Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his first relativity paper.

About two months ago, I read in a column by Jeffery Kooistra in
Infinite Energy magazine (Issue 27, 1999) of a simple and paradoxical
experiment, originally proposed by Dr. Peter Graneau, the author of
Ampère-Neumann Electrodynamics in Metals and other works. The result
so fascinated me that I decided to reproduce the experiment on my own.
Two 42-inch lengths of half-inch (i.d.) copper pipe were mounted, each
on a separate length of 1 x 3 lumber, and laid parallel to one
another, like rails, about 12 inches apart. The opposite terminals of
a 12-volt automotive battery were connected to the copper rails.

When the circuit is completed, by placing a 24-inch length of copper
pipe perpendicularly across the two parallel pipes, the shorter pipe
begins to roll down the track, accelerating to the end, and sparking
and sputtering as it goes in a delightful display.

One familiar with the Ampère angular force (see 21st Century, Fall
1996, “The Atomic Science Textbooks Don’t Teach,” p. 21), will see
that an explanation based on repulsion between elements of current in
the parallel rods, and those in the movable, perpendicular portion of
the circuit, is at hand—although, the same motion can be accounted for
by the algebraically equivalent i x B forces considered in Maxwell’s
formulations.

The paradox which the designer of the experiment wished to demonstrate
comes in the next part. If we replace the 24-inch copper pipe with an
equivalent length of steel pipe, the steel pipe rolls in the opposite
direction! Why? I asked Dr. Graneau, who was kind enough to provoke my
added interest by telling me that he didn’t know, and that he didn’t
know of anybody who did.

Ampère’s Theory of Magnetism
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

On Jan 18, 4:30*pm, "Androcles"
The friction between the brake pad and the drum is tangential. shrug
This is why rotating frames should not be used by young dropouts or
demented old fools like Wilson.
The friction of the shoe on the drum is tangential. The contact
force of the shoe on the drum is radial and outward from the center.
In Introductory Physics classes, this radial force is often called the
normal force.
If the drum did not exert a radial inward force on the shoe
pad, the shoe pad would go right through the drum. The reaction force
of the drum on the shoe pad is the same magnitude.
Until the brake shoe stops the drum, the brake shoe is sliding.
While it is sliding, brake shoe is applying a tangential force on drum
called kinetic friction. As an approximation, the magnitude of kinetic
friction is proportional to the normal force on the drum.
What you said was incorrect. There is a radial outward force on
the drum. In this, Wilson is quite correct. If there was no radial
force on the drum, there would be no kinetic friction. There is a
curious dichotomy in your thinking. You recognize the frictional
force, but you don't recognize the normal force.
This may indicate a more general problem. You do know that the
surfaces of solid bodies on contact generate two types of contact
force. If it is tangential to the surface, it is called a frictional
force. If it is perpendicular to the surface, it is often called a
contact force.
Introductory physics teachers and authors should pick another
phrase to designate the "normal force." At least in my opinion. The
phrase "normal force" seems to confuse some students. The phrase
doesn't make clear that this "normal force" is the inevitable
consequence of two solid bodies being in contact. However, the phrase
"contact force" can also mislead some students. Frictional forces are
also the result of two solid bodies contacting each other. Apparently,
your introductory physics instructor was rather sloppy when he taught
you force diagrams.
Please look up the definitions of normal force, kinetic friction
and static friction in any introductory course in physics. You both
seem to have a serious problem understanding the "normal force". I am
talking about pure, Newtonian physics used by mechanical engineers
years before Einstein was even born.
I suggest that you both take a refresher course in
Introductory Physics. I recommend that you both pay special attention
to force diagrams, starting with the inclined plane. You see, in every
inclined plane problem there is a "normal force."

"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
I suggest that you both stay away from civil engineering. I
would be afraid of standing near any frame which either you or Wilson
have designed. Neither of you are - normal !-)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:55:18 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
wrote:

On Jan 18, 4:30*pm, "Androcles"
The friction between the brake pad and the drum is tangential. shrug
This is why rotating frames should not be used by young dropouts or
demented old fools like Wilson.
The friction of the shoe on the drum is tangential. The contact
force of the shoe on the drum is radial and outward from the center.
In Introductory Physics classes, this radial force is often called the
normal force.
If the drum did not exert a radial inward force on the shoe
pad, the shoe pad would go right through the drum. The reaction force
of the drum on the shoe pad is the same magnitude.
Until the brake shoe stops the drum, the brake shoe is sliding.
While it is sliding, brake shoe is applying a tangential force on drum
called kinetic friction. As an approximation, the magnitude of kinetic
friction is proportional to the normal force on the drum.
What you said was incorrect. There is a radial outward force on
the drum. In this, Wilson is quite correct. If there was no radial
force on the drum, there would be no kinetic friction. There is a
curious dichotomy in your thinking. You recognize the frictional
force, but you don't recognize the normal force.
This may indicate a more general problem. You do know that the
surfaces of solid bodies on contact generate two types of contact
force. If it is tangential to the surface, it is called a frictional
force. If it is perpendicular to the surface, it is often called a
contact force.
Introductory physics teachers and authors should pick another
phrase to designate the "normal force." At least in my opinion. The
phrase "normal force" seems to confuse some students. The phrase
doesn't make clear that this "normal force" is the inevitable
consequence of two solid bodies being in contact. However, the phrase
"contact force" can also mislead some students. Frictional forces are
also the result of two solid bodies contacting each other. Apparently,
your introductory physics instructor was rather sloppy when he taught
you force diagrams.
Please look up the definitions of normal force, kinetic friction
and static friction in any introductory course in physics. You both
seem to have a serious problem understanding the "normal force". I am
talking about pure, Newtonian physics used by mechanical engineers
years before Einstein was even born.
I suggest that you both take a refresher course in
Introductory Physics. I recommend that you both pay special attention
to force diagrams, starting with the inclined plane. You see, in every
inclined plane problem there is a "normal force."

"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
I suggest that you both stay away from civil engineering. I
would be afraid of standing near any frame which either you or Wilson
have designed. Neither of you are - normal !-)

Hahahahhhahha! You poor old bugger. Don't compare me with Andro when he's
drunk.
You have just quoted what I have been telling YOU. but you forgot to mention
that in a centrifugal clutch, the radial force (normal force, contact force) is
REAL and CENTRIFUGAL.

Incidentally, the term contact force is definitely misleading because it
doesn't have to be normal if friction is finite.


Henry Wilson...

"Henry Wilson DSc" ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 18:55:18 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
| wrote:
|
| On Jan 18, 4:30 pm, "Androcles"
| The friction between the brake pad and the drum is tangential. shrug
| This is why rotating frames should not be used by young dropouts or
| demented old fools like Wilson.
| The friction of the shoe on the drum is tangential. The contact
| force of the shoe on the drum is radial and outward from the center.
| In Introductory Physics classes, this radial force is often called the
| normal force.
| If the drum did not exert a radial inward force on the shoe
| pad, the shoe pad would go right through the drum. The reaction force
| of the drum on the shoe pad is the same magnitude.
| Until the brake shoe stops the drum, the brake shoe is sliding.
| While it is sliding, brake shoe is applying a tangential force on drum
| called kinetic friction. As an approximation, the magnitude of kinetic
| friction is proportional to the normal force on the drum.
| What you said was incorrect. There is a radial outward force on
| the drum. In this, Wilson is quite correct. If there was no radial
| force on the drum, there would be no kinetic friction. There is a
| curious dichotomy in your thinking. You recognize the frictional
| force, but you don't recognize the normal force.
| This may indicate a more general problem. You do know that the
| surfaces of solid bodies on contact generate two types of contact
| force. If it is tangential to the surface, it is called a frictional
| force. If it is perpendicular to the surface, it is often called a
| contact force.
| Introductory physics teachers and authors should pick another
| phrase to designate the "normal force." At least in my opinion. The
| phrase "normal force" seems to confuse some students. The phrase
| doesn't make clear that this "normal force" is the inevitable
| consequence of two solid bodies being in contact. However, the phrase
| "contact force" can also mislead some students. Frictional forces are
| also the result of two solid bodies contacting each other. Apparently,
| your introductory physics instructor was rather sloppy when he taught
| you force diagrams.
| Please look up the definitions of normal force, kinetic friction
| and static friction in any introductory course in physics. You both
| seem to have a serious problem understanding the "normal force". I am
| talking about pure, Newtonian physics used by mechanical engineers
| years before Einstein was even born.
| I suggest that you both take a refresher course in
| Introductory Physics. I recommend that you both pay special attention
| to force diagrams, starting with the inclined plane. You see, in every
| inclined plane problem there is a "normal force."
|
| "DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
| I suggest that you both stay away from civil engineering. I
| would be afraid of standing near any frame which either you or Wilson
| have designed. Neither of you are - normal !-)
|
| Hahahahhhahha! You poor old bugger. Don't compare me with Andro when he's
| drunk.

I'm stone cold sober. You are deranged and drunk and drosen0000 is
misguided.

You flat earthers are all the same, too stupid to realise rivers curve over
the Earth's surface tangentially.

I am not even an empiricist yet,even when analogies can be applied
loosely,empiricists don't get it.

The orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun is similar to how this
engine crankshaft -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV9WkQkUHZ4

The crank pin represents the polar coordinates substituting for daily
rotation and fixed orientation through an annual orbit while the
orbital turning of the crank through 360 degrees represents the
orbital behavior of the Earth,sometimes the top node of the crank pin
faces the center and sometimes the bottom node representing an
imitation of the Earth's polar coordinates to the central Sun and
consequently the orbital daylight/darkness cycle where 6 months of
darkness follows 6 months of daylight arising solely from the orbital
behavior of the Earth.

Do any of you actually like empiricism or is it that you just like to
live off the fumes of discontent that Isaac's toxic strain of
empiricism sowed among you.The analogy is correct and indicates that
there is an incredible influence on the Earth as it orbits the Sun
instead of trying to treat the Earth like an object conditioned in the
same way as terrestrial ballistics.It is not possible to rework
experimental sciences directly into full blown conclusions about
planetary dynamics and considering that empiricists can't seem to link
the orbital daylight/darkness cycle with its orbital cause,I am not
holding my breath on this matter.

"ray" of light is an artifact of "geometrical optics,"
ne'er but one normal to teh wavefront, and
oftentime considered to be the shaft of a "photon,"
pedagogically considered to be a 0d, massless "particle."

go, fish!

On Jan 21, 12:27*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:


Einstein has to PROVE light's speed is paranormal.

Not in science, no. That's not how science works, Androcles, no matter
how fervently you believe it should be otherwise.

In science, one is certainly allowed to make unproven postulates which
are then to be accepted provisionally while their implications are
tested against experiment. It makes no difference whatsoever whether
the unproven postulate is wholly consistent or wholly inconsistent
with a previously held set of assumptions. If the implications of the
unproven postulate lead to predictions of measurable quantities under
specified conditions and those predictions accurately match
experimental results, then science holds that the unproven postulates
are supported by the evidence. Two or more models with different
unproven postulates may make identical predictions for certain
circumstances, or the experimental measurement may not be able to
distinguish between the two predictions. But with a broad enough set
of tests, and sufficiently refined measurement, competing models are
successively ruled out. The model that is most successful in making
accurate predictions in the broadest set of applied circumstances is
the winner in that competition, and the unproven postulates of the
winning model are then taken to be verified. In no step of this
scientific process are any of the postulates proven, nor are they
expected to be.

You may need to remove your clown-belt and drop your clown-trousers to
hear that clearly.

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 12:27 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:


Einstein has to PROVE light's speed is paranormal.

Not in science, no.
===================
Einstein said he did have to (not that he succeeded, ****wit).
Oh, that's right, you can't read more than three words. Try to get past four
words.

"We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system,
is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case
in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that
the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with
the principle of relativity." -- § 3. Theory of the Transformation of
Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former -- ON THE
ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES -- Einstein.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- § 3. Theory of the
Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another
System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former -- ON THE
ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES -- Einstein.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein has to PROVE light's speed is paranormal.

For those morons that don't know what a contradiction is, there are no
contradictions in the speed of light being c and also c-v simultaneously.

On Jan 21, 6:54*pm, PD wrote:
On Jan 21, 12:27*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:



Einstein has to PROVE light's speed is paranormal.

Not in science, no. That's not how science works, Androcles, no matter
how fervently you believe it should be otherwise.

In science, one is certainly allowed to make unproven postulates which
are then to be accepted provisionally while their implications are
tested against experiment. It makes no difference whatsoever whether
the unproven postulate is wholly consistent or wholly inconsistent
with a previously held set of assumptions. If the implications of the
unproven postulate lead to predictions of measurable quantities under
specified conditions and those predictions accurately match
experimental results, then science holds that the unproven postulates
are supported by the evidence. Two or more models with different
unproven postulates may make identical predictions for certain
circumstances, or the experimental measurement may not be able to
distinguish between the two predictions. But with a broad enough set
of tests, and sufficiently refined measurement, competing models are
successively ruled out. The model that is most successful in making
accurate predictions in the broadest set of applied circumstances is
the winner in that competition, and the unproven postulates of the
winning model are then taken to be verified. In no step of this
scientific process are any of the postulates proven, nor are they
expected to be.

You may need to remove your clown-belt and drop your clown-trousers to
hear that clearly.

That is just the sound of guys justifying their paychecks and it has
become worse with time.I wish to consider the effects of the rotating
fluid interior of the Earth on the surface crust but the only game in
town are 'convection cells' and the high viscosity organized around a
stationary Earth,thermally driven mechanism with no hope of explaining
the spherical deviation of the planet.Despite the actual viscosity
observed to be pouring out of every volcanoes and crustal boundaries
as fairly low,it does not suit the guys pursuing a high viscosity,in
addition,every rotating celestial object with an exposed viscous
composition displays differential rotation and there is no reason to
believe that the Earth's fluid interior beneath the fairly thin crust
is exempt from that rotational trait but the old boy network promoting
'convection cells' can't alter course,too many reputations built on
the old ideology,new students have to carry on and nothing ever gets
done.

The dummies promoting the effects of planetary dynamics through
experiments are entirely stupid,by all means use analogies and
experiments when appropriate but linking experiments directly to
celestial and terrestrial processes is a mugs game because the center
is never anything new or revolutionary,unless it steals from active
forums like these (and it certainly has) but to mediocrity,great to
make a paycheck and get a reputation that is not deserved ,but that is
all.

They new name for 'thought experiments' is modeling - "if I put
additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere the Earth will burst
into flames" sort of carry on.

the standard model is that the mantle is "fluid
on geological timescale," but it is known
by seismography to be quite soild. it is true that
there are zillions of phases at high T and P, but
that cannot really mitigate the data,
for the sake of a theory.

there are two ways in which erosion changes relative level.
Erosion doesn't change the sea level. Changes the distance to the sea.

light hath speed, not velocity or directed motion, because
it isn't particular ... no matter what the Nobel Cmte. did
with Einstein's neologism that seems to reify Newton's God-am
corpuscle,
which was completely imploded -- from 0d --
by Young, Fresnel etc. et al;
it is, after all, the secular church of England!