What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

Aetherist wrote in message


Because it does... Namely the only way that 'energy' becomes
'observable' is if, and only if, it is realized. As long as
A moves at v and B moves at v no energy is 'measurable'. If
A collides with B then the actual energy realized is the lesser
of of (1/2)A(dv)^2 and (1/2)B(dv)^2. If each changes their
speed by
v (as you say, each can consider themselve 'at rest') then
the energy required to do so is (1/2)[A or B]v^2. So the answer
to your question is, the frame independent answer is, there is
NO! kinetic energy to either...


Please reread the case. Observers A and B are both massive objects
moving with constant v with respect to each other.
This is not a case of a change in v at all.

I simply love your statement that the frame independent answer is
that
no kinetic energy in either of the objects. Love it, love it,
love it. LOL.

Hmmm, let's write the down in math.

/v
E = m | v dv = (1/2) mv^2
/0

now let dv - 0

What is E?

In fact, without 'frames' what the hell is v???

KE like PE is 'a concept' and cannot be 'measured' unless
and until you have an actual dv...

It's simply NOT! real. Any actual energy realized is
(1/2)m[dv]^2 IN THE REST FRAME from which the dv is
measured!

What I find sad is your inability to think logically and
not depend upon rote, memorized knee-jerk responses.

What a beauty!
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ticEnergy.html

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...

[snip]

--
The Famous FumbleMumble:
http://www.tinyurl.com/FumbleMumble

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years.
Dork Vdm, 12 Nov, 2002.

T = 9 years, Dork has aged 18 years, he stayed at home.

Dork and arithmetic:
tau = t * sqrt(1-v^2)
= 10 * sqrt(1 - 0.8^2)
= 10 * sqrt(1 -0.64)
= 10 * sqrt( 0.36)
= 10 * 0.6
= 6

Bailey, Borer et al and the stay at home muon
tau = t / sqrt(1-v^2)
= 2.2 / sqrt(1 - 0.9994^2)
= 2.2 / sqrt(1 - 0.99880036)
= 2.2 / sqrt(0.00119964)
= 2.2 / 0.034635819609184939857979236036402
= 63.52

How come experiment doesn't agree with you and Einstein, Dork?
Mumble their fumble on your page, Dork. I have on mine.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 11:49 am, Aetherist wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:

By any chance do you know the difference between v and dv ?

Fair enough question since this may be the ambiguity.
Velocity is a vector quantity with a direction and magnitude.
To achieve a 'delta' or dv this must change. To change the
velocity of any 'massive' object requires force, that is:

F = m(dv/dt) + v(dm/dt)

and, assuming we're not shedding mass,

F = m(dv/dt)

Thus the energy that is realized is:

Fd where d is some distance through which
the force applies.

But, here's the kicker, if you do not change
the velocity of a mass there is no force, no
dv, and no energy to be measured (work). We
can drive down the road all day long at any
steady speed and the only energy required is
that needed to 'prevent' or overcome the natural
forces that would otherwise impose a delta in
the velocity of the car. In free space devoid
of gravity and any opposition the car would
travel forever at v and NO! energy is involved.

Why, well consider that it is the ONLY! object
in the void. Thus the comment that, without
reference (frames) speed or velocity cannot
even conceptually exist. Any speed must be
measured from some other FOR and like potential
energy is a conception, one that would be
real if you stopped the object relative to
YOU!. Now how is that not a dt???

Thus KE is a 'computed' frame dependent value
and is only relaised if and only if one changes
the speed (dv) of that object. Otherwise its
potential from that FOR's point of view. It is
NOT! real. If two objects with KE intersect
the least 'action' or potential will apply. That
is, the actual or realized energy of the interaction
will be the lesser of (1/2)(M or m)dv^2

Do you have -ANY- idea what you are writing about?
====================================
Yes, he does.



Do you know
what the definition of 'action' is in physics?
====================================
Yes, he does.


You wrote, "If two
objects with KE intersect the least 'action' or potential will
apply." Do you have any understanding how nonsensical that
statement reads?
=======================================
It isn't nonsensical at all, you IGNORANT, ****WITTED,
USELESS, MISERABLE FAGGOT.

On Sep 22, 3:43*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

What a beauty!
* *http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ticEnergy.html

Yes. I generally never look at Aetherist's posts, and have no
idea what he stands for. But not understanding basic calculus?
Even Androcles knows... uh... well... ahem... I take that back.

But you know what I mean...

Jerry

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:43:26 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:

Aetherist wrote in message


Because it does... Namely the only way that 'energy' becomes
'observable' is if, and only if, it is realized. As long as
A moves at v and B moves at v no energy is 'measurable'. If
A collides with B then the actual energy realized is the lesser
of of (1/2)A(dv)^2 and (1/2)B(dv)^2. If each changes their
speed by
v (as you say, each can consider themselve 'at rest') then
the energy required to do so is (1/2)[A or B]v^2. So the answer
to your question is, the frame independent answer is, there is
NO! kinetic energy to either...


Please reread the case. Observers A and B are both massive objects
moving with constant v with respect to each other.
This is not a case of a change in v at all.

I simply love your statement that the frame independent answer is
that
no kinetic energy in either of the objects. Love it, love it,
love it. LOL.

Hmmm, let's write the down in math.

/v
E = m | v dv = (1/2) mv^2
/0

now let dv - 0

What is E?

In fact, without 'frames' what the hell is v???

KE like PE is 'a concept' and cannot be 'measured' unless
and until you have an actual dv...

It's simply NOT! real. Any actual energy realized is
(1/2)m[dv]^2 IN THE REST FRAME from which the dv is
measured!

What I find sad is your inability to think logically and
not depend upon rote, memorized knee-jerk responses.

What a beauty!
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ticEnergy.html

Dirk Vdm

What we don't see is any logical rebutal...

If you have no reference (frame) what is the magnitude of v?

In fact, perhaps you can explain to us how anyone can actually
measure KE without changing its speed. Computation is not,
in and of itself, real. real becomes where the bat contacts
the ball...

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Sep 22, 3:43 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

What a beauty!
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ticEnergy.html

Yes. I generally never look at Aetherist's posts, and have no
idea what he stands for. But not understanding basic calculus?
Even Androcles knows... uh... well... ahem... I take that back.

But you know what I mean...

Jerry
============================================
How come you support a miserable ****headed ****wit like Dork,
Tom Faggot Jeery Minor Crank?
But you know what I mean, you are one yourself...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Jerry wrote:

On Sep 22, 3:43*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

What a beauty!
* *http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ticEnergy.html

Yes. I generally never look at Aetherist's posts, and have no
idea what he stands for. But not understanding basic calculus?
Even Androcles knows... uh... well... ahem... I take that back.

But you know what I mean...

If you had/have a problem with the math that's fine, show
where it is,

Last I checked

n + 1
/ n x
| x dx = -------
/ n + 1

1
Since v = v

/
m | v dv
/

What is the result? I say its

(1/2) mv^2

You think its different fine, show your result...
That is the only integral I posted.

Jerry

On Sep 22, 2:48*pm, Aetherist wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Jerry wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:43 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

What a beauty!
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...NOKineticEnerg....

Yes. I generally never look at Aetherist's posts, and have no
idea what he stands for. But not understanding basic calculus?
Even Androcles knows... uh... well... ahem... I take that back.

But you know what I mean...

If you had/have a problem with the math that's fine, show
where it is,

Last I checked

* * * * * * * *n + 1
*/ *n * * * * x
*| x *dx = -------
*/ * * * * *n + 1

* * * * * *1
Since v = v

* * */ *
* *m | v dv
* * */

What is the result? *I say its

(1/2) mv^2

You think its different fine, show your result... *
That is the only integral I posted.



Jerry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The mother theorem of the Calculus has been proven wrong.
Integration and differentiations are not inverse to each other.
They are different maths.

On Sep 22, 4:48*pm, Aetherist wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Jerry wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:43 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

What a beauty!
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...NOKineticEnerg....

Yes. I generally never look at Aetherist's posts, and have no
idea what he stands for. But not understanding basic calculus?
Even Androcles knows... uh... well... ahem... I take that back.

But you know what I mean...

If you had/have a problem with the math that's fine, show
where it is,

[SNIP]

For starters, you wrote "now let dv - 0"
You made several other statements that showed a total lack
of knowledge of the basics.

Jerry

In article , says...

On 9/21/2011 5:32 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 20, 2:13 am, Byron wrote:

Amusing that you take isotropy to mean invariant speed.- Hide quoted text -

Interestingly, the invariance of two-way light speed measurements,
plus isotropy measurement DOES mean invariant one-way light speed
measurement. I'm sure you can work this out with a couple sketches and
a few lines of algebra to convince yourself of this.


But only in 1 location frame and with controlled, stationary emitters.

Two comments:
"in 1 location frame" is word salad and has no meaning except in your
own head. Once again, I would ask you to go back and learn what has
already been taught you about what a reference frame is.
And no, stationary emitters are not at ALL required, and in fact
isotropy has been measured with moving emitters.


Yes, moving emitters that put light into the local aether that is stationary compared to all else.



Sci-fi math (Lorentz) aside, how does light leave a place traveling away from you (at c relative to that place) and
be measured at c when it gets to you?

Let's parse this a little.
First of all, it is an observational *fact* that the speed of light is c
at the receiver, regardless of the source's speed. It is not an
assumption. It is a measured result. So to say, "I don't understand how
this can happen, so it must not happen," is a simple denial of reality.

What trash.

Why the Lorentz Trans'?

Why not -

average c = [c + (c +/- v)] /2
= (2c +/- v) / 2


Once you accept that it DOES happen, as revealed in measurement, now you
can start asking how it happens.

See above.


There are several candidates for how this can happen. There are some
kinds of aether theories, including nonLorentzian aethers with
extinction and Lorentzian aethers without extinction. There is also
relativity. Any of these will explain this one result.

As will a basic medium.


But each of these has *other* implications you can check, and other
measurement results can be brought in to see if these theories make
predictions that match those.

There are many inconsistencies with relativity.


When you do this in some detail, you find that -- of these candidates --
only one does provide the "how" for the thing you mention AND also
matches other results. That one is relativity.


There seems to be at least a few experienced professionals that disagree.


Now, you say "Give me an explanation for how that happens ASIDE from
relativity."

Why exclude relativity, since it provides an explanation for how that
happens?


Because time dilation is an absurd notion and simply doesn't work.

There is plenty of evidence of non-isotropy. Look over the results of most Michaelson experiments and particularly
Miller's. How is all this accounted for, especially the implications of Miller's continued readings and subsequent
model for a stationary general aether?

I have recently found these recent experiments that are in line with Miller -

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Munera2006.pdf
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Cahill_Flyby.pdf
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/...Bejing2009.pdf


And the other explanations have failures elsewhere so why would you want
to entertain them further?


The entrained aether lives - stay tuned.