 1905 paper).

You will see, from the paper linked below, that this means there is no
logical content to the relativity of simultaneity.  Nor can we get
beyond the relativity of simultaneity to special relativity, to
general relativity, or to the Standard Model.

I think our enchantment with the idea of paradox, is now over.
Indeed, that is the great contribution made so far by the 21st
century.  Now we move on.

My question is this:

where is "natural" coincidence in the Pythagorean theorem--I would
like to talk to a genius.

Do email me the moment you find it: philneo2...@xxxxxxxxxx

Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and
Twentieth-Century Ideas" (June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Dear jrysk:  If your definition of a genius is: Someone who agrees
with you, and will fill-in the voids in your arguments, you are in for
a long wait.  Read the following posts to get a few simple truths..  —
NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...

These are really good threads to read if you are ever feeling like you
do not understand physics.  Noeinstein shows how much you can really
misunderstand physics.  He has no clue about physics so it will always
make you feel better to know that you cannot be a clueless as he is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Doug:  Would you please elucidate?  Before you start making broad
put-downs of another's science advancements, would you please express,
in your own words, what your personal science research tells?  My
guess is that you are just another status quo science "expert", who
can't screw in a light bulb without having someone to turn the
ladder.  Unless you can talk science, fellow, you should just go
away.  — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

Look, none of you lot understands stability theory. I would have
though this was the most APPLIED of anything.

  - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Quantcast