Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained



NoEinstein wrote:

On Jun 13, 3:30 pm, johnreed <randama...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear John Reed: From the time I was a kid, I was fascinated by
principles of physics, such as leverage. I considered majoring in
physics, but chose architecture instead. A psychologist-administered,
one-on-one, aptitude test which I took my senior year in high school
showed that my physics aptitude and knowledge was already at the
senior college level.

I hope you can still get your money back on the test. Your physics
knowledge is below that of a junior high student.

You are wrong to imply that all nuances of “existing science” must be
addressed in order to have a new theory confirmed. Existing theories
of science must withstand ALL valid counter-arguments—even if singular
in number—to remain valid. The ‘crux’ of SR and GR is that Lorentz
transformation which he had concocted over beers in hopes of
explaining the nil results of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.

If you don’t know, Lorentz “supposed” that all matter, regardless of
its composition or geometry will contact identically due to its
impacting the ‘stationary’ ether through which the Earth is moving.
In effect, Lorentz’s ‘contraction explanation’ will only “work” for
the SUBTRACTIVE case in which the light velocity is being retarded by
the Earth’s velocity component. Because that idiot Lorentz was biased
going in that… ‘c’ is the maximum velocity, he thought it would be
perfectly OK to just disregard the 180 degrees of apparatus rotation
in which the (effective) ether motion due to the Earth’s velocity
component will ADD to the velocity of the light. Nothing about the
Lorentz transformation, SR nor GR will stand up to the strict
requirements of the Scientific Method!

In just a single hour of research in my local library, I was able to
reason that the M-M experiment was, simply, wrongly designed to detect
light velocity changes.

Of course, you are completely wrong but that has not stopped you at
all.

To do the latter, an experiment must have
both a TEST light course, and a CONTROL light course—i.e., one which
doesn’t change as the apparatus is rotated. Because Michelson had all
of the optical components mounted in the same plane, both light
courses changed in identical ways, and thus exhibited no fringe
shifts.

Of course, you have not been able to work out the algebra for this
because it shows how wrong you are.

My correctly designed X, Y, & Z interferometer places the
(down and back) CONTROL light course on the Z axis of rotation so that
such won’t be affected as the apparatus is turned.

And then john makes wild claims which he refuses to back up. We know
his drop apparatus is wrong as well.

Your claim that calculus is ’required’ to understand physics is bull
***! However, I agree with you that Newton was one of the best early
experimental physicists. But Newton goofed, big time, to allow his
Law of Gravitation to be called… universal. And he goofed, equally
big time, when he just accepted that ‘g’ can be written: 32.174 feet
per second SQUARED.

John does not even know algebra so, of course, he thinks that
calculus is not necessary. Here he demonstrates he has no clue
what units mean either.

Note: The latter should be my own correctly
written: 32.174 ft./sec. EACH second—which is a LINEAR increase in
velocity with respect to time.

John again demonstrates that algebra is far beyond his meager abilities.

Stupid mathematicians can be blamed
100% on the above monumental error which let Einstein, the MORON, be
considered a genius. Be it known: There are no geniuses supporting
status quo physics!

All we see is john the moron trying to talk about subjects which he
has no clue about.

Finally, John, you are wrong to say that definitions printed in texts
must be abided by. Momentum and KE are IDENTICAL.

See, there is john showing his ignorance again. This is pretty pathetic.

The accrued energy
that’s imparted by the uniform force of gravity to a falling ball, in
a vacuum, can get transferred into soft clay to form a dent. The size
of the dent is proportional to the impacting FORCE. So all three of
those ‘quantities’ have the units POUNDS, only. “Foot-pounds” is the
units for TORQUE, not KE!

Again john shows his lack of knowledge of what units means.

I tend to write in the narrative style. The reading is easy, but the
replies can be… long. For that I apologize. — NoEinstein —

John tends to write in a delusional style.


NoEinstein wrote:

Dear John L. Reed:
The mess that status quo science finds itself in is in large measure …

Hello NoEinstein>
I apologize for the extended delay in this response. I had to print
your response out and put it on hold. So I do not have a working copy
on my flash drive. Your psychological evaluation of me probably better
fits your own psychology, although there are similarities in each.
Verbal descriptions are useless if they cannot be quantitatively shown
to be consistent with least action principles. That takes an
understanding of mathematics. If they are consistent with least
action principles they may be incorrect conceptually, but they are at
least functional.
I had not heard of you before and so I printed out your post for
further study. To paraphrase one of the two Bernoulli brothers, “I
recognize the mammal by the mark of its claw.” Which is to say that
your proposals sound like Happalanian’s proposals that I read many
years ago.
The best I can say here is this: You must master the math through
first year calculus before you can assimilate Isaac Newton’s ideas.
You don’t have to use the math in your verbal proposals to argue your
points, but you must understand this math to understand classical
quantities. There are no shortcuts that I can imagine. Mass is
essentially a Newton thing. And altho’ I disagree with his “great
synthesis”, he is, was, and probably always will be, the greatest man
that ever lived, as I see it.
Your present mental state may be on a path that will eventually lead
you to a better understanding, but as you progress, your driving
principle will eventually be seen by you, to reduce to a single common
concept, that assimilates the commonality you now prematurely attempt
to articulate. All the quantities that you see as common, operate
within least action principles. Understanding the math (just through
first year calculus) will give your claw marks more power. But then
you must grasp the function of quantum mechanics as well, in all its
manifestations. And then you must convert this knowledge to a spoken
language that incorporates your observations. You are using the
quantities that science defines specifically, just as though you
understand them. They are all derived from, or defined for, the
physical mathematics. If you do not grasp this dependence, your best
case is that you are addressing an English speaking audience in
Arabic, without an interpreter. Or, even more hazardous: an Arabic
speaking audience, in English.
If you can recognize that the reason your consolidation of these
quantities works in your mind, can be reduced to their dependence on
least action, this is what you should show.
Most all persons of science that have greatness bestowed on them by
mankind, during their lifetimes, pause to reflect on the substantive
value of their work, and spend much of their remaining years
qualifying their ideas. Einstein did this on many occasions. While
his ideas may well have been dead in the water, had they occurred
before the advent of Gauss and Reimann, Minkowski would be the place
it resides if duplicity exists. But that is not the case either.
Up to the time of Maxwell the man on the street could comprehend the
universe. Maxwell started the process that changed this. No one was
trying to dupe anyone. A scientist and a mathematician and a
scientist mathematician basically seek to make sense out of nonsense.
They will be the first to point out their own errors if they have
become aware of them. If “you” wish to point out their errors, prior
to their recognizing them, you have to cover all the bases that
support their position, because if you omit only one, that will be the
island they rest on. And that island will discount your entire
argument in their conscious minds. Once you have done this to your
satisfaction, then you can present your own. And most assuredly you
will learn of another aspect to their position, that will either
destroy your position, or force you to assimilate that data into your
views.
To put forward a rigorously developed idea in words alone, requires
lotsa’ words, where the mathematics that science “requires”, and you
see as equal to your word explanations, has brought us to formerly
only dreamed of capabilities, in a mere 100 years, totally without the
information you apparently think is the answer that Einstein was too
dumb to recognize. Einstein, and you and I, were and are, products of
our times.
Trust me first, that anything you bring to the table, must withstand
rigorous scrutiny. That means more than dotting your “I’s” and
crossing your “T’s”. The fact that the physical mathematics is based
on error, if this is your position (and I agree with that part),
requires that you completely describe that error, and that you explain
how your written verbal modification corrects the error, while
expanding the conceptual comprehension arena, where your modifications
assimilate all that is applicable and called science, today, even if
it opens a new frontier. It is even difficult to explain “this” in
words.
You have chosen a most difficult path. I actually believe that you
are motivated in the right general direction. I do not know of your
study habits, but you apparently are driven to express your ideas. At
the very least you must read everything you can get your hands on
about science. If you are “driven” enough, your right brain will
communicate with your left brain, once it has assimilated enough
comprehensible data to provide you information. This will be an
epiphany. If this has occurred already, you are 25% along in your
journey (which will probably not come to anything during your
lifetime), at best. And if you thought the first 25% was rough, the
“unexpected” hard part that you have before you, can consume and
destroy your social life. Take care…
And have a good time.
johnreed


.

Loading