David Thomson wrote:
Hi Harry,
Is y = xa^2 not an equation?
Yes, it is the equation of a straight line with slope a^2.
Of course, it is an equation. All the variables are truly variables and
have the same dimension of one. Do you really think that E=mc^2 is the
equation of a straight
John Berry wrote:
On 3/8/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how about you try working through the mathematics of the
contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the
results here?
I mean, work them through using
From: John Berry
...
And yet you [Mr. Lawrence] basically consider that anyone who believe
in it or questions SR/GR to be a crank. I consider anyone willing to
cast aside the best most logical and evidence supported theory (which
has no evidence against it unlike SR) without even giving it
Hi Harry,
Is y = xa^2 not an equation?
Yes, it is the equation of a straight line with slope a^2.
Of course, it is an equation. All the variables are truly variables and
have the same dimension of one. Do you really think that E=mc^2 is the
equation of a straight line with slope c^2? Are
John Berry wrote:
The heart of the matter is this.
Even is SR GR weren't flawed, even if there were no experiments which
showed it to be incorrect (there are quite a few) it is still a fact
that aether theory had no reason to be dropped as there is no evidence
against a fluid aether (a
?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
[ ... ]
You called me a crank in two different posts, now.
Sigh
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I don't know what your religion is. All I know is that when the discussion
veers away from the math and data, it bases upon our faith in our own
personal opinion. Such a discussion is indistinguishable from a religious
discussion. If we stay with the
Hi Stephen,
I've heard people claim he did but I have never
seen an article or quote in which Einstein actually
asserted that there must be an aether.
http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
http://www.aetherometry.com/einstein_aether_and_relativity.html
According to
As I said, I had written up a reply to some things you said earlier.
So, with extensive revisions, here it is.
First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the
interchangeability of mass and energy. I have been told (by someone
sort of reliable, IIRC) that there had been at
Hi Steven,
First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the
interchangeability of mass and energy.
Are you going to give me a history lesson, or are we going to discuss the
physics? Einstein clearly supported the mass/energy equivalence principle
and is widely credited
David Thomson wrote:
[irrelevant calculations of fission and fusion snipped]
The calculations were _not_ irrelevant. By ignoring them you also
ignore the answer to your objection that fission and fusion both
release energy.
They do not, if you're talking about the same nuclei being
This might sound like I'm simply parroting Mr. Lawrence's concerns but it is
not. I sent my own message earlier but it got lost in the void. I felt strong
enough to send my query again, and hopefully this time it will get through.
From Mr. Thompson
[irrelevant calculations of fission and
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
As I said, I had written up a reply to some things you said earlier.
So, with extensive revisions, here it is.
First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the
interchangeability of mass and energy. I have been told (by someone
sort of
On 3/8/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how about you try working through the mathematics of the
contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the
results here?
I mean, work them through using the Lorentz transforms. I'll be happy
to argue them with you, if
In Max Born's book _Einstein's Theory of Relativity_ there is a
derivation of E = mc^2 without any special relativity concepts.
see p. 283-286 of the 1962 edition.
Harry
BTW, this book also provides an excellent introduction to the science
of motion known as mechanics. Great reading
Hi Steven,
The calculations were _not_ irrelevant. By ignoring them you also
ignore the answer to your objection that fission and fusion both
release energy.
It is irrelevant since you are not computing the fusion for making the
uranium and comparing it to the fission for turning it into
Harry is right of course. Have you never studied high school level nuclear
physics David? Look up the atomic masses!
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Michel,
Harry is right of course. Have you never studied high school level nuclear
physics David? Look up the atomic masses!
You are confused about your own gender, let alone can you follow a physics
discussion.
Dave
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Harry,
If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted
to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should
create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion.
It depends on where they are on the periodic table. Elements with an
atomic number greater
Hi Harry,
If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted
to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should
create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion.
It depends on where they are on the periodic table.
Another irrational argument. I know what fusion and fission
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Harry,
If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted
to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should
create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion.
It depends on where they are on the periodic table.
Another irrational argument. I know what
Hi Stephen,
Why do these discussions always have to end like this?
Excuse me. For the record, you accused me of having SR as my
religion, after which I observed that cranks always seem to say that
in relativity discussions, which is true. Go back and check the post.
On March 5, after
Sure enough, no apology. Too bad.
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
[ ... ]
You called me a crank in two different posts, now.
Sigh... OK, you're right, at the very least I insinuated it pretty
strongly... I shouldn't have done that.
I'm sorry I called you a crank, and if you don't assert that my religion
must be SR
The heart of the matter is this.
Even is SR GR weren't flawed, even if there were no experiments which
showed it to be incorrect (there are quite a few) it is still a fact that
aether theory had no reason to be dropped as there is no evidence against a
fluid aether (a stationary one is illogical
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Harry,
If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted
to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should
create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion.
It depends on where they are on the periodic table.
Another irrational argument. I know
David Thomson wrote:
End of discussion. You are irrational and brainwashed.
Well that seems to end the discussion rather thoroughly.
David Thomson wrote:
If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted
to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should create a
vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion.
It depends on where they are on the periodic table. Elements with an atomic
number greater than iron will
On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
OK so far? (Note that we didn't need gamma for anything here -- I
just used the metric to find the proper distances.)
I think we can stick to thought experiments and dump equations.
Einstein said he didn't understand his theory
Hi Stephen,
I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity
here.
Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is
generally considered to be the seminal paper on SR was On The
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and it covers a great deal more than
the
John Berry wrote:
On 3/4/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
OK so far? (Note that we didn't need gamma for anything here -- I
just used the metric to find the proper distances.)
I think we can stick to thought experiments
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity
here.
Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is
generally considered to be the seminal paper on SR was On The
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and it covers a
Hi Stephen,
When you say Aether Physics model, do you mean aether as in
luminiferous aether, the hypothetical medium in which electromagnetic
waves propagate?
When I say Aether Physics Model, I mean a fluid-dynamic-quantum Aether,
just as it is explained in the paper.
If so, how you do you
Hi John,
For instance how electricity works is a theory, how magnets work is a
theory, how gravity works is a theory.
But that something we call electricity exists is not a theory, that
magnetism exists is not a theory, that gravity exists is not a theory.
There is a difference between
Hi John,
You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim
ought to be possible.
Not quite sure what I'm meant to be guilty of, this is the first I have
heard of your theory.
But what good is a
Hi John,
Ok, that didn't take long.
I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments
your theory is based on.
I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to
output free energy or create (so-called) antigravity.
Does it explain the vast
I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in
this mailing list after this message.
John Berry wrote:
On 3/3/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
It is the only possible model as SR is illogical
Thank you for the civil and cogent reply; I'll dig through it and
respond in detail later this weekend; don't have time right now. I also
don't have time to dig into your paper right now, but will tackle that
later also.
I'm actually interested in alternative theories of this-and-that, and
Hi Stephen,
(It just sets my teeth on edge when someone opens a discussion of this
sort with a blanket assertion that SR is internally inconsistent,
which, thankfully, you didn't do.)
The Aether Physics Model stands on its own. It is not necessary for me to
trash SR by pointing out its major
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
(It just sets my teeth on edge when someone opens a discussion of this
sort with a blanket assertion that SR is internally inconsistent,
which, thankfully, you didn't do.)
The Aether Physics Model stands on its own. It is not necessary for me to
trash SR
Hi Stephen,
On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General
Relativity.
Say what?? SR is a subset of GR -- it is exactly equal to general
relativity in the absence of mass (flat background space).
Say what?? GR was derived completely independent of SR. The link to SR
On 3/4/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
Ok, that didn't take long.
I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments
your theory is based on.
I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to
output free energy or create
Hi John,
I have a list of Yes/No questions at the bottom if you could please take 1
minute to answer them.
We agree that there is a fluid aether which is matter entrained and
apparently on some other points too, I have the experimental side, you have
the model covered so let's make an effort
On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in
this mailing list after this message.
Fine with me, but you'd better read what I wrote as it took too long to type
to be ignored.
John Berry wrote:
On 3/3/07,
I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity
here.
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General
Relativity.
Say what?? SR is a subset of GR -- it is exactly equal to general
relativity in the absence of mass
John Berry wrote:
On 3/4/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this
topic in this mailing list after this message.
Fine with me, but you'd better read what I wrote as it took too
: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
...
Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the
glass or emptying it?
...
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
I'm a 'we have the perfect amount of water and just an abundance of glass'
person myself.
Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the
glass or emptying
...
Richard
- Original Message -
From: David Thomson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 7:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi John,
The answer is easier obtained by taking two glasses, one full and one empty,
and then taking half
RC Macaulay wrote:
May work in the new world of welfare but never in the saloon at Dime Box
Texas. The characters that inhabit a Texas beer joint are a microcism of the
US Congress. For sure a fight will start as soon as somebody takes a sip outa
somebody else's mug.. half full or half
On 3/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what would happen if I
placed an appreciable price, say $100.
You would receive a citation and be fined for running a business
without a license. Soon, you would be audited by the IRS and they
would trump up some charges against
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 3/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what would happen if I
placed an appreciable price, say $100.
You would receive a citation and be fined for running a business
without a license. Soon, you would be audited by the IRS and they
would trump
On 3/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, such pessimistic POV or humor.
The latter. Didn't you recognize the method of suicide from Alice's Restaurant?
Terry, so positive I repell electrons.
02, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
...
Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling
the
glass or emptying it?
...
John Berry wrote:
The problem is there is much that most ignore due to ***LIMITS*** they assume
exist and if these more spooky things did exist they assume couldn't be
understood or engineered.
Sad, but very true.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
.
Dave
_
From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly) that it is possible to
have a simple electrical device (actually
During the Renaissance (and before), many reasonable people scoffed at the
idea that the Earth is spinning.
The main (non-religious) objections were:
1) If the Earth is spinning then why doesn't the Earth move below a stone
thrown straight up.
2) A body that is not anchored to the ground should
David Thomson wrote:
Hi John,
You’re just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you
claim ought to be possible.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
You believe matter can be
On 3/2/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I asked Grimer how he dealt with the MMX results, and he never replied
... for whatever that's worth. But maybe he just overlooked the post.
Maybe he didn't get it. His email address has changed since he went
broadband. Also, I don't
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 3/2/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I asked Grimer how he dealt with the MMX results, and he never replied
... for whatever that's worth. But maybe he just overlooked the post.
Maybe he didn't get it.
It was a post to Vortex, back when he was
On 3/2/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never bought his theory to start with so going into his forum to ask
him for details would be more like just taking a jab at him than
actually sincerely asking for information.
Well, in my experience with Brits, they like the verbal
On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Thomson wrote:
Hi John,
You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you
claim ought to be possible.
don't care
and those seeking the truth don't listen.
Dave
--
*From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly
, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly) that it is possible
to have a simple electrical device (actually an aetheric electrical device)
that generates any desired level of energy, most
John Berry wrote:
It is the only possible model as SR is illogical
Well, that sure shoots down SR.
If so, how you do you account for the results of the Michelson-Morley
and Sagnac experiments in your model? These two brought down the
classical aether theories, along with
On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
It is the only possible model as SR is illogical
Well, that sure shoots down SR.
SR has many logical inconsistencies, you can't not be aware of this.
There are many situations where SR simply can't work though I
Paul Lowrance wrote
From what I'm seeing Vo dominated by Glass half empty people? I've always found
Glass half full people to have much farther foresight. It's amazing how skeptics and
debunkers cannot see the obvious. It's highly unlikely a person will accomplish something they
I'm a 'we have the perfect amount of water and just an abundance of glass'
person myself.
Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the
glass or emptying it?
On 3/2/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Lowrance wrote
From what I'm seeing Vo dominated by
68 matches
Mail list logo
