sci.physics.electromag

On 17 mar, 00:51, nade wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:54 am, "Androcles" wrote:
>
>
>
> > Don't you know how to judge for yourself?
>
> > Catch 22:
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
>
> > Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
>
> > specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that we=
re
> > real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
> > "Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he =
had
> > to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and wo=
uld
> > have to fly more missions.
>
> > "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if h=
e
> > was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't hav=
e
> > to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
>
> > In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c =3D (c+v)/(1+v/c) fro=
m
> > the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
> > use c+v.
>
> > Troll kooks such as
>
> > Uncle Schwartzschit,
> > Blind Poe,
> > Moron McCullough,
> > Humpty Roberts,
> > Phuckwit Duck Draper,
> > Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
> > Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
> > Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
> > Ghost ewill,
> > Goosey Gisse,
> > Wanker Olson,
> > Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
> > Fecal Jekyll,
> > Bilewacky,
> > Dork Van de merde et. al.
> > fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
>
> > between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment=
,
> > shown here:
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
>
> > Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
> > moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
>
> > Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
> > If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
> > you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.=

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
>
> > c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
> > part where Einstein screws up is:
> > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
> > to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
>
> > What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
> > reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
> > in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.
>
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=3DtBA.gif
>
> > Here are some mathematical proofs:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
>
> > Not included are
> > Proof by "because I say so",
> > Proof by "everybody knows",
> > Proof by "it is written",
> > the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
>
> > You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
> > but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their=

> > indoctrination like lemmings.
>
> > Catch 22:
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
>
> > Prediction:
> > The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
> > proof.
>
> > RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
>
> > RULE I.
> > We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both t=
rue
> > and sufficient to explain their appearances.
>
> > To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
> > and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
> > simplicity,
> > and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
>
> > -- Sir Isaac Newton
>
> > ["tj Frazir"]
> > If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 yea=
r.
>
> > ["CWatters"]
> > Suppose you apply a small displacement by compressing one end with a
> > hammer.
> > Does the shock wave still travel at the speed of light?
>
> > [Androcles]
> > Clearly the extrapolation (increasing rigidity yields increasing speed
> > of sound) indicates either there is limit to rigidity or there is a limi=
t to
> > the speed of sound in a material body.
> > Given that a material body is made of atoms then atoms are
> > not rigid... but we do not expect them to be anyway, the model of
> > an atom is that of a nucleus surrounded by a mantle of empty
> > space and a shell (or shells) of electrons. By compressing the
> > atom we force the electrons into the nucleus, the charges cancel
> > and we are left with a nucleus of incompressible neutrons where
> > the limit to rigidity has been reached; for either the neutron is totall=
y
> > rigid or the speed of sound in neutrons exceeds the speed of light.
>
> > "Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we
> > have settled what is to be understood by"[1] neutron stars and proven
> > black holes do not exist, the extrapolation has gone too far.
>
> > [1] Einstein's verbal diaorreah to impress neanderthals and gorillas.
>
> Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
> is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
> think is the cause of gravity?
>
> nade

PHOTONS

1367 W/m=B2

NEW NEWTONIST THEORY